Patterico's Pontifications

6/11/2019

Amash Quits House Freedom Caucus

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 1:27 am



[Headline from DRJ]

The Week:

GOP Rep. Justin Amash quits House Freedom Caucus amid disagreements over Trump

— DRJ

177 Responses to “Amash Quits House Freedom Caucus”

  1. Once a quitter
    Always a quitter

    mg (21de20)

  2. Flow, my tears, fall from your springs!
    Exiled for ever, let me mourn
    Where night’s black bird her sad infamy sings
    There let me live forlorn.

    Voice and theorbo.

    nk (dbc370)

  3. The Freedom Caucus is now the Trump Establishment Caucus. True Libertarians are not wanted. The force of government must smash, because the geat and powerful Trump knows all, and everything else is fake news and the swamp.

    “Freedom” caucus…*snort*….There is nothing more pathetic than the ex-sort-of-Libertarian tea party types who line up behind Trump and his Great Patriotic War on the Enemies of the People.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  4. Well-said, Appalled.

    “Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.”
    – Churchill

    Dave (1bb933)

  5. Libertarians love to force their b.s. on hard working Americans. you people should try and run some dingbat for POTUS. May I suggest mittens/Ryan/2020.

    mg (21de20)

  6. Libertarian, my fat Aunt Fanny. A pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, anti-war on terror William J. Le Petomayne justifying his phony-baloney ineffectualness with obstructionism masquerading as libertarianism.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. Give Amash credit for actually reading the Mueller report, something the rest of the Freedom Caucus failed to do.

    Paul Montagu (a61762)

  8. “A man whose political principles have any decided character and who has energy enough to give them effect must always expect to encounter political hostility from those of adverse principles.” …………..Thomas Jefferson

    RUN JUSTIN RUN !

    The Conservative Curmudgeon (27d313)

  9. Amash/Schiff/2020

    mg (21de20)

  10. Amash/Nadless/2020

    mg (21de20)

  11. Amash/Swallowell/2020

    mg (21de20)

  12. Good for him.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  13. I was done with the HFC when it scuttled the first, best and only chance to seriously reform Obamacare into something that those it is imposed upon could live with. But no, people who had never had to make ends meet with a terribly broken — but in my state unavoidable — were dead set on posturing and virtue signalling at other people’s expense. And Amash was right there with them, so eff him.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  14. * …a terribly broken — but in my state unavoidable — PROGRAM were dead set on posturing…

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  15. Hey, it’s a free country – Amash may associate (or not) as he pleases, and his constituents will tell him whether they approve of his decision(s).

    After all, he’s got a lot of choice in House caucuses if he starts feeling lonely:

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

    ColoComment (f7fbd5)

  16. The goal of Obamacare was to destroy health care as we’ve known
    https://herald.report/who-is-murtaza-mohammad-hussain-of-the-intercept/

    The goal of the media is to prop up our Chinese overlords and would be Iranian ones

    Narciso (d76f90)

  17. Yes. Jefferson. Principles and all that.

    Even during the excesses of the Reign of Terror, Jefferson refused to disavow the revolution because he was “convinced that the fates of the two republics were indissolubly linked. “To back away from France would be to undermine the cause of republicanism in America.”
    http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/2012/08/20/the-increasingly-dumbing-down-of-the-far-right/
    …others.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  18. 2018 Amash: Vote for me Republicans – I support Trum and I’m a Conservative Freedom Caucus Member
    2019 Amash: Impeach Trum! And I’m quitting the FC. Maybe leaving the Republican Party too.

    Funny how he waited till AFTER he got re-elected to show his true self. Its sorta like Mitten waiting till AFTER he got Trump’s endorsement and got elected to attack Trump in the WaPo.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  19. Amash is a true Libertarian. Just like Bill Weld. And Bill Maher.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  20. 2018 Amash: Vote for me Republicans – I support Trum[p] and I’m a Conservative Freedom Caucus Member

    Please provide the quote and link to show Amash ran on supporting Trump.

    From what I know of him and what I know of you, I believe you made that up. Prove me wrong.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  21. The information in this article supports my belief that rcocean pulled that accusation from his hind quarters.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  22. “Hey, it’s a free country – Amash may associate (or not) as he pleases, and his constituents will tell him whether they approve of his decision(s).

    Yeah, you can say that about pretty much anything. Thanks.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  23. BTW, under the 1st Amendment Amash can say what he wants. who are we to disagree?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  24. And this:

    U.S. Rep. Justin Amash vows to remain vigilant under President Trump

    Updated Dec 15, 2016; Posted Dec 15, 2016

    GRAND RAPIDS, MI — Many congressional Republicans who once criticized Donald Trump the candidate have hurried to get in line behind the president-elect, seeing benefits of GOP control over the House, Senate and White House.

    But not U.S. Rep. Justin Amash.

    The Cascade Township Republican continued his criticism of Trump beyond his nomination to the ticket in August and beyond his victory in November’s presidential election.

    Amash said he was not elected to office to fight for “Team Republican,” but to directly represent the interests of his constituents.

    “I view my job as being the representative for everyone in the district, regardless of political party,” he said. “I will take positions that sometimes the political establishment – my own party – won’t like. I will take positions that sometimes the Trump administration won’t like. And sometimes I will take positions that the Democrats won’t like. My job is to be fair.”

    Amash initially endorsed Sen. Rand Paul, shifting his support to Sen. Ted Cruz when Paul dropped out of the race shortly after the Iowa Caucus.

    Unlike many of his fellow Republicans, who endorsed Trump when it became clear he would be the GOP nominee, Amash never formally gave the candidate his support. In fact, he said he would neither vote for Trump nor Clinton.

    DRJ (15874d)

  25. rcocean,

    I have accused you of making something up. Do not leave other comments and just ignore me. You should put up proof or retract.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  26. There is more at the link.

    DRJ (15874d)

  27. Funny how he waited till AFTER he got re-elected to show his true self.

    This is a scurrilous accusation and 100% wrong. Take it back.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  28. Good for him and the chicoms
    Bad for Americans

    mg (21de20)

  29. No he’ll just use any spurious accusation, like those concocted by weissman, amash will not let the truth get in the way of justice

    Narciso (d76f90)

  30. Narciso, please prove your claim.

    DRJ (15874d)

  31. https://reason.com/2018/08/24/rep-justin-amash-dont-impeach-trump-just/

    That’s the best I could do. So, did Amash Activitly praise Trump during his campaign? Not that I can find. But he didn’t run on Impeaching Trump or Opposing him either.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  32. This is a scurrilous accusation and 100% wrong. Take it back.

    On 2nd thought, I do take it back. After Googling it, Amash took quite a few shots at Trump BEFORE Jan 1, 2019. However, the quantity of attacks decreased significantly between August and November 2018.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  33. Amash has cited debunked charges, now hes going to side with the Democrats who want to wipe out all liberty that doesn’t concern carmal matters or the chamber of commerce replublicans

    Narciso (d76f90)

  34. Those are merely allegations, Narciso, not proof. Further, if Amash is now a liberal because liberals oppose Trump, too, then what does that make Trump who supports/says things many brutal dictators say?

    DRJ (15874d)

  35. Didnt say, if he wants to Join the John dean caucus, he’s free to do.

    Narciso (d76f90)

  36. @8: There are few principles more lofty and high minded than helping Dems overturn an election.

    Munroe (0a96e9)

  37. However, the quantity of attacks decreased significantly between August and November 2018.

    Or the Amash reports decreased because there were many other politicians also running for re-election for the media to quote.

    DRJ (15874d)

  38. 36. But I’m sure you’ll point out to us that one of those lofty and high minded principles that *you* espouse is, “ORANGE MAN GOOD!”

    Gryph (08c844)

  39. Amash in 2017:

    Trump admin & Establishment have merged into #Trumpstablishment. Same old agenda: Attack conservatives, libertarians & independent thinkers.

    Even then, the Trump Admin was publicly calling for Amash to be defeated in the GOP primary.

    DRJ (15874d)

  40. I appreciate the Powerline link, Narciso. Now I see where your view comes from. I wish they would look at Trump with the same scrutiny. After all, much of what Trump does could be blamed on his financial interests, but I’ve never seen them question that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  41. We learned with Cheney is you can never disengage enough from your business interests like Halliburton, if he could divest thered be a question who was the buyer.

    Narciso (d76f90)

  42. Da booshes, da Clinton’s and da Obama’s came out of their presidency wealthier than before their presidency. I hope the Donald cashs in. He deserves it.

    mg (21de20)

  43. Theres a long list of those who have been investigated indicted and or prosecuted and the convictions were reversed but ultimately justice wasnt done. I’ll spare the names since we know them already. I’ll be charitable and admit some like espy and Cisneros had weak foundations.

    Narciso (d76f90)

  44. 2018 Amash: Vote for me Republicans – I support Trum[p] and I’m a Conservative Freedom Caucus Member

    False.

    Paul Montagu (a61762)

  45. False.

    “Truth is not truth.”
    – Trump’s attorney

    Dave (54e341)

  46. #45 and #46. See #32.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  47. “Good for him.”

    Indeed, there’s no evidence he’s ever taken any action or position than wasn’t.

    Captain Strong (02f314)

  48. She said they would be ready at the pharmacy

    mg (21de20)

  49. Amash didn’t leave the House Freedom Caucus, which he helped found. The House Freedom Caucus left him. Unlike so many in the House but particularly in the Senate, and indeed the Republican party in general, who have so abandoned their principles it begs the question as to whether they ever had any to begin with, who have turned their blind eyes away from what is constitutional, legal, ethical, and moral to tilt their deaf ears to whatever Trump says, Amash has stood his ground on solid footing.

    He read the (redacted) Mueller report in full, all 400+ pages. In fact, as he said at the town hall meeting in his district, he spent several days going over every detail. He paid little attention to Barr’s disingenuous 4-page summary, his laughable press conference prior to the release of the report, or his scandalous testimony before committee, fraught with misleading misstatements and patently preconceived conclusions as they were. Though Amash was doubtless aware of the content and context of Barr’s misdirection, he focused solely on the actual findings in the Mueller report. Those he found were damning, and so he called for an impeachment inquiry.

    Gutless Republicans then damned him for taking a principled stance, isolated, ostracized and criticized him. Thus, in a sort of inverse take on Groucho Marx’s dictum–“I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member”–Amash basically said, “I won’t remain in a caucus that won’t have me as a member.” Even though he was a founding member of the caucus.

    That’s a brave stance to take in this political climate. But Amash has always said that his responsibility is to represent the constituents of his district, all of them, however his primary duty is to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Sometimes that position requires him to take a stance against the deluded will of the misled masses–that would be the Republican party as a whole. He received a standing ovation by his constituents at the town hall in his district for taking that stance and graciously, politely accepted criticism from the ill-informed Trumpsters in the audience. He called for civility and let them have their say, then intelligently refuted and corrected their false claims and misassumptions.

    Having left the House Freedom Caucus, will he now leave the Republican party? He should, as many conservative-libertarian constitutionalists find they are not welcome to the club anymore. Trumpism has usurped Republicanism, and shame on the Republicans for allowing it to do so.

    Is this all a prelude for Amash running for president on the Libertarian ticket? He says not, although he hasn’t yet ruled it out. He intends to run for reelection in his district as a Republican, perhaps because he believes the best way to reform the party is from within. I would agree with that position, if I thought the Republican party was worth saving, but it’s not. These hypocrites have so exposed themselves as blatant butt-lickers that it’s beyond the pale.

    Trumpublicanism has displaced Republicanism. Meaning, party members worship at the altar of Trump, who is a total fraud, and no longer stand for the Republic, to which they have sworn an oath to defend. Principles, ethics and morals? Out the window. Constitutionalism? Down the commode. Trump has so corrupted the party that it isn’t recognizable to anyone other than a cultist.

    Amash will probably do what he says he intends to do, run for reelection to the House in his district in 2020. And he will no doubt win, no matter who the Trumpublicans run in the primary against him. He’s very popular in his district, having won the last election by double digits. He may be planning to run for president in 2024, perhaps on the Libertarian ticket but more likely on the Republican ticket. As a conservative-libertarian constitutionalist, I would vote for him either way. We need more members like him in Congress, but more we need someone principled like him as the Executive.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  50. Rep. Amash is my congressional rep. Love him or hate him (for me it’s neither; I’ve voted for and against him in the past)–the man is thoroughly consistent and clear. You know for sure what you’re getting and why, and he’ll tell you all about it to your face.

    Nobody needs to guess at any position he’s ever had. Just look it up. He’s on the record.

    I don’t agree with most things he stands for but I have great respect for his transparency, communication, and accountability to his constituents.

    TR (2c5752)

  51. Ten steps to sobriety, fella.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  52. @50. No; ‘Trumplicanism’ has displaced conservatism, not ‘Republicanism.’

    “And that’s a good thing.” – Martha Stewart

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. In Amash’s defense, Jim Jordan and Louis Gohmert are in the ‘Freedom Caucus’ too; can’t knock a guy who parts ways with the likes of crazy and stupid.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  54. have you seen the flying monkeys in the democratic caucus, swalwell, cortez, raskin?

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/10/central-american-migrant-crisis/

    narciso (d1f714)

  55. Ten steps to sobriety, fella.

    Pretty sure it’s twelve.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  56. @57. But he already took two– slammed Trump and left the FC. The next ten toward the 60-plus House Dems will be long ones.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  57. Some people know crazy and stupid better than others

    mg (21de20)

  58. Love him or hate him (for me it’s neither; I’ve voted for and against him in the past)–the man is thoroughly consistent and clear.

    Really? So explain his position on impeachment. Tell me why he went from “Hey, we can’t be crazy and Impeach trump” to “Lets impeach Trump, even though Mueller refused to say he committed Obstruction or colluded with Russia” in just about 7 months.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  59. And just to be clear. It is NOT a “brave stance” to attack Trump in DC. The entire DC Establishment and MSM HATE Trump. Its like saying Amash did a “Brave thing” and came out for Transgender rights or Open borders or Amnesty.

    In 2020, he’ll either leave Congress and get a nice cushy job on Wall Street – OR he’ll run as a D or I. But he’s only made friends with the rich and powerful by attacking TRump.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  60. libertarians are the Toledo Mudhens of political parties.

    mg (8cbc69)

  61. @59. Dean certainly does; and he roundly put their likes in their place on national television yesterday.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  62. @60. Why don’t you explain Mike Lee on Trump, first. Then Cruz.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. @60. Why don’t you explain Mike Lee on Trump, first. Then Cruz.

    No. I never said they consistent on Trump. Any other “You too” arguments?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  64. Nothing works as well as a convicted hack as your star witness.

    mg (8cbc69)

  65. A

    mash will probably do what he says he intends to do, run for reelection to the House in his district in 2020. And he will no doubt win, no matter who the Trumpublicans run in the primary against him. He’s very popular in his district, having won the last election by double digits.

    He won’t win again by “double digits”. There’s ZERO reason for Trump to support him or for any Trump supporter to vote for him. He’s not even a reliable republican vote. And his D Buddies, who now praise his “Brave Stance on Trump” will all be voting for the D.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  66. @65. Cornyn… MConnell… and special guest star, the always refreshing and effervescent Lindsey Graham.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  67. Mike Lee will never be a supreme court justice.
    Thank God.

    mg (8cbc69)

  68. @66. Especially when damning tape recordings back you up 99.99999%

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. Amash is in the same position as Matt Lewis. Matt’s over at the “Daily Beast” writing weekly columns attacking Trump and getting praise from the Left for “Bravely attacking Trump”. But almost no one on the Right cares what he says, or reads the “Daily Beast”

    Even if Trump loses in 2020, no one on the Right will forget Matt Lewis constant, incessant attacks on the Trump and his supporters. And almost no one will forget Amash’s support for impeachment. The only question is how long will the Left continue to praise these “useful idiots” who are helping them regain power?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  70. This just in: John Dean has declared Trump-Russia “worst then Watergate”

    Astounding. Trump resignation expected tomorrow.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  71. Our greatest political minds are libertarians. Bill Maher. Bill Weld. Arnold. Bob Barr. Gary Johnston. Harry Browne. Ron Paul.

    Giants that walk the earth.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  72. rcocean – 73 makes me smile.

    mg (8cbc69)

  73. rcocean:

    I find it hard to reconcile your #61 with your #71. Unless you figure that anyone who doesn’t agree with Trump’s takeover of the “Right” really just wanted to be a Democrat or a lobbyist.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  74. I find it hard to reconcile your #61 with your #71.

    Well, that’s sad.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  75. @74. 73 makes me smile.

    Fairy tales and Buttered Corn Niblets.

    ‘Ho, ho, ho!’ – Green Giant

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  76. Except for trade policy and post 2001 interventions what is fundamentally different t with trump from standard republicanism. And certainly the former needs to be revised in light of current circumstances

    Narciso (a08d6b)

  77. The longest we intervened in a country for 19 years, and you saw what a bang up job that was.

    Narciso (a08d6b)

  78. 76. Rocean I think your mistake, if indeed “mistake” is an appropriate word to describe your malice, is in equating dislike of Trump on the right with the blind hatred on the left.

    Given Trump’s history of stiffing contractors, abusing eminent domain, and otherwise associating with the cream-of-the-sleaze of Manhattan high society, I think one of the things I hate about Trump the most is how compelled I feel to defend him from charges of leftist slander when those occasions do happen; and happen, they most certainly do.

    It is not slanderous to call Trump an unrepentant sleazebag. It is not slanderous to point out that Schlichterites don’t care that he is an unrepentant sleazebag. In fact, Schlichterites might point out that being an unrepentant sleazebag is practically a requirement for running for elected office. They would be correct in pointing that out. Just as it would be correct (and ergo not slanderous) to call Trump an eminent domain abuser, and to point out that he has gamed the bankruptcy courts to the detriment of his creditors on multiple occasions.

    If this is the cart you want to hitch your horse to, fine. But it all says as much about the character of Trump’s most diehard Schlichterite supporters as it says about Trump.

    Gryph (08c844)

  79. Here’s the closing paragraph from REASONS’ article on Amash:

    It was a call to place individual commitments over party power and to uphold a system of government that can offer more than two bad choices, but rarely does. Almost alone among Republicans, Amash seems up to this task.

    Now, if R’s place individual commitments over party power, and the D’s DO NOT. what happens? The D’s win. That’s why you almost NEVER see the MSM attacking Libertarians. They know Libertarian success will weaken the R’s and lead to a D Win.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  80. @8. “Oooooo, Massa Tommy, me loves it when you gets to talkin’ dirty.” – Sally Hemings

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. @80 I judge Trump’s character by his actions as POTUS. I also compare his “character” to those of his opponents. There’s no point in voting against a man because he has one eye, when his opponent is blind.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  82. Really? So explain his position on impeachment. Tell me why he went from “Hey, we can’t be crazy and Impeach trump” to “Lets impeach Trump, even though Mueller refused to say he committed Obstruction or colluded with Russia” in just about 7 months.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 6/11/2019 @ 12:14 pm

    Apparently he read the report, looked at the evidence, and came to the conclusion that Trumps behavior constituted obstruction. That seems pretty strait forward to me. Aren’t you supposed to re-examine your position when relevant information becomes available? The timing seems to line up. Do you have any evidence that his view isn’t based on the details of the report?

    And just to be clear. It is NOT a “brave stance” to attack Trump in DC. The entire DC Establishment and MSM HATE Trump. Its like saying Amash did a “Brave thing” and came out for Transgender rights or Open borders or Amnesty.

    In 2020, he’ll either leave Congress and get a nice cushy job on Wall Street – OR he’ll run as a D or I. But he’s only made friends with the rich and powerful by attacking TRump.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 6/11/2019 @ 12:17 pm

    Amash’s family and life are not based in DC, or wall street, they’re based in West Michigan.

    Why is it so hard for you to believe that a man who has shown a strong adherence to his principles his entire political life is acting based on principle here?

    Why is your every analysis of his motivation that he’s venal and craving in the adoration of Democrats when nothing in his past is consistent with that?

    Why does it HAVE to be that he’s a villain and not just someone that came to a different conclusion than you regarding Trump’s behavior in the Russia investigation?

    Time123 (53ef45)

  83. 83. I reject your premise that he is any better than his opponents. You might as well try to argue with me that 2 + 2 = 5. No amount of moral preening will change the fact that Donald Trump was a Democrat until just before he had to switch for the sake of political expediency.

    Gryph (08c844)

  84. Now, if R’s place individual commitments over party power, and the D’s DO NOT. what happens? The D’s win.

    And if the results on the issues I prioritize are the same regardless of who wins why i do care who wins? I get no emotional satisfaction from a given party winning an election.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  85. 84.

    Why does it HAVE to be that he’s a villain and not just someone that came to a different conclusion than you regarding Trump’s behavior in the Russia investigation?

    Didn’t you get the memo? “ORANGE MAN GOOD!”

    Gryph (08c844)

  86. 86. Unfortunately, a lot of Schlichterites do.

    Gryph (08c844)

  87. There’s no point in voting against a man because he has one eye, when his opponent is blind.

    And no point in saying the one eyed man has great depth perception.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  88. @80. “It’s not slanderous to call Trump an unrepentant sleazebag.”

    Are you kidding? There’s a city ordinance with fines if you don’t. And that goes for everybody else crossing Fifth at 49th around lunch hour. You’ve never spent any time in Noo Yawk, have you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c412hqucHKw

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  89. 90. I’m about as un-New York as they come. South Dakota born-and-raised.

    Gryph (08c844)

  90. Did you work at Austads?

    mg (8cbc69)

  91. did you vote for pressler, at any time?

    narciso (d1f714)

  92. “Apparently he read the report, looked at the evidence, and came to the conclusion that Trumps behavior constituted obstruction. That seems pretty strait forward to me. Aren’t you supposed to re-examine your position when relevant information becomes available? The timing seems to line up. Do you have any evidence that his view isn’t based on the details of the report?”

    I think he read the polls, looked at his Congressional future as a ‘moderate’ Chamber of Commerce Republican, looked at his wallet, looked at his previous business’s dealings with China, and came to the conclusion that opposing Trump was in his own best interest.

    Why pretend otherwise?

    “Amash’s family and life are not based in DC, or wall street, they’re based in West Michigan.”

    Hahahahahaha……No. Where a man’s treasure is, there will his heart be also, no matter where he has to canvass every two years or so or how he makes his libertarian protest votes. His ‘life’, as you call it, is based on his Chinese business connections, which can buy whatever family and life he wants in whatever state or country he wants. Preferably far away from here.

    They money men are gamely trying to make him the next MAVERICK MCCAIN that TAKES ON THE BROKEN TWO-PARTY SYSTEM but are hampered by the fact that he looks too much like them-cowardly, fat, and depressive even in the pictures for articles that are supposed to make him look good.

    Because as it turns out, being a cheap foreign tool is a lot less appealing than selling them.

    Captain Strong (05abd5)

  93. he’s been punching down since Kinnock,

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/11/michael-avenatti-joe-biden-slogan/

    narciso (d1f714)

  94. DRJ, at 34:

    > what does that make Trump who supports/says things many brutal dictators say?

    quite clearly it means that the people you’re calling brutal dictators aren’t actually brutal dictators, it’s just that the lying liberal media made you believe they are.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  95. I imagine this has probably been addressed,, but good lord, are you really serious:

    Really? So explain his position on impeachment. Tell me why he went from “Hey, we can’t be crazy and Impeach trump” to “Lets impeach Trump, even though Mueller refused to say he committed Obstruction or colluded with Russia” in just about 7 months.

    Do you know the the Muller report dropped during that time?
    And that he actually read it? (Unlike you, I’m guessing? – don’t feel bad, I haven’t had the time to read more that the extracts either).

    He changed his mind due to to the facts laid out in the Muller report.
    He changed his mind due to NEW information being available and assimilating it and deciding to change an opinion he previously held.
    I know that changing now days, your one’s on anything is no longer en vogue; but come on, man.
    Are you really that blinded by your obeisance to Trump that you can’t even understand that someone else could possible change their mind, even if you can’t, won’t, or don’t want to?

    Tom M (55c638)

  96. Wow – butchered that and hit send too quickly – it should read…
    I know that now a days, changing one’s on anything is no longer en vogue; but come on, man.

    Takes the burn out of it a bit!
    Sorry!

    Tom M (55c638)

  97. A moment of “Biden Time” :

    Jaws opens in theatres across America; June, 1975

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  98. Apparently he read the report, looked at the evidence, and came to the conclusion that Trumps behavior constituted obstruction. That seems pretty strait forward to me. Aren’t you supposed to re-examine your position when relevant information becomes available? The timing seems to line up. Do you have any evidence that his view isn’t based on the details of the report?”

    I was hoping for something more specific than that, but apparently not.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  99. see the powerline link upthread, to see how ridiculous that is, not to mention relying on the likes of George nader, a creepy fixer out of the big sleep, as a witness, leaving out the western intelligence connections of mifsud and klimnik, relying on dubious attributions from crowdstrike,

    narciso (d1f714)

  100. quite clearly it means that the people you’re calling brutal dictators aren’t actually brutal dictators, it’s just that the lying liberal media made you believe they are.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/11/2019 @ 3:59 pm

    Is that the same liberal media that went gaga over the North Korean propagandist at the Olympics when they thought it would be used against Trump? Just trying to understand.

    NJRob (cc027b)

  101. 92 and 93 — both no.

    Gryph (08c844)

  102. No, they dont count, only when they were screaming he was going to start world war 3

    Narciso (a08d6b)

  103. I find this all incredible really and for the most part intellectually disgusting and defamatory.

    Mueller did his job with the utmost professionalism. He conducted his investigation without passion or prejudice, and presented his findings to the DOJ and intentionally to Congress. At no time did he impugn the president, because it was not his position or place to suggest innocence or guilt, but rather to present his findings, based on the evidence. That he did, and he will let his report speak for itself.

    The Special Counsel does not issue indictments, regarding sitting presidents, as per DOJ policy. That is left to the House, which is the Grand Jury in this case. Should the House decide to indict, that is to impeach, after reviewing the evidence presented, then the case will proceed to trial. The Senate is the Court in that instance. It is not only the judge but the jury as well.

    That’s how the system is set up in this constitutional republic. Only two presidents have ever been impeached by the House–Johnson and Clinton–and neither were convicted or removed from office by the Senate. (Nixon surely would have been the first to be impeached and convicted, but he resigned before facing that inglorious decision.)

    Let the system work. That’s Amash’s position. He’s reviewed the evidence and called for an inquiry. That is what any intelligent, responsible representative would do. Yet look at all the shame, defamation and ridicule that has been heaped upon him by Trumpublicans, those who sold their souls to stand for Trump and not the Constitution. This act, defending Trump, only reveals the depth of their hypocrisy and corruption.

    The Republican party is no more. Let it go the way of the Whigs. It no longer stands for any of the principles it once stood for–limited government, individual rights, free markets and free trade. As if apparently the party ever stood for any of those principles, when obviously the members did not. Those who chose Trump chose a Dump. Yet they somehow managed to win a small majority in the Electoral College. The deluded and the inconspicuous win! The marks of the con man win! They will always praise the con man, because that is what marks do. Even after he has robbed them of everything, all of the money and their dignity included. Belief perseverance and contradiction denial is all. The mark doesn’t want to admit that he’s been robbed blind.

    So it goes with Republicans these days. They can’t admit that they’ve sold their souls or allowed their souls to be stolen. At least Amash has the integrity to stand on principle. For that, I would vote for him, if I lived in his district. Should he run as a third-party candidate, I would vote for him. It wouldn’t take two seconds for me to click that switch. I am a conservative-libertarian constitutionalist, and the Republican, now Trumpublican, party, as well as the Democratic party, has not earned my vote. I am but one vote out of millions. I understand that, but I am not about to compromise on principles.

    Trump is a total fraud, and therefore the entire Republican party, if it can be called that anymore, is a total fraud.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  104. The first head-to-head match-ups are coming out, and they’re not looking good for the incumbent.

    In a first look at head-to-head 2020 presidential matchups nationwide, several Democratic challengers lead President Donald Trump, with former Vice President Joseph Biden ahead 53 – 40 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.
    In other matchups, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds:
    – Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over President Trump 51 – 42 percent;
    – California Sen. Kamala Harris ahead of Trump 49 – 41 percent;
    – Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tops Trump 49 – 42 percent;
    – South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg edges Trump 47 – 42 percent;
    – New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker by a nose over Trump 47 – 42 percent.

    We’ll see how the head-to-heads look in the battleground states, but all of the above have greater spreads than the 2016 popular vote.

    Paul Montagu (a61762)

  105. We learned with Cheney is you can never disengage enough from your business interests like Halliburton, if he could divest thered be a question who was the buyer.

    Narciso (d76f90) — 6/11/2019 @ 8:53 am

    So your response to unfair treatment of Cheney is to treat Amash unfairly?

    DRJ (15874d)

  106. We’ll see how the head-to-heads look in the battleground states, but all of the above have greater spreads than the 2016 popular vote.

    They’re undercounting the Russian vote.

    Dave (1bb933)

  107. “The first head-to-head match-ups are coming out, and they’re not looking good for the incumbent.”
    Paul Montagu (a61762) — 6/11/2019 @ 6:45 pm

    According to polls, the incumbent is Hillary.

    “Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump in a general election match-up if the election were held today, a new poll shows. Clinton beats Trump, 49% to 39%, head-to-head.“
    https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll/index.html

    Munroe (9a2fa9)

  108. Yes well Romney and McCain got no margin in the electoral college, why the top men thought they would amount to anything.

    Narciso (a08d6b)

  109. According to polls, the incumbent is Hillary.

    It’s why I mentioned the head-to-heads in the battleground states. It’s all about winning a constitutional majority.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  110. Well California is zombieland Massachusetts ditto I find Indiana a very dubious no.

    Narciso (a08d6b)

  111. 106. The greater the name recognition, the greater the victory margin of the Democrat in that poll. The people being polled must be being pushed to make a choice and not leave it as don’t know, and/or a slight degree of leaning is ocounted as for.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  112. Sammy at 114. Those polls should always have a third choice: Tar and feather both of them, and run them out of town. I’d bet it would garner the majority. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  113. Sammy at 114. Those polls should always have a third choice: Tar and feather both of them, and run them out of town. I’d bet it would garner the majority. 😉

    nk (dbc370) — 6/12/2019 @ 4:37 am

    NK, I’m with you baby. Got Team C!

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  114. They money men are gamely trying to make him the next MAVERICK MCCAIN that TAKES ON THE BROKEN TWO-PARTY SYSTEM but are hampered by the fact that he looks too much like them-cowardly, fat, and depressive even in the pictures for articles that are supposed to make him look good.

    I smell Steppe Nomad.

    What is this about Amash being fat? Whaaaat?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  115. That’s the best I could do. So, did Amash Activitly praise Trump during his campaign? Not that I can find. But he didn’t run on Impeaching Trump or Opposing him either.

    He said, according to your own link, that we should wait for the Mueller report and not just impeach him because we don’t like him.

    According to Amash, the allegations against the president should be “taken seriously.” But before acting in a way that could affect Trump’s tenure, Congress should wait for Mueller to release the results of his investigation into Russian election meddling:

    We should allow Robert Mueller to complete his investigation and issue his report before taking any action potentially affecting the president’s tenure.

    — Justin Amash (@justinamash) August 23, 2018

    Your allegation of “hypocrisy” is that before the Mueller report, he said don’t impeach him before the Mueller report comes out — but now that the Mueller report has come out, he’s CHANGING HIS TUNE and saying impeach.

    Lamest argument ever. That’s all you got, rcocean? Good Lord.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  116. rcocean,

    Why don’t you just come out and say it: “I don’t like him because he doesn’t like Trump, and I have absolutely no other argument against him, and my accusations of hypocrisy by him turn out to be horseshit”?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  117. On 2nd thought, I do take it back. After Googling it, Amash took quite a few shots at Trump BEFORE Jan 1, 2019. However, the quantity of attacks decreased significantly between August and November 2018.

    The article I linked has an attack in October. I don’t believe your subjective and unevidenced assertion.

    Meanwhile, having kinda sorta retracted your accusation you still proceed to act as if he has been a hypocrite on impeachment when I just explained the very simple and straightforward reason for his change: the Mueller report came out and he read it. Full stop.

    You have zero evidence of hypocrisy and your arguments are laughably lame.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  118. Here’s the fatty himself.

    Fatty Amash

    Patterico (115b1f)

  119. And here’s Steppe Nomad:

    Patterico (115b1f)

  120. The greater the name recognition, the greater the victory margin of the Democrat in that poll.

    Trump has great name recognition and he can’t poll above 42% against any Democrat. He might have a chance against Sweet Meteor of Death, but I wouldn’t put money on it.

    Paul Montagu (a61762)

  121. Meanwhile veritas has been blocked for pointing out pinterest has been defaming Ben Shapiro

    Narciso (cf3695)

  122. What do you care, you want him gone, so the Iranians can get their bomb, and the feds our guns.

    Narciso (cf3695)

  123. And here’s Steppe Nomad:

    Which is, of course, in no way shape or form a personal attack. I really do not understand why people think that they can call something that walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck “a duck”. It is so wrong. What they should do is point to a misrepresentation a duck has made and then use that same misrepresentation, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, as being what that duck is.

    It’s all about civility, you understand.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  124. But Paul, a libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky who has grown close with Trump, said Amash got it all wrong. He called the Mueller report the “antithesis of libertarianism.”

    “I actually think the libertarian position on the investigation is ― you know, libertarians, we’ve been very, very critical of the intelligence community having too much power, including congressman Amash has said, you know, really you should have to get a warrant before you get an American’s records,” Paul told HuffPost in a brief interview on Wednesday.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/justin-amash-rand-paul-impeachment_n_5ce5bc07e4b0547bd131e946

    Munroe (052192)

  125. Which is, of course, in no way shape or form a personal attack. I really do not understand why people think that they can call something that walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck “a duck”. It is so wrong. What they should do is point to a misrepresentation a duck has made and then use that same misrepresentation, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, as being what that duck is.

    It’s all about civility, you understand.

    Steppe Nomad is a troll who uses multiple names and IPs to avoid the filter. He is not entitled to civility, and a joke at his expense after he calls Justin Amash (who is very trim) “fat” is not out of bounds.

    I know you have repeatedly had issues with the rules on personal attacks so I hope that clears it up for you. If you troll and violate the rules by using multiple names to avoid moderation, you deserve what you get and you get what you deserve.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  126. Most trolls and spammers go straight to moderation but there are a few who never give up trying to bypass the spam filter. The effort they put in to comment here is impressive.

    DRJ (15874d)

  127. 130. I don’t find trolls very amusing. Being trolled or being a troll. Pat is far more tolerant than I would be.

    Gryph (08c844)

  128. 114 etc

    I think what these polls (and other ones) show is that there’s consderable fear of unknown names.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  129. Trolls are in the eye of the beholder, like say ridiculing the circumstances of Texas resident during hurricane harvey:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Shabbosgoy/status/1138841101081686016

    Narciso (cf3695)

  130. Thewre’s fear of the unknown candidate among asegment of voters, so the better known Democrats do slightly better in a poll of various names versus Donald Trump (at least when people are pressed t mae choices and/or the small leanings counted) but I think the generic Democrat does better than any named Democrat.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  131. Ah, so this Steppe Nomad character (I don’t believe I’ve had the pleasure) in some way made a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. With no intention at all of making or furthering a valid point or criticism. Thus he(?) is open to abuse and the impugning of his character. Instead of him being simply forgotten and ignored as is normally the case with ostricization. This is why he was (I presume) banned? Unless of course he is present in some other form, by which I presume you may mean “Captain Strong”? In which case why not ban this Captain character? Unless you don’t know for sure it is him. But taking pot shots at people who are no longer here to defend themselves is A-OK. And I’m sure enhances with the civility thing that is ever so important.

    As for troll, I find that to be a very overused, subjective, contextual pejorative. For instance, were one to comment on say a site dedicated to Taylor Swift and point out politely that her latest performance was terrible, would that be a troll? Or would it only be so if you said she was a terrible singer? How many terrible performances would it take to legitimately dismiss her as a bad singer? Of course given the hyper-fandom on such sites you would be asking for trouble regardless of your intent. Would it matter if say Katy Perry and/or her fans were being constantly smeared in the comments? Only using this example to be a little less abstract.

    BTW, where are these rules written down? They seem a little complicated, what with their exceptions, shades, hues, whathaveyou, and a quick search of this page I find no reference/link to rules. I do see a link on how to wish away annoying commenters (trolls even?) so as to enhance one’s experience, but I don’t see a link to the rules themselves.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  132. Mr. Nomad has appeared regularly under various names for years, and there are a few others like that. Hang around awhile and you will notice them, too. The spam filter catches most of it. There are literally a thousand spam comments every week.

    DRJ (15874d)

  133. Try this.

    DRJ (15874d)

  134. Ah, so this Steppe Nomad character (I don’t believe I’ve had the pleasure) in some way made a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. With no intention at all of making or furthering a valid point or criticism.

    It wasn’t some way, it was in many ways. And they keep coming back under new names. It’s not like they’re a running gag. I can’t recall anyone bringing him up other than a new sock puppet.

    BTW, where are these rules written down? They seem a little complicated, what with their exceptions, shades, hues, whathaveyou, and a quick search of this page I find no reference/link to rules. I do see a link on how to wish away annoying commenters (trolls even?) so as to enhance one’s experience, but I don’t see a link to the rules themselves.

    It’s pretty straight forward. Maintain a consistent user name, argue in good faith, avoid personal attacks, and be honest. If you make a mistake, apologize. Same sorts of things you’d do if you were talking to someone that you had a modicum of respect and consideration for IRL.

    From what I’ve seen violations are called out with a warning and request for improved behavior and / or a apology. Most people don’t seem to have a problem with it.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  135. Side question for the language nerds on here.

    As for troll, I find that to be a very overused, subjective, contextual pejorative.

    A pejorative is an expression of contempt or disapproval. Is it possible to express disapproval in a way that isn’t subjective and a matter of context?

    I can think of a lot of examples of where something is / is not an expression of disapproval is very impacted by context but I’m having a hard time coming up with a counter example. Anybody got one?

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  136. In my experience, the main reason people get banned is commenting under multiple names. There are many other reasons, but most commenters are not deliberately trying to be difficult and will moderate themselves when asked. But there are a few who are not interested in discussion and want to be insulting, and they also tend to change names to avoid being called out and/or multiply the impact. FYI, there is another rule here that you have to comment under a consistent name.

    DRJ (15874d)

  137. Well said, Time123 #138.

    DRJ (15874d)

  138. Try this.

    Well, don’t say I didn’t try. That narrative seems quite subjective. I was hoping for something a little more concrete, some sort of list, bullet points if you will, of specific rules, possibly with examples such that one could discern some of the subtle differences I see certain commenters being harshly criticized for. Also from the link, dated 9/15/2018 I see:

    From the Trump-supporting right I have seen excellent honesty and civility from commenters such as “GOOCH” and Stephen J.

    Now that was what, only nine months ago? I don’t recall a Stephen J. nor a GOOCH but the GOOCH handle seemed easily searchable so I did a little hunting around. Looks like he last commented here back in April where he seemed to be getting rather frustrated fighting off NTers. And digging back I see a trump supporter named Colonel Haiku who apparently commented alot on those pages, what happened to him? I don’t hang out here much but it seems like if used for example, Stephen J. and GOOCH were regulars and also this Haiku guy should have popped up recently.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  139. Then try Time123’s comment 138. It looks right to me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  140. I can’t recall anyone bringing him up other than a new sock puppet.

    Patterico is the one who referenced him here. I have no recollection of anyone here using that handle.

    It’s pretty straight forward. Maintain a consistent user name, argue in good faith, avoid personal attacks, and be honest. If you make a mistake, apologize. Same sorts of things you’d do if you were talking to someone that you had a modicum of respect and consideration for IRL.

    Well apparently it’s not. And to “avoid personal attacks”, apparently this only applies to certain people. My interest stems from, was it last week?, where I believe Kevin M. or someone got called out for saying someone’s leftist leanings were being exposed. Seemed like a very benign comment to me but it upset that person to a degree that they cried about it and the correction police came out. At the time I questioned if observing that something walks/talks/looks like a duck could be called a duck. If one is so serious about the rules it seems like it’s not too much to ask that the rules be clearly stated in a location that is easily accessible. Otherwise corrective actions can appear to be quite arbitrary.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  141. the main reason people get banned is commenting under multiple names.

    That seems a bit disingenuous. Per the concern, these people seem to be commenting under multiple names because they were banned in the first place. So it’s probably not the “main” reason but more likely the secondary reason. Hence a clarification, plainly stated, might help considerably with an even application of the rules. True, subjectivity is unavoidable but why not try to moderate the degree of subjectivity involved. Especially as this seems to be an ongoing issue. Especially as the majority of those who seem to feel the rules are obvious are on one side of the main issue here. That’s a glaring red flag for a lack of objectivity in the application of the rules. I don’t understand the objection to clarity. Or perhaps I do…

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  142. If they are banned, coming back under other names makes them the disingenuous ones.

    DRJ (15874d)

  143. Well apparently it’s not. And to “avoid personal attacks”, apparently this only applies to certain people. My interest stems from, was it last week?, where I believe Kevin M. or someone got called out for saying someone’s leftist leanings were being exposed. Seemed like a very benign comment to me but it upset that person to a degree that they cried about it and the correction police came out. At the time I questioned if observing that something walks/talks/looks like a duck could be called a duck. If one is so serious about the rules it seems like it’s not too much to ask that the rules be clearly stated in a location that is easily accessible. Otherwise corrective actions can appear to be quite arbitrary.

    PTw (cbfa7c) — 6/12/2019 @ 10:56 am

    That was me. Don’t want Kevin to be mistaken for my words. I comment here less than I used to. Don’t want to fight with people I respect and I don’t want to bother provoking the leftist trolls who will try and silence my speech.

    I also wonder what happened to Haiku.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  144. Here’s a strategy: Try to avoid being an a-hole, especially to Patterico.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  145. and jd, left and hoagie was driven off, and the Philadelphia doc found this not worth the trouble, you might want to consider that,

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. If they are banned, coming back under other names makes them the disingenuous ones.

    Sigh…my point was that saying that “the main reason people get banned is commenting under multiple names” is a disingenuous reason for explaining why people get banned. At least in this context. It would seem that they wouldn’t be commenting under multiple names if they hadn’t been banned for some prior reason. Or are you saying that because they were being disingenuous, that somehow justifies your disingenuous explanation to me? Or are you just being glib? I’m cool with glib so long as it’s acceptable all the way around and it doesn’t hurt someone else’s feelings further down the line. Which would be a nice thing to have clearly stated.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  147. I am not being glib. If someone is banned, they are not welcome and should not come back under any name.

    DRJ (15874d)

  148. In other words, they are banned for some reason and then come back under other names and are banned again.

    DRJ (15874d)

  149. I also wonder what happened to Haiku.

    The name kinda jumped out at me while searching other threads. Who was this Stephen J. character? I’m guessing his shining example disappeared as well? Google Advanced Search for some reason keeps bringing back every Stephen, even when I put quotes around it. Not sure why.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  150. My earlier point was that some people use different names to avoid previous bans or if they do not want to be held accountable for earlier comments/insults.

    DRJ (15874d)

  151. I’m not being glib…In other words, they are banned for some reason and then come back under other names and are banned again.

    But you were effectively saying that the main reason people were banned effectively was for previously having been banned. I’m just saying that makes no sense. While trying to make some sense of all of this.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  152. I also wonder what happened to Haiku.

    Me too. Hope he’s okay.

    nk (dbc370)

  153. the main reason people get banned is commenting under multiple names.

    That seems a bit disingenuous. Per the concern, these people seem to be commenting under multiple names because they were banned in the first place. So it’s probably not the “main” reason but more likely the secondary reason. Hence a clarification, plainly stated, might help considerably with an even application of the rules. True, subjectivity is unavoidable but why not try to moderate the degree of subjectivity involved. Especially as this seems to be an ongoing issue. Especially as the majority of those who seem to feel the rules are obvious are on one side of the main issue here. That’s a glaring red flag for a lack of objectivity in the application of the rules. I don’t understand the objection to clarity. Or perhaps I do…

    I don’t think anyone is objecting to clarity. I’m saying that it seems pretty clear to me what the expectation is. What part do you feel isn’t clear?

    Don’t attack people personally? Don’t mis-characterize other’s opinions? Argue in good faith? Maintain a consistent handle?

    If you see one of the bloggers applying an inconsistent standard say so. They’re usually willing listen or explain themselves.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  154. If they are banned, coming back under other names makes them the disingenuous ones.

    Sigh…my point was that saying that “the main reason people get banned is commenting under multiple names” is a disingenuous reason for explaining why people get banned. At least in this context. It would seem that they wouldn’t be commenting under multiple names if they hadn’t been banned for some prior reason. Or are you saying that because they were being disingenuous, that somehow justifies your disingenuous explanation to me? Or are you just being glib? I’m cool with glib so long as it’s acceptable all the way around and it doesn’t hurt someone else’s feelings further down the line. Which would be a nice thing to have clearly stated.

    PTw (cbfa7c) — 6/12/2019 @ 11:27 am

    Bolded by me.

    I think Glib is allowed. I also think that if you’re glib and hurt someone’s feelings they might say so and expect an apology. One of the mods can correct me if i have this wrong.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  155. But you were effectively saying that the main reason people were banned effectively was for previously having been banned. I’m just saying that makes no sense. While trying to make some sense of all of this.

    PTw (cbfa7c) — 6/12/2019 @ 11:36 am

    Let me try again. I assumed you know more about this website than you actually know.

    First, over many years, there have been commenters who had/caused problems. They were asked not to do things, leave or be banned. Regarding the ones who left or were banned, a few keep coming back under other names. It happened enough that Patterico has a Consistent Name Rule, so using a new name is itself the basis to be banned.

    There are exceptions. Sometimes people comment and don’t come back for several weeks or months, so they use a new name (not caring or remembering that they used a different name before). That isn’t a problem. The problem is commenter who use new names to avoid a ban, consequences, or conversations. And while, over time, that is far more common than other problems, most commenters are sincerely interested in discussion.

    By the way, here is an early example of a commenter using multiple names — most at the same time — and one reason why he has this rule. You may enjoy it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  156. That was me. Don’t want Kevin to be mistaken for my words. I comment here less than I used to. Don’t want to fight with people I respect and I don’t want to bother provoking the leftist trolls who will try and silence my speech.

    I also wonder what happened to Haiku.

    NJRob, I think I’ve disagreed with you a lot about Trump. Not sure if you consider me a leftist troll or not. But I can tell you that I haven’t posted anything here for the purpose of making you (or anyone else) angry and that I don’t want to silence you. I know I have gotten frustrated at things you’ve written, but I believe you are sincere and appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.

    I hope Haiku is OK.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  157. Well I guess I’m just as exasperated as you are.

    If you see one of the bloggers applying an inconsistent standard say so. They’re usually willing listen or explain themselves.

    Don’t attack people personally? Don’t mis-characterize other’s opinions?

    Yet there seems to be an exception for attacking people who are not permitted (under their original handles anyway) to defend themselves. Especially given that there is no list available for the casual observer to see who is and who is not persona non grata, when that someone is effectively being called a big fat slob it certainly doesn’t convey an environment of civility. And when you consider that a present commenter was being attacked for being someone previously banned, without submitting some sort of evidence of this, isn’t that pretty much as literal of a mis-characterization as one can get? There seem to be other exceptions as well and some other commenters have pointed them out. So perhaps the clarity and willingness to listen are only obvious from a certain perspective?

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  158. Further, while most problems over the past years have been from people trying to comment under new identities, there are different problems since Trump was nominated. Things have gotten more personal between commenters, and recent rules are aimed at that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  159. Sigh. Christoph was not banned for using multiple identities. He was banned because after around his fourth or fifth asseverational gallimaufry seasoned with perfervid rhetoric, he would start getting nasty. Real nasty. But for some reason he cannot stay away, so he keeps coming back under a multitude of noms and IPs.

    nk (dbc370)

  160. Well I guess I’m just as exasperated as you are.

    If you see one of the bloggers applying an inconsistent standard say so. They’re usually willing listen or explain themselves.

    Don’t attack people personally? Don’t mis-characterize other’s opinions?

    Yet there seems to be an exception for attacking people who are not permitted (under their original handles anyway) to defend themselves. Especially given that there is no list available for the casual observer to see who is and who is not persona non grata, when that someone is effectively being called a big fat slob it certainly doesn’t convey an environment of civility. And when you consider that a present commenter was being attacked for being someone previously banned, without submitting some sort of evidence of this, isn’t that pretty much as literal of a mis-characterization as one can get? There seem to be other exceptions as well and some other commenters have pointed them out. So perhaps the clarity and willingness to listen are only obvious from a certain perspective?

    I’m not exasperated. I didn’t mean to come across that way.

    I think you’re right, the Gif’s are inconsistent with solemn civility. They were funny though. How about this, if you feel insulted by the gifs say so, ask for an apology and we can both see what happens? So far no one has stated any problem with them. You’ve made no statement that you’re upset. You just seem to be concerned about the abstract application of the blogs comment policy. Which is a different thing.

    Accusing someone of Being Steppe Nomad is a heck of an insult. That guy was, in my opinion, a nasty piece of work. Others are free to disagree with me on this but I thought he was really dim, rude, dishonest, openly racist, and a confusing writer.
    So I do think our host should either apologize for comparing someone to that him, or make the assertion that it was indeed another sock puppet. I mean honestly I think anyone that remembered Steppe Nomad would really hurt to be mistaken for them.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  161. @106. Hillary was measuring the drapes, too.

    You’d think by now “folks” would realize that media “folks” lie to these polling “folks” routinely– particularly about Trump. The pollsters had him losing… right up until he won.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  162. That guy was, in my opinion, a nasty piece of work. Others are free to disagree with me on this but I thought he was really dim, rude, dishonest, openly racist, and a confusing writer.

    OK, see now this is news I can use. I have no idea who this guy is/was. But rereading Captain (Unobvious) Strong’s comments here there is nothing that would lead me to believe, even now with what you’ve just told me, that he was openly racist or dishonest. Dim, rude, and confusing being much more judgement calls based more on agreement or such with the original comments, but I suppose you could (I wouldn’t necessarily) call those comments here as dim or maybe rude but I wasn’t especially confused by any of it. So I don’t see how a casual reader would associate this CS guy with a racist, nasty person who deserves to be called out as a big fat slob, regardless of his being wrong about the fitness of this Amash character, especially as “cowardly, fat, and depressive” was originally being thrown at some nebulous group of people, not just him.

    See how this whole silly argument could have been avoided if EVERYONE behaved by he same rules of civility? Though I consider the big fat slob thing over the top regardless, a comment that undermines pleas for civility, I’m not gonna whine to authority because some nasty person got called nasty names. I generally don’t care about such things. Sticks and stones and all that. But if civility is all that important, it seems that such a thing was totally unnecessary in the first place.

    Again, just trying to understand the rules. Not that I agree with them. Or not. Not not agree that is. Or not…

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  163. NJRob, at 102:

    I was making a bitter and sarcastic comment about how, from the outside, it looks like a lot of Trump supporters simply redefine their views and principles to align with what Trump is saying and doing. I probably shouldn’t have said it.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  164. PTw,

    Have you ever commented here under another name? You seem to be interested in defending trolls, and ignoring any evidence that they were, while calling for trolls and respected commenters to be treated the same.

    Why not start a blog with your PTw troll respect policies and see how challenging that is?

    This blog is one of the few places where a guy like NJRob and a guy like Aphrael can discuss their different views on issues that drive a lot of passion, and the folks who run the blog are doing their best to make it work.

    How many of your comments have complained about moderation? It’s a lot. Have you ever commented here under another name? If you ignore the question I think we all know the reason why.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  165. > That was me. Don’t want Kevin to be mistaken for my words.

    NJRob,

    the fact that you jumped in like that to clear up the misunderstanding, own your own speech, and keep any opprobrium from falling on Kevin — that’s one of the reasons why (while you and I disagree on pretty much *everything* and there are times where you infuriate me and, I suspect, I infuriate you), I nevertheless consider you a valued member of the community here, and am glad you are still around.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  166. Don’t want to fight with people I respect and I don’t want to bother provoking the leftist trolls who will try and silence my speech.

    NJRob (4d595c) — 6/12/2019 @ 11:17 am

    Many of the Trump fans here clearly want to have a respectful discussion and challenge themselves and others. When the rubber hits the road, it’s just so easy to provoke on both sides. Assumptions of good faith evaporate when people call for the impeachment of Trump, because from your point of view he’s just fighting the good fight the GOP was too weak or corrupt to fight.

    Both sides of these issues are operating from such wildly different versions of reality. We have no media to trust and pundits we don’t agree with are hacks, so even the folks who want to talk about the issues with respect are pissing someone off.

    And then there’s the commenters who are here to settle scores or re-litigate why they were moderated. To them, maybe an email to Patterico acknowledging they want to follow the rules is a better strategy than a VPN and a debate about why the rules should either be a free-for-all or humorless.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  167. OK, see now this is news I can use. I have no idea who this guy is/was. But rereading Captain (Unobvious) Strong’s comments here there is nothing that would lead me to believe, even now with what you’ve just told me, that he was openly racist or dishonest. Dim, rude, and confusing being much more judgement calls based more on agreement or such with the original comments, but I suppose you could (I wouldn’t necessarily) call those comments here as dim or maybe rude but I wasn’t especially confused by any of it. So I don’t see how a casual reader would associate this CS guy with a racist, nasty person who deserves to be called out as a big fat slob, regardless of his being wrong about the fitness of this Amash character, especially as “cowardly, fat, and depressive” was originally being thrown at some nebulous group of people, not just him.

    See how this whole silly argument could have been avoided if EVERYONE behaved by he same rules of civility? Though I consider the big fat slob thing over the top regardless, a comment that undermines pleas for civility, I’m not gonna whine to authority because some nasty person got called nasty names. I generally don’t care about such things. Sticks and stones and all that. But if civility is all that important, it seems that such a thing was totally unnecessary in the first place.

    Again, just trying to understand the rules. Not that I agree with them. Or not. Not not agree that is. Or not…

    This is a bit confusing. Who do you think has been arguing? You expressed confusion about the policy and people tried to help explain it to you.

    The Gif seems to be a joke and no one has said it offended them. So, all good?

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  168. Time123, well said. I laughed at the gif, and the point of it was that the anonymous people spending all their lives freaking out anonymously on the internet shouldn’t bash someone for their physical fitness.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  169. OK, I gotta go but god forbid I go live a life and be mistaken for ducking a childish question…

    How many of your comments have complained about moderation? It’s a lot. Have you ever commented here under another name? If you ignore the question I think we all know the reason why.

    “I think we all know the reason why…” No. God this is tiring. It’s really quite a simple question. If I had known that this Norman character or whomever was a racist yadda-yadda-yadda I wouldn’t have bothered with all of this. People need to get out of their little world perspectives.

    As for “Why not start a blog with your PTw troll respect policies and see how challenging that is?” Many, many people run open blogs and do not have these problems. Sure “trolls” show up. “Trolls” even in the most literal (internet-wise) sense of the word are dealt with every day by rational, intelligent people by keeping an even keel and undercutting their nonsense with logic and fact. Perhaps it simply goes to a level of character . And yes, there are the racist anti-Semitic lunatics out there who must be banned but for the most part they are few and far between. But the best way to handle them is to ban them and never ever mention them again. They’re much less likely to show back up because if they are truly trolls it’s really just attention that they crave. Cut a real troll off from the attention factor and they go haunt someone else who will engage them. They generally don’t come back to the same place to say the same things in an anonymous way because they will have lost the accumulated attention that they crave. If they are truly trolls, such people will eventually reveal their original identity. It’s what they’re there for. People truly interested in ideas however, are very likely to come back because they seek to perpetuate the ideas and if they think the ideas are the thing that got them banned in the first place, well all the more reason.

    As for anything else said here on this subject, today or later, I’m gone. Got a life to live. See ya later, alligators…and all that.

    PTw (cbfa7c)

  170. rcocean,

    Why don’t you just come out and say it: “I don’t like him because he doesn’t like Trump, and I have absolutely no other argument against him, and my accusations of hypocrisy by him turn out to be horseshit”?

    Well, maybe because I don’t understand how any reasonable person can objectively come out for Impeaching Trump based on the Mueller Report. That report clears him of Russia Collusion and accuses him of nothing more than trying to get Mueller REPLACED as Special Counsel. How is that a “High Crime”? And am I supposed to believe that 180 Trump hating Democrats have not joined the other 50 in crying for Impeachment because…what..they love Melanie’s fashion sense? Or that Amash in the ONLY R calling for Impeachment because he’s so special and pure?

    Sorry. I TRUELY do not understand Amash’s position on impeachment. And I don’t find his speech supporting it persuasive in the least. So my only conclusion has to be he’s doing it for some other reason.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  171. So busy you wrote all those incredibly lengthy and incoherent comments complaining about the rules by which you’re a guest here…

    Yeah ok man.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  172. NJRob, I think I’ve disagreed with you a lot about Trump. Not sure if you consider me a leftist troll or not. But I can tell you that I haven’t posted anything here for the purpose of making you (or anyone else) angry and that I don’t want to silence you. I know I have gotten frustrated at things you’ve written, but I believe you are sincere and appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.

    I hope Haiku is OK.

    Time123 (b0628d) — 6/12/2019 @ 11:52 am

    I don’t mind disagreements at all. They’re a necessary and healthy part of any discussion and a way to flesh out your own beliefs. I don’t consider you a troll or most others on here to be so. I’m just going to bypass those words and try and be a better representative of my own beliefs.

    Most want what they believe will be best for the nation. Very few are of the Cloward-Piven variety who want to watch the world burn or think the sins of ancestors should be visited upon their descendants.

    Securing the border, protecting innocent life, having a society for the future that resembles what I grew up in and is responsive to her people, teaching a solid work ethic are all things that matter to me. I don’t want the next generation to have it worse than I did.

    NJRob (3b8152)

  173. Many of the Trump fans here clearly want to have a respectful discussion and challenge themselves and others. When the rubber hits the road, it’s just so easy to provoke on both sides. Assumptions of good faith evaporate when people call for the impeachment of Trump, because from your point of view he’s just fighting the good fight the GOP was too weak or corrupt to fight.

    Both sides of these issues are operating from such wildly different versions of reality. We have no media to trust and pundits we don’t agree with are hacks, so even the folks who want to talk about the issues with respect are pissing someone off.

    And then there’s the commenters who are here to settle scores or re-litigate why they were moderated. To them, maybe an email to Patterico acknowledging they want to follow the rules is a better strategy than a VPN and a debate about why the rules should either be a free-for-all or humorless.

    Dustin (6d7686) — 6/12/2019 @ 12:58 pm

    Thank you for that.

    NJRob (3b8152)

Leave a Reply

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


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4554 secs.