Patterico's Pontifications

5/9/2019

General Note

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:23 pm



It seems to me that fewer people come here these days.

If I drive people away by expressing what I truly believe without regard to the conventional wisdom of the day, then I am driving away the right people — and it only makes me appreciate those who remain even more.

So thanks for reading.

136 Responses to “General Note”

  1. I think you go to long some times without new topics. Also you have found out like many never trump conservatives that the vast majority maybe 90% of republicans are social conservatives ‘;but economic populists and like trump not neo-con war mongers.

    lany (9ea385)

  2. Patterico, I think you have a good take on Trump.

    Charlie Davis (92fc73)

  3. I read the things that are not Trump. I don’t care for the man, didn’t vote for him. He’s in position, tho, isn’t going anywhere. Is doing some pretty good and some very good stuff, and some things I don’t really know much about. I don’t see the point in continuing to point out his character flaws. They’re well known.

    I remain, but I don’t spend as much time here as I once did.

    ManlyDad (bec1ce)

  4. I decided it was better to occasionally lurk after I realized that Dustin and Gryph could break your posting rules without consequence. It was very tiring to be confronted with “Trump Humper” and a constant barrage of being called a “sock puppet.”

    BuDuh (7af67f)

  5. I’m still here Pat… 😉

    I take you posts (and your co-bloggers!) very seriously, even though I may not always agree with them.

    Frankly, I think you got a bump of readership when the likes of Hotair linking you posts recently. That’s a good thing! Get’s more eye-balls on your webby thing…

    Keep up the good work.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  6. Ugh… *your.

    SMDH… can’t spell worth a lick.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  7. You’re welcome! Except for Thomas Woods, we haven’t disagreed much, but will do so civilly when the topic arises.

    Paul Montagu (e7d63b)

  8. Thanks to you and your co-bloggers for the posts upon which we comment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  9. To be honest, I miss the days the site was focused on the incredible bias that the LA Times (Dog Trainer) and other so called main stream journalistic entities forced fed the public on a daily basis, but that’s just me. A great example is the msm being silent on the surviving Colorado students (from the recent school shooting) storming out of a recent vigil when Democratic candidates turned the event into political drama. Pretty much crickets from the big guys when it doesn’t feed their agenda. All that said – healthy debate is what makes America what we are – so I hope people will not turn away just because they don’t agree.

    Brotherico (dfc953)

  10. I like this blog. Thank you, and your co-bloggers for dojngnit.

    Time123 (d54166)

  11. Their fever will eventually break- your POV is healthy and respectable. And you tolerate discussion, bantered good humor and good writing well.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  12. Thank you for not becoming a Trumpy McTrumpster just to gain a few eyeballs.

    Since I read most of your posts through an RSS reader (are those still a thing these days?), I probably don’t show up in your stats. But I do read your stuff, and appreciate your integrity, and sanity, in the midst of a world gone mad.

    Glenn (ff8126)

  13. A great example is the msm being silent on the surviving Colorado students (from the recent school shooting) storming out of a recent vigil when Democratic candidates turned the event into political drama. Pretty much crickets from the big guys when it doesn’t feed their agenda. All that said – healthy debate is what makes America what we are – so I hope people will not turn away just because they don’t agree.

    Brotherico (dfc953) — 5/9/2019 @ 2:06 pm

    I like this blog. Thank you, and your co-bloggers for dojngnit.

    Or the MSM lying and calling the Covington kids racists, as others here did, but remaining silent on the beheading songs sung by indoctrinated Muslim kids in Philadelphia.

    NJRob (2a2d7c)

  14. Brotherico, I have a post about the Colorado situation which I will publish shortly.

    I try to avoid posting about Trump. I have never liked doing so, I don’t find discussions about him to be particularly interesting, and I think we’ve mined every ounce of material from that vein. By the same token, though, I can’t help but notice that the average post on Trump gets 100+ comments while the average non-Trump post is lucky to get half of that. So in a way I have to wonder if it isn’t a wise choice to give the people what they want. In any case, unless I find that I have something interesting to say on the matter — which is quite unlikely for a variety of reasons — I will likely refrain from posting on the President.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  15. Well, I for one respect your honesty, admire your intellect, and appreciate your candor.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  16. I think it’s mostly sometimes going for several days without new posts, and maybe Google has dongraded this websote compared to what it once had. And then maybe any time anyone gets kicked off people who see themselves as similar get discouraged. And eple like to read good arguments, To get traffic it is more important to have high quality posts and commenst than an absence of low quality ones.

    Sammy Finkelman (ec94de)

  17. I continue to respect you and appreciate the effort you put into this blog.

    Stu707 (bb0c06)

  18. I kmow her politics are all wrong on yemen, and Venezuela and lets not even speak of the green nude eel,

    narciso (d1f714)

  19. Patterico, this is your blog. You get to write whatever you like. You pay for the bandwidth!

    We live in weird and polarizing times.

    I will write what I have written before: no matter whether or not I agree with you, I always learn something from your posts.

    I have also noticed less trolling, which is always good. Disagreement is important (so long as it is civil) but trolling is worthless.

    So: thank you (and your co-bloggers) for the time and effort you put into this site.

    Simon Jester (b079bd)

  20. I doubt that it’s you. I think it’s burnout. I find that I don’t engage nearly as much with some of my favorite political/cultural blogs anymore.

    Sparky (ffae6c)

  21. You’re welcome. Thanks for writing.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. I come. I read. I digest. I filter.
    I don’t always agree with everything you write but everything does make me think.

    I am finding in the political and news climate our country is in that I must not dwell on some things as it makes me cranky and irritable. That isn’t how the Lord wants me to be. I realize it is a personal issue but it is better to be aware of it than ignore it.

    I’m finding it much more important to spend time with my grandchildren (14 of them) and impact them in a positive way than spend my time on the internet getting angry with the negativity coming from ALL sides. Besides we are heading into an election cycle and I figure about 75% of everything you read or hear will be a lie anyway.

    Marci (405d43)

  23. I wish there were an “Amen” button. Your readership issue, and the general bifurcation of so-called “conservative” readership (and listenership) is endemic to this era of Trump cultishness.

    Those commentators who are in it for the money have all caved to the cult, regardless of their previously-espoused principles, proving that their personal financial prospects were ultimately more important to them than the U.S. Constitution’s prospects. That much is clear now.

    Those who are in it for the ideas, for the principles of limited government, rather than for tribal victory and career advancement at all costs, are being marginalized, even worse than in the past.

    That’s what happens when the so-called “grassroots conservative” movement gives its soul to a populist demagogue long-aligned with, and directly chosen and protected by, Mitch McConnell’s establishment.

    McConnell promised, during his 2014 Kentucky primary, to “crush the Tea Party.” Donald Trump was one of McConnell’s biggest donors and endorsers during that primary (against Tea Party favorite Matt Bevin). Today, McConnell, with Trump’s help, has achieved his aim at last.

    Daren Jonescu (2f5857)

  24. Pleasure to be here. Always appreciate your thoughts and perspectives even when I disagree, which sometimes I do!

    Nathan (5efffe)

  25. RIP Jim fowler.

    Narciso (cbfddb)

  26. I mostly lurk these days, but I appreciate the posts by you and your guest bloggers. You have my deepest respect, Patterico.

    Thank you for putting up with all the ostinato of snark. Having to police the comment section is prolly the worst part of the job, but thanks for doing it.

    felipe (023cc9)

  27. It seems to me that fewer people come here these days.

    Perhaps because you only seem to want readers who agree with you.

    James B. Shearer (a9baea)

  28. 27. Shearer, you’re still here. Looks to me like he’s okay with at least one person who disagrees with him.

    Gryph (08c844)

  29. Patterico, I’ve been here since the Bush years and we agree on much more than we disagree. I appreciate you, Dana, JVW and your former guest writers for taking the time to make this such an informative forum.

    I think many people are just tired of the constant outrage and just want to live in peace. I just wish the other half of the nation agreed.

    NJRob (27ee4a)

  30. I think a lot of people are getting tired of the drama. For instance, the Alexa rankings show a similar traffic/ranking pattern for this blog and other blogs that I once thought of as conservative — websites like Powerlineblog, Legal Insurrection, PJ Media (which includes Instapundit), and Ace. All had an increase in ranking/traffic starting in Summer 2018, followed by a dramatic dip starting in January 2019.

    DRJ (15874d)

  31. I appreciate what you do, Pat, as well as what Dana and JVW do. And I appreciate much of what the other commenters here contribute, even if I seem to disagree with them half the time or more.

    A little feel good story for you
    https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/05/kid-whose-wow-reaction-to-hearing-mozart-went-viral-has-been-found-and-his-story-is-incredible.html

    Kishnevi (7595ea)

  32. Patterico – I appreciate your opinions and your legal knowledge. I think your never-Trumpery is kind of silly at this point, but that’s OK. Everyone is silly some of the time.

    David in Cal (0d5a1d)

  33. One of the things I like about your blog is that (most of) your commentors aren’t just spouting the party line. You have people who are more populist and less, people more fiscally conservative or less, people who are more socially conservative or less (depending on the issue) and aren’t echoing the echo chamber all the time.

    Nic (896fdf)

  34. I don’t comment often, but I appreciate being able to read conservative commentary that isn’t best accompanied with pom-poms. Seems too much of the damn world has gone bonkers, on both sides.

    tmm (3d89bc)

  35. You were one of the voices from RedState I appreciated. When you left there, I followed you here. I’m not conservative but I like reading conservative points of view and like the conversations that happen here.

    JRH (52aed3)

  36. — Now there’s something you don’t see everyday, Chauncy.
    — What’s that, Edgar?
    — A man pays for a website; he and his co-bloggers take the time to write interesting and informative posts about the events of the day; people come and read it for free; he has open comments where people can comment on the post or anything else that comes into their heads; and he’s the one who turns around and thanks us for reading.
    — Oh, I don’t know, Edgar. He didn’t thank us for not stealing his wallet.

    nk (dbc370)

  37. I know there is very little left of the dog trainer to shame these days, but you were and are the absolute bestest at it.

    And so many fantastic commenters we would never have had the good fortune to read if you hadn’t drawn them in.

    Thank you!

    Matador (39e0cd)

  38. You and Charles Johnson can keep company together, virtue signaling that you’d rather be right than popular, eh.

    Bye, eh.

    Patterico (7f9b4d)

  39. Guy was a spammer anyway; deleting his comment to get the spam off my site.

    Patterico (7f9b4d)

  40. Here is Jerry Kimmel talking about the reason why criticism of Trump has little impact:

    “Democrats don’t realize, it’s basically the WWE. It’s wrestling,” Kimmel continued. “They’re busy trying to prove that the Undertaker isn’t an actual undertaker. Like, ‘Hey, this guy has no license to practice funeral directing in any state.’ And the Republicans are like, ‘Uhuh, yeah, we know. Do you mind stepping aside so we can watch him hit someone with a folding chair? Thank you.'”

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/kimmel-knocks-dems-efforts-to-get-trumps-tax-returns-half-of-america-doesnt-care

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  41. virtue signaling that you’d rather be right than popular

    I thought virtue signalling was to show that you’re in favor of all the beliefs du jour. I had no idea it was about being right.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  42. I was a regular reader. Frankly I left shortly after Trump was elected because I was bored with one anti-Trump article after another. Lately I’ve been coming back once a week or so, and now I find that you have evolved from obsessed to downright irrational on the issue of Trump. In the last few weeks you have posted at least three posts based on arguments that were blatantly unsound, and when commenters pointed out the problems, you either ignored them or missed their point and insulted them. Maybe it’s because I was usually on your side, but I don’t remember you behaving that way before.

    Furthermore, it is depressing to see someone who was once known for his uncompromising ethical positions become so partisan that he doesn’t care if the House is using their powers to harass the president under the guise of investigating him and doesn’t care if the FBI, CIA, and DOJ spied on political campaigns of the opposition party or engaged in a conspiracy to bring down an elected president.

    David Gudeman (fd21bc)

  43. I, for one, am flipping amazed that Patterico still blogs. Not just the comments, but the EFFORT it takes to put up something interesting day in and day out. Look at all of us who fell by the wayside long ago. Huzzah!

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  44. I miss sock puppet Fridays.

    mg (8cbc69)

  45. Patterico… I have nothing (most notably, not a J.D.)…but a hearty thank you for providing, maintaining and commenting on this platform.

    urbanleftbehind (bccba5)

  46. I seldom comment, but I always read your blog, and I’m sure that there are many others like me. I appreciate your perspectives on things (and especially the Bach cantata selection every Sunday), so please keep up the good work. Like you, I see Trumpism and conservatism (or what’s left of conservatism) as fundamentally different things, and don’t have a very high regard for the former.

    Roger (5b3e47)

  47. David Gudeman,

    You are absolutely certain your opinions are right and Patterico is wrong, even though your summary of Patterico’s positions demonstrates that you don’t really understand what he thinks.

    I encourage you to pick a specific, substantive topic and state what Patterico thinks in a way that he would agree with. You don’t have to agree, just show that you understand his position. I don’t think you can because your mind is made up that Patterico is biased and wrong, so you have quit listening. Maybe I am wrong and you can explain his position fairly. Will you try?

    DRJ (15874d)

  48. Alternatively, if you won’t or can’t try to understand his points, then your being here strikes me as pointless.

    DRJ (15874d)

  49. #39 Here is Jerry Kimmel talking about the reason why criticism of Trump has little impact:

    “Democrats don’t realize, it’s basically the WWE. It’s wrestling,” Kimmel continued. “They’re busy trying to prove that the Undertaker isn’t an actual undertaker. Like, ‘Hey, this guy has no license to practice funeral directing in any state.’ And the Republicans are like, ‘Uhuh, yeah, we know. Do you mind stepping aside so we can watch him hit someone with a folding chair? Thank you.’”

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/kimmel-knocks-dems-efforts-to-get-trumps-tax-returns-half-of-america-doesnt-care

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/10/2019 @ 12:56 am

    Heh… I think I’m going to steal that from Kimmel as I think its a perfect description.

    whembly (b9d411)

  50. Keep up the good work. We’ll be here for the long haul.

    Ryan (b16f18)

  51. I mostly lurk, and comment once in a great while. I wince at some of what Trump says, does and tweets, but I’m damn glad he’s appointing Article III judges and not HRC. And while I think you’ve been overly harsh at times with your criticism, IMO you’ve never been irresponsible about it. Actually, since my spouse is a D (off the Deep end) with their Kool-Aid in her veins, I’ve borrowed from your posts to commiserate with her angst at the Orange Idiot (her term, not mine). I wasn’t sure my marriage would survive his first term, so Thanks! You’re not going to lose me or the Amazon pennies I send your way.

    rfy (360a30)

  52. Good comments here. I agree with Glenn.

    DRJ (15874d)

  53. I’m with Brotherico (#9) in missing the good old days of this blog whacking the LA Times, but that’s just a matter of taste. I value your efforts, Patterico, and am thankful you continue to keep up this blog. At times you seem a bit harsh when it comes to Trump and his supporters, but then, for me anyway, the harshness is a useful reminder that I’m too willing to give Trump a pass sometimes. Please keep on doing what you’re doing. I appreciate your adherence to a consistent set of principles and plan on reading the blog as long as you keep writing it.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  54. The blog has certainly evolved.

    Thankfully the gap between the two sides of the same group that used to generally get along and object with respect but now not-so-much because Trump is still filled by the occasional common sense, reality and appropriate intensity level.

    __
    Meanwhile…..

    Please forward [this] to people in Lakewood [New Jersey].
    I gave [Rabbi] Yeruchum Olshin [May he live for many good days, Amen], [a] ride this morning and [he] said [that] I [may quote him – that is, Rabbi Olshin] in his name to vote for [candidate] Trump because [the authoritative commentary on Jewish law and practice explains] [King] David [had] 2 [failings] and [David] didn’t lose [his] kingdom, but [King] Saul [had] only one [failing] and lost [his] kingdom.

    Why? [The] answer is [because] David’s [failures] were in his private life but Saul[’s] [failure] was in [relation to] the [kingship] … [albeit it is all distinguishable] [Rabbi Olshin] said Trump is [low] … in his private life but Hillary [is] corrupt in public office. [quoting Rabbi Aaron of blessed memory]… Forward to everybody!!“

    http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2017/06/two-election-stories-new-jersey.html?m=1

    harkin (a4b010)

  55. Thank you for not becoming a Trumpy McTrumpster just to gain a few eyeballs.

    I would have been both surprised and disappointed if Patterico had gone full-bore Trumpster. There are times I feel he’s reacting to the man more than the policy, and I think that his displeasure with Republicans in general is misplaced, but I do understand his distaste for Donald Trump. The man IS nekulturny, and none too bright.

    While I would rather have a dim, ineffective, yet obstreperous president who generally favors my positions, rather than a buttoned-down, bright and energetic opponent, it’s hardly optimum.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  56. I’m not sure that the Commander-in-Chief giving orders to his generals to put his mistress’s husband in the front line and then abandon him to be killed is a “private failing”; or that losing two sons who rebelled against you is not worse than losing your kingdom; but then I don’t get my religion from rabbis either.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. Gee, David Gudeman, I had no idea you were against comments that merely insult people without offering a single shred of substance. In fact, you don’t seem to be against them at all, based on your offering here, which has zero substance but plenty of insult.

    If you hate my blog, you are always welcome not to read it or to comment. It’s a real option. Give it serious consideration. No use wasting your time in a place that makes you unhappy and that is not going to change in the way you wish it would.

    Patterico (c75c89)

  58. James B. Shearer,

    It seems to me more that readers want only bloggers who agree with them.

    I am happy to have contrary positions if they add value and are polite. It’s rare because people like to be jerks on the Internet but it happens.

    Patterico (c75c89)

  59. DRJ, that’s an excellent suggestion. I think I shall take it up.

    Patterico, your post seemed to be inviting opinion on the state of the blog, and I can’t help it if my opinion is not complimentary. As to why I resumed reading your blog, it is because I had begun to worry that I my reading was too one-sided, and I expected you to have something worthwhile to say. As bored as I got with your Trump obsession before, I don’t recall thinking that you were being unreasonable like I do now.

    David Gudeman (fd21bc)

  60. Sometimes you bang the same drum too long. Saying the same thing in new ways at different times doesn’t make it any more fresh. There’s a difference between having/standing for an opinion and stale.

    Someone else mentioned that often there is a pretty large gap between new posts. That’s true.

    I have seen commenter backs get up if someone doesn’t exactly toe the Patterico party line. There are too many local and national echo chambers. It’s boring and actually pointless when everyone there is patting ever other one on the back for singing the same song and excoriating those who don’t.

    Patterico is still on my blogs bookmark. Some others are pretty much news aggregates that allow comments on the news. Others are commentary on news and others are pure commentary on whatever a writer finds interesting. That last category is where I would place Patterico, if I were to separate my reading into those categories.

    Full disclosure though, my son shares the disgust with the GOP as a party without a difference. Mostly I agree with the thought but don’t feel quite as resigned to hopelessness for America’s future.

    Betty Lane (97c12d)

  61. Now, thanks to YouTube, you too can learn to play the first bouzouki song I was taught (not be confused with “I learned”).

    Don’t worry if you don’t have a bouzouki. The four-course (8-string) bouzouki is the four high strings of your guitar in a dropped tuning. Drop your high E to D, your B to A, your G to F, and your D to C, and you’re all set. (Well, kind of, let’s have a positive attitude there.) (You won’t be playing the A and low E strings.)

    Watch this video first because it has English subtitles.
    Watch this one more because the teacher is prettier and she takes more time showing you the fingerings.

    Enjoy!

    nk (dbc370)

  62. DRJ, that’s an excellent suggestion. I think I shall take it up.

    Patterico, your post seemed to be inviting opinion on the state of the blog, and I can’t help it if my opinion is not complimentary. As to why I resumed reading your blog, it is because I had begun to worry that I my reading was too one-sided, and I expected you to have something worthwhile to say. As bored as I got with your Trump obsession before, I don’t recall thinking that you were being unreasonable like I do now.

    I wasn’t inviting any such thing. I was more or less exulting in the disappearance of people who can’t handle Trump criticism — i.e., people like you. I’ll help you take up DRJ’s suggestion. If I ever get a hankering for content-free insults, I’ll look you up. Until such time, bye forever.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  63. Don’t email me either. It won’t be read.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  64. Someone else mentioned that often there is a pretty large gap between new posts. That’s true.

    Yeah, after about 16 years I have hit a patch where daily posting just isn’t feasible. I could explain the personal circumstances behind that, but it’s really none of anyone’s business.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  65. In case the response to Dave Gudeman surprises anyone:

    1. There is a history. I have done the Dave Gudeman Drama thing for years and I am done with it.

    2. He was invited by DRJ to give specifics and he chose another snide contentless insult. Again: I have done enough Dave Gudeman drama for one lifetime and then some. I have filtered his emails directly to spam because that’s historically where he goes next. He has driven off DRJ under a different name in the past, praised Vox Day when that a-hole mocked my friend Ken White for courageously writing about his struggles with mental illness, and so on, and so on, and so on. I am done.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  66. @63. P, best way to approach ‘Trump criticism’ is the way our Captain managed to rationalize losing a billion bucks in the boom-boom-real-estate-times of 1980’s New York: “a sport.” 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  67. Real estate developers ALWAYS lose money, it’s the way the tax laws are written. Not really though. You make actual money and write off virtual money. Don’t blame Trump, blame Congress.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  68. Starting with the whopper that the then President was not born in the United States…. he lies so often that it’s no longer noticed. He ran a scam of a University. His lawyer and campaign manager are in jail. He is in a legal fight to prevent the release of his taxes despite promises to let us see them. On and on.

    Yet, up to 90% of Republicans choose to believe him. Why would they believe you?

    You understand that because a President is Pro-life or favors tax cuts, that these things do not give him permission to attack the truth. Please continue to speak honestly, Patterico. God is truth, light, love and knowledge. Those things are important and He matters more than the rest of us.

    noel (e07fb0)

  69. The skydragon must be worshiped:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/alimhaider/status/1127060976770146304

    Narciso (62a107)

  70. Great comment, noel.

    DRJ (15874d)

  71. I knew what “The Good Fight” was before the first episode. It’s a perfect encapsulation of the upper middle class liberal, often wrong but never uncertain. Thank God they put it behind a paywall.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  72. I liked the precursor, baranski is very unsympathetic

    Narciso (62a107)

  73. As compared to marguilies, so good fight, star trek discovery, so they are down to that cnsfw about Jack parsons

    Narciso (62a107)

  74. What brought me to this website was your coverage of California criminal law issues (I started with your Prop 66 coverage in 2004) as well as your frequent posts about the coverage in the LA Times (dog-trainer) which I found genuinely entertaining. Now your coverage is heavily weighted toward national politics. Frankly, I’m not that interested in that and there are enough outlets for national politics already. Your California criminal law commentary filled a niche where discussion is lacking but since you have nearly abandoned the topic, I stopped coming by.

    David (5f8500)

  75. Before you blocked me on Twitter on April 19, 2019, this was my response that I couldn’t tweet to you after you asked me if I ever saw anything that Trump did as bad.

    It’s not reading about his faults that bothers me. It’s the seething hatred in your writing that bothers me. The Clintons, Obama, Harry Reid,… are just as bad but you didn’t write about them with so much hatred. Keep writing about his faults. Leave the hatred behind.

    I put up the gist of your question as best I could remember. Since you blocked me on Twitter I cannot see the exact text of your question. I apologize ahead of time if I got it wrong.

    I still subscribe to your blog in a RSS feed. If I find a post interesting, then I will view it. Sometimes I will even leave comments. Often your posts have so much hatred torwards President Trump and vitriol towards Trump supporters that I can’t emotionally continue to read the post. Not necessarily because you are wrong, but because of the tone of the post. That is my problem, not yours. There are some talkshow hosts that I don’t listen to because they yell too much even though most of the time what they say is true.

    I was confused and didn’t understand why you blocked me on Twitter when that was one of the few tweets of yours I had ever replied to and the only tweet of yours that I have replied to negatively.

    I realize from one of your comments above that you weren’t inviting opinion. I’m still giving an opinion. As a long time reader, from I believe 2004, that is why I don’t come around as often as I used to.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  76. BTW. Because I wanted to be clear and because Parkinson’s makes it so difficult for me to write since I can no longer type and have to use Siri dictation in place of typing text, it took me over an hour and a half to write the above post.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  77. sorry to hear that, tammy,

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. 77… blocked on Twitter… Patterico blocked you? Or was it Twitter staff.

    Colonel Haiku (eb0d8f)

  79. twitter is like the forbin project, or the evil computer played by john carradine in the demon seed,

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. @68. ‘Don’t blame Trump…’

    How ‘sporting’ of you, K.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. 77… blocked on Twitter… Patterico blocked you? Or was it Twitter staff.

    Colonel Haiku (eb0d8f) — 5/11/2019 @ 2:14 pm

    When I go to his Twitter account it says:

    @Patterico blocked you

    You are blocked from following
    @Patterico and viewing @Patterico
    Tweets.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  82. I am sorry to hear about your Parkinson’s, Tanny. Bless you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  83. The Clintons, Obama, Harry Reid,… are just as bad

    The Clintons, Obama and Harry Reid are bad. Whether they are “just as bad” – from the standpoint of conservatives like me – is debatable.

    None of them have destroyed the integrity of the only political party in America that stood up for the ideals we supported all our lives. None of them have made the political party I belonged to my entire life into a cesspool of bigotry, ignorance and dishonesty.

    It’s easy to stay emotionally detached from a vandal or arsonist who trashes a house down the block. But when its your own home that’s victimized, it becomes personal.

    Dave (1bb933)

  84. The Clinton’s and Obama’s slashed defense, the first had the pretext of the peace dividend, but al qyeda was listening thr latter Islamic state was. The Russians understood what ‘flexibility’ was about from Kerry to Podesta they have always been Soviet tools the last two were part of the uranium one transfer.

    Narciso (8816df)

  85. “Clinton’s and Obama’s slashed defense”

    Congress sets the budget

    Davethulhu (9847a2)

  86. Tanny O’Haley,

    Prayers for you. I hope you are surrounded by loved ones. I understand how difficult and frustrating it can be dictating comments so I won’t ask you to do so, but would ask that you continue reading when you can. It is appreciated.

    You bring up a good point that I think a number of commenters have felt in the past: that is can be emotionally wearing to read about Trump’s latest when it’s enveloped in and and loathing. It adds another layer to wade through that makes it onerous and exhausting because now there’s not just the issue itself to grapple with, but also the emotion it’s been encased in. I’m going to take your words to heart and make every effort to remain dispassionate when posting about Trump, and stick to the critical argument itself. And I would ask that commenters do likewise. Keep the emotions out of it and stick to the crux of the matter. Don’t get bogged down by wounded pride, or anger, or resentment because someone isn’t supportive of whom you are supportive. First, Trump isn’t worth the emotional expenditure to any of us. The price is too high. Second, by doing that, the discussion is significantly weakened and what challenging thoughts you might have brought to the table are now accompanied by loud emotions. Few of us have the energy or time to wade through that extra layer. At least I don’t.

    Which leads me to my next point: the value in reading Patterico’s frequently contrarian and challenging posts (with regard to Trump) is that they present logical arguments that fairly challenge any reader to dig deeper, question further, expound the ideas, and then present one’s own coherent argument in support of, or in challenge to for other readers. His posts almost always provide a fertile ground for analysis which requires both a critical eye, and an analytical mind. That only improves us all.

    Dana (779465)

  87. 88. I’m losing interest in cogent, emotionless arguments. I’ve been trying that tack for years, and it gave us back-to-back administrations in Obama and Trump.

    Gryph (08c844)

  88. the uranium one transfer

    LOL

    Dave (1bb933)

  89. Hang in there, Tanny! As I understand it, they are on the cusp of some encouraging developments to treat it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  90. Sorry about your Parkinson’s, Tanny. I’ll pray for you.

    Here is the tweet that caused me to block you:

    I block pretty anyone who even slightly annoys me on Twitter. I’m much more proactive about it than I am about banning commenters, since commenters may give value to others.

    But whether here or on Twitter, I can choose to hear from people who want to gripe about what I write and exaggerate my alleged emotionality about it, or choose not to. I choose not to, and frankly, repetitive comments of that sort cause me to dispel people like that from my life.

    You’re not going to change what I write by griping about it — unless it causes me to write more of what you criticize, because I am stubborn. I think some people criticize me because they think they can beat me into submission (it works with a lot of people) and all I can say to those people is: have we met? You clearly do not know me well if you think that will work. Therefore, there is no other point to it.

    While I feel bad for your personal circumstances, it doesn’t make me want to hear your negativity about my writing. I frankly find it very odd that someone who physically has a difficult time writing would spent all that effort just to tell a writer that they don’t enjoy their writing any more. Channel that energy into something more productive and we’ll all pull for you.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  91. The Clintons, Obama and Harry Reid are bad. Whether they are “just as bad” – from the standpoint of conservatives like me – is debatable.

    None of them have destroyed the integrity of the only political party in America that stood up for the ideals we supported all our lives. None of them have made the political party I belonged to my entire life into a cesspool of bigotry, ignorance and dishonesty.

    It’s easy to stay emotionally detached from a vandal or arsonist who trashes a house down the block. But when its your own home that’s victimized, it becomes personal.

    Why do the Croats hate the Serbs? Why does the People’s Front of Judea hate the Judean People’s Front? It’s often squabbles between similar factions that cause the most bad blood. Some lazy hacks make an entire career out of recycling the same column attacking NeverTrumpers by calling them Fredocons who wanted Felonia von Pantsuit to be President. I don’t see Trump critics going there in droves and calling out their hatred — and I don’t see Trump fans who whine about the alleged emotionalism of Trump critics saying boo about that either. If it weren’t for double standards, we’d have no standards at all.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  92. What I see is very few center-right writers willing to hold Trump to the same standard as every other president. And that is problematic. It’s the same with Evangelical leaders. They hold Democratic presidents and politicians to a much higher standard and are willing to compromise whatever integrity they have to not only defend Trump (which is bad enough), but to then attack fellow believers (writers) who don’t support him. And then we have our GOP elected officials, who once condemned him (when their survival depended on it during the campaign, and for a very short time after the election…) but unfortunately most ended up kissing his ring because their survival depends on it. It’s hard to respect such wishy-washy demands to follow suit and go along to get along because Trump. We should be better than that, and willing to dig in standing firm on our convictions – especially in light of what we know to be true about him – no matter the pressure to do otherwise. It’s dismaying to see how easily people have rationalized and attempted to justify their positions with regard to Trump.

    I’m glad Patrick is here and riles up the readership with his blunt observations and usually spot-on analysis because no one should be so wed to a politician that they lose sight of the principles they claim to stand for.

    Dana (779465)

  93. Dana–

    Professional politicians are like everyone else. It’s no good to dis the boss, even if he’s s fool. I suspect we have all had people we worked for who weren’t our choice. Is it “integrity” to call them an idiot to their face, or just stupidity?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  94. One of the things that has always, always bothered me is hypocrisy in politics. Such as Bill Clinton criticizing any male for treating women poorly. And sadly, ideologues have no trouble playing “ethical limbo” to excuse “their” people doing things that are inexcusable from “the other” people.

    I have been disgusted by the Left’s ability to do this, for many years. And while there were always folks on the Right who would agree with anything their standard bearer might say, there were at least many folks who tried to hold the Right accountable for its principles.

    Then DJT came along. People who were once very concerned about verbal gaffes from Obama were suddenly most forgiving DJT. I’m sure anyone reading this can come up with many, many examples taking place in this Age of Trump. But wait! The “other” side is so much worse! But this is exactly the kind of thinking that gave us “feminists” supporting WJC.

    Hypocrisy.

    I think that everyone needs to think about their principles. The things that are non-negotiable in their world view. And stick by their principles.

    In my opinion, from my reading, that is what Patterico has tried to do all along.

    Simon Jester (75bf68)

  95. The one who put the crown of thorns on the sisters of the poor, who led the two minute hate on Israel, who acted as if his trip to Havana was Disney world, that’s more than mere words. Who did savage our military as he promised the plowshares group to win the 08 primary in iowa.

    Narciso (9c31ab)

  96. But this is exactly the kind of thinking that gave us “feminists” supporting WJC.

    I have two theories about that — that is why Clinton remained popular despite his scandals:
    Theory 1: Clinton genuinely likes women and it shows in any and all circumstances. Trump closes his eyes and thinks of Roy Cohn.

    Theory 2: Clinton did not go chase after super-models. He went after the girl next door, or if you wish the girl in the second trailer over. This made the majority of women feel good about themselves — that they too could have a shot with the President of the United States. It helped with men, too. They could feel sympathy for a guy married to a termagant like Hillary so desperate that he would make a pass at Paula Jones. Paula Jones SMH!

    nk (dbc370)

  97. 77. Tanny O’Haley (8a06bc) — 5/11/2019 @ 1:50 pm

    Since you blocked me on Twitter I cannot see the exact text of your question. You can do that. You just can’t do that while logged into Twitter. You may have to do a search.

    If you want to read all of Patterico on Twitter just do a search for him while not logged in. Now your computer might be keeping you logged in, but you could either use some other cnnection or log out.

    Here’s how to read all of Trump’s tweets, latest first:

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump

    You could even do it to people you blocked, if any.

    The same will work for Patterico.

    Sammy Finkelman (ec94de)

  98. Dave Gudeman [] has driven off DRJ under a different name in the past,

    What name?

    nk (dbc370)

  99. Is anything more disgusting than the DOJ?
    Department of Just us…

    mg (8cbc69)

  100. 85

    None of them have destroyed the integrity of the only political party in America that stood up for the ideals we supported all our lives. None of them have made the political party I belonged to my entire life into a cesspool of bigotry, ignorance and dishonesty.

    Trump revealed the fact that the Republican party is full of people you don’t like. No doubt you find this distressing but Trump didn’t create these people, they were always there, and they will still be around when Trump is gone. These is a saying ‘politics makes strange bedfellows” which just reflects the fact that assembling a winning coalition will often require working with people you don’t like much. It’s hard to imagine a winning conservative coalition that doesn’t include Trump supporters.

    James B. Shearer (a9baea)

  101. James B. Shearer (a9baea) — 5/12/2019 @ 12:41 am

    Good comment. I agree with you. The comment of mine that you were responding to was unclear about something important.

    It is not policy differences – which as you say are to be expected in a coalition – that motivate me to oppose Trump, but the evil, wickedness and immorality of the man himself.

    If he agreed with me on every last nuance of policy, I would oppose him even more vehemently for the reasons I previously described: Trump brings discredit upon everyone and everything he is associated with.

    Dave (1bb933)

  102. Professional politicians are like everyone else. It’s no good to dis the boss, even if he’s s fool. I suspect we have all had people we worked for who weren’t our choice. Is it “integrity” to call them an idiot to their face, or just stupidity?

    Kevin M,

    In this analogy of yours, in a discussion of criticism of the President, who is the boss and who is the employee?

    Patterico (f292fa)

  103. I know his catchphrase was “you’re fired” but Donald Trump is not the boss of me. Are you suggesting he is? And that he is therefore above criticism by me? Surely not … but if not, what *are* you trying to say?

    Patterico (f292fa)

  104. Dana–

    Professional politicians are like everyone else. It’s no good to dis the boss, even if he’s s fool. I suspect we have all had people we worked for who weren’t our choice. Is it “integrity” to call them an idiot to their face, or just stupidity?

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/11/2019 @ 7:34 pm

    Hm, I see that P has responded correctly (#106) to the question. I would only add that perhaps this is a big part of the problem: Too many Trump supporters believe our job is to support Trump, prop him up, and remain silent in the face of his foolishness because they have the hierarchical order reversed. POTUS works for the American people, we do not work for him. We are his boss in that we determine whether or not we will keep him employed. When the order gets reversed and Trump is seen as the “boss”, it’s understandable that there is a reluctance to speak out. But let’s be very clear that the problem is not with those who have the correct order in place but rather with those who conveniently forget or ignore that it is he that is our employee and works for us. I realize in some ways that it’s easier to hold to the reverse order. Less stressful, less conflict, less confrontation, less debate, etc. But that’s a short-term view at best. To view the presidency as a position where we have elected a new “boss” is a dangerous place to be. It allows one to feel comfortable in their silence, in spite of what may be going on. It maintains the status quo. It also relieves the natural tension that there should be between government and the electorate. Further, when someone like Trump is the president and has strong authoritarian tendencies (as I believe he does) and admiration for strongmen, the very last thing he needs is anyone reinforcing his already unhealthy view of his position and himself.

    Dana (779465)

  105. 85. 94. 95. 106, 109

    Kevin M @95 was talking about professional politicians

    Not center-right writers or Evangelical leaders not being willing to hold Trump to the same standard as every other president, nor about the general electorate but “GOP elected officials.”

    Kevin was probably responding to this from Dana @94:

    And then we have our GOP elected officials, who once condemned him (when their survival depended on it during the campaign, and for a very short time after the election…) but unfortunately most ended up kissing his ring because their survival depends on it. It’s hard to respect such wishy-washy demands to follow suit and go along to get along because Trump.

    This idea had first been mentioned by Dave @85, who wrote:

    The Clintons, Obama and Harry Reid are bad. Whether they are “just as bad” – from the standpoint of conservatives like me – is debatable.

    None of them have destroyed the integrity of the only political party in America that stood up for the ideals we supported all our lives. None of them have made the political party I belonged to my entire life into a cesspool of bigotry, ignorance and dishonesty

    Kevin responded @95:

    Dana–

    Professional politicians are like everyone else. It’s no good to dis the boss, even if he’s s fool. I suspect we have all had people we worked for who weren’t our choice. Is it “integrity” to call them an idiot to their face, or just stupidity?

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/11/2019 @ 7:34 pm

    Yes, President Trump is not Senator Ted Cruz’s or Mitch McConnels’s boss, (although he is the boss of Bob Barr and Mike Pompeo) but he can veto or sign legislation and is needed to make appointments and can affect who people vote for. So they treat him a little like a boss, although they shouldn’t.

    Sammy Finkelman (ec94de)

  106. I would also add to my comment at #109: Further, when someone like Trump is the president and has strong authoritarian tendencies (as I believe he does) and admiration for strongmen, the very last thing he needs is anyone reinforcing his already unhealthy view of his position and himself, and because he is such a gigantically dishonest egoist, the stakes are higher. It’s a similar danger of believing one’s own P.R. but on a much bigger and damaging scale.

    Dana (779465)

  107. Authoritarian is the cop out criticism of an executive who gets things done. Military leaders frequently get hit with this when they get involved in political domains. Apparently it took an “authoritarian” to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. How long was that promised? Probably one of the simplest things to do if one has the will. Corporate boards of directors fall into analysis paralysis. Along comes a true executive and the weaker board members point to the “authoritarian tendencies” when such a person makes the tough decisions that previous “leaders” had kicked down the road for years.

    Ptw (c6562e)

  108. Ptw,

    On the issue you cite, we agree.

    Patterico (f292fa)

  109. Yes, President Trump is not Senator Ted Cruz’s or Mitch McConnels’s boss, (although he is the boss of Bob Barr and Mike Pompeo) but he can veto or sign legislation and is needed to make appointments and can affect who people vote for. So they treat him a little like a boss, although they shouldn’t.

    Ted Cruz’s bosses are first and foremost the citizens of Texas, although I believe he has a duty to the country as a whole as well. His loyalty is owed to them, not to Trump.

    Patterico (f292fa)

  110. Reading the Mueller report’s second volume (on obstruction), it’s entirely unclear that Trump actually functions as the boss of anyone, which is by far the most reassuring thing in the Mueller report.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  111. In this analogy of yours, in a discussion of criticism of the President, who is the boss and who is the employee?

    To a professional politician, serving in federal office, the President is the immediate boss of the party. And to say that a political should not be partisan like that is wishful thinking about the system.

    Now, if the People are the boss, well any politician knows they are mostly stupid but cannot say that of course.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  112. I was much more frightened of Obama in 2009 than I was by, say, 2013. He had the media mojo, but as an actual leader or executive, he was almost entirely ineffectual once there was a divided Congress (despite trying as much mischief as he could through executive orders)

    I’m somewhat less frightened of Trump now than I was before the Mueller report, for the same reason: He’s strikingly ineffectual.

    Even in the grip of his obsessions, and even when it comes to instructing toadies like Corey Lewandowski, Trump can’t focus, can’t follow through, can’t actually get the people who take his orders directly to do what he directly orders them to do. It’s smashingly obvious that only his staff and his lawyers, including and perhaps most especially Don McGahn, have managed to save his presidency.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  113. To a Democrat politician, their boss is more immediate — Pelosi or Schumer for example. Politics is party and party is politics. Why did the Democrat legislature and the (new) Democrat governor of New Mexico join up in the Electoral Vote Compact? It surely does nothing good for a small state like New Mexico.

    Oh, you say, the People are the boss and will toss them out of office. Only if the people are made aware (and the local news does no such thing), and only if they pick through the lies even if they are told.

    But the Governor or the Assembly Speaker can dish out punishment RIGHT NOW, and if they are mad enough it won’t matter what happens in the next election, ’cause you won’t be in it.

    Yes, I know all the “right” answers to these questions, but I find them fanciful lies that are not much use in the real world.

    Yes, there are a few politicians who don’t care about party pressure, or can stand above it. I don’t see Cruz as one of those. Ryan is — he walked away. Romney is — and makes this quite clear. Next time Cruz calls Trump a crook or a moron, send me a link.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  114. I’m somewhat less frightened of Trump now than I was before the Mueller report, for the same reason: He’s strikingly ineffectual.

    The opportunity cost here is what I find striking.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  115. And by “save his presidency,” I mean: Avoid impeachment and removal for obstruction of justice.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  116. Clinton DID all the things that Trump only tried to do, plus perjured himself on live TV, yet was not convicted.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  117. Dana,

    Trump is not MY boss and not YOUR boss, but he is the head of a political party, like it or not, and so has considerable power over members of his party. Nothing direct of course, and some are more vulnerable than others. Consider Luther Strange. The House and Senate GOP leadership also have power over their members, and CAN directly affect their time in those bodies.

    It is, in the end, a workplace. And the more junior you are, the more you have to toe the line.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  118. Trump has not made me less cynical.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  119. 117. Your analysis is fair. Regrettably, not only do I believe that removal from office, in the Senate, is virtually impossible, but Trump’s ineffectual leadership will not keep his supporters from re-electing him.

    Gryph (08c844)

  120. 117. Beldar (fa637a) — 5/12/2019 @ 4:55 pm

    Trump can’t focus, can’t follow through, can’t actually get the people who take his orders directly to do what he directly orders them to do.

    That happened with Nixon too, although I remember members of Congress trying to get Alexander Butterfield to say things that would suppport the idea of Nixon managing everything. Because he micromanaged a few things that were in front of him, like his lunch maybe.

    It’s smashingly obvious that only his staff and his lawyers, including and perhaps most especially Don McGahn, have managed to save his presidency.

    Nixon’s staff, and perhaps most especially his White House Counsel, John Dean, did the opposite.

    They were great on conflicts of interest, although that was maybe because it was away to give them mrore control.

    John Dean was doing his own thing. He lied to the Senate Watergate Committee and the proof of that is that he testified in a monotone. It was obvious to me he was afraid of the much touted “voice stress analyzer.”

    Sammy Finkelman (ec94de)

  121. Now the question: Why does Trump have a better staff than did Nixon??

    Iy could be that Trump is nowhere near as cynical politically as was Nixon. And this time, Roger Stone is nowhere near him.

    And Trump doesn’t think he knows so much. He lets himself be guided (by people he has confidence in) because he is uncertain. He went slow on moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem too.

    Sammy Finkelman (ec94de)

  122. plus perjured himself on live TV

    When did Clinton ever appear on live TV while under oath?

    Dave (1bb933)

  123. Nixon had brains and balls. Trump only has a mouth and his daddy’s millions.

    nk (dbc370)

  124. 121. 127. I think Kevin M is thinking of Bill Clinton saying “I never..Ms. Lewinsky.” It was not under oath, even if it was kind of like swearing to the American people. It just wasn’t perjury. Even if it repeated,more emphatically the same lie he gave in a deposition in the Paula Jones case. (and Clinton had signed the law that made it relevant. Much later the judge ruled that ot wasn’t relevant.)

    He later also lied to a grand jury. BTW, there he almost slipped and revealed he was getting inside information from Kenneth Starr’s office, because he started to cite as support Monica Lewinsky’s definition of sex, before catching himself because he realized he was not supposed to know that yet! So he slightly altered what he was saying. If you get his grand jury testimony you can spot it. Of course, to Kenneth Starr the idea that he had a spy in his office was unthinkable, so he didn’t pick up on the lead.

    Sammy Finkelman (ec94de)

  125. When did Clinton ever appear on live TV while under oath?

    He gave a deposition in the Paula Jones case that was filmed and shown on TV. I may be in error that it was shown live.

    One part is here: https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/president-clinton-deposed-paula-jones-case-part-60300741

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  126. Clinton testified in a deposition in Jan 1998, parts of which were later made public. In it he denied having sexual relations with Ms Lewinsky, among others, and Ms Lewinsky denied it, too, in a separate deposition. Later Linda Tripp blew the whistle, so to speak.

    As things developed, Bill Clinton testified in front of a grand jury in August 1998, and this deposition was released a bit later, although the main details leaked out before then. He again denied “sexual relations”, attempting to frame his answers to cover his previous lies.

    Clearly I was mistaken thinking either of these recordings were live.

    These two items were part of the House evidence of perjury. Clinton was later convicted of a lesser lying charge.

    As for obstruction, see the timeline here: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/

    Such as:

    Feb. 19, 1998: Ken Starr’s chronology shows presidential friend Vernon Jordan began seeking a private-sector job for Monica Lewinsky within 72 hours of her being listed as a potential witness in the Paula Jones civil rights lawsuit against President Bill Clinton.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  127. In the second paragraph,”testimony” not “deposition”

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  128. I frankly find it very odd that someone who physically has a difficult time writing would spent all that effort just to tell a writer that they don’t enjoy their writing any more.

    Not all, just some. I have been following your blog since I believe 2004. I like many of the topics you and others write. I didn’t think that I was exaggerating about the level of hate. I’m sorry you see it that way. I believe you have good things to say and would like to continue following you and be as active as I can on your site. Though probably not as active as I was before Trump became president.

    I reluctantly voted for Trump. My vote for him was a vote against Hillary Clinton. Her position on abortion which I consider infanticide, how she has tried to change the free exercise of religion clause in the first amendment to be that of only worship meaning that religious people cannot be in the public square, and her pathological lying as opposed to Trump’s compulsive lying . I held my nose and voted for Trump hoping that he would be better than Clinton. I believe he has, but then again my expectations were very low.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  129. Some evidence that William Barr is far from a “hack”…

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?22668-1/barr-confirmation-hearing-day-1

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  130. What about it?

    Patterico (fe2a1f)

  131. 128 I think a differnce between Nixon and Trump is that Nixon had acquired by 1968, and especially by 1972, anumber of cynical and amoral (in terms of politics) people in his political operaton. Haldeman and probably Ehrlichmann were more or less amoral technocrats. Haldemann came out of the worls of advertising and Haldemann recruited Ehrlichmann, whom he had known for years. You had G. Gordon Liddy, Donald Segretti, E. Hiward Hunt (who made an attempt to forge cables) Herbert “Bart” Porter and down on the pecking order was Roger Stone, who, although he was only 19 and 20, had, to his “credit:”

    1) Faking a contribution from the Young Socialist Alliance to Republican callenger Pete McCloskey ($135 in cash = $825 in 2019 dollars) for which he got a receipt, and then prepared an anonymous letter with a photocopy of the receipt addressed to the Manchester Union Leader.

    2) Recuiting a spy to infiltrate the campaigns of several Democratic presisential candidates. Michael W. McMinoway, “introduced himself successively into the campaigns of Edmund Muskie, Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. Stone became his case officer, receiving intelligence from McMinoway via a post office box in Washington.”

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/roger-stone-richard-nixon

    This happpened because Nixon was interested in “dirty tricks” and had been jealous of what “Dick Tuck” had done against Nixon from 1950 to (mostly) 1962. This was in addition to general cynicism where everything was a focus of “Public Relations”

    Trump, on the other hand, somehow got rid of such people: Roger Stone, Stephen Bannon, Anthony Scaramucci all gone. Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn, both of whom may have bene corru[y, also gone. Also Corey Lewandowski, who in any ase didn’t try to convey a secret message. All that’s left is Stephen Miller, but his field s government (immigration) policy.

    Sammy Finkelman (ec94de)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4069 secs.