Patterico's Pontifications

9/17/2020

Another Day, Another Allegation That Trump Sexually Assaulted A Woman

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:44 pm



[guest post by Dana]

I want to ask readers, especially loyal Trump supporters, whether or not this story matters to you, or impacts you in any particular way? I’m not looking for any knee-jerk “FAKE NEWS!” outrage or “TDS” deflection but rather a thoughtful response explaining how you process these sorts of stories, and whether you view them as little more than an attempt to sabotage the President? And in light of the many allegations against him, does yet one more description of what happened at the hands of a man who infamously said about women: “And when you’re a star, they let you do it…” raise any questions in your mind about whether he might have actually done this? Finally, with regard to credible allegations, is there a certain number that would need to be made that would cause you to change your mind about him? [Ed. Pointing out the obvious: This is the one individual’s account of an alleged incident that took place before Trump became the President of the United States. But even when it’s just an allegation, Trump’s base reflexively jumps to his defense while proclaiming his innocence. That’s also not to say that the anti-Trump crowd doesn’t assume he’s guilty from the get-go.]

A former model has come forward to accuse Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her at the US Open tennis tournament more than two decades ago, in an alleged incident that left her feeling “sick” and “violated”.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Amy Dorris alleged that Trump accosted her outside the bathroom in his VIP box at the tournament in New York on 5 September 1997.

Dorris, who was 24 at the time, accuses Trump of forcing his tongue down her throat, assaulting her all over her body and holding her in a grip she was unable to escape from.

“He just shoved his tongue down my throat and I was pushing him off. And then that’s when his grip became tighter and his hands were very gropey and all over my butt, my breasts, my back, everything.

“I was in his grip, and I couldn’t get out of it,” she said, adding: “I don’t know what you call that when you’re sticking your tongue just down someone’s throat. But I pushed it out with my teeth. I was pushing it. And I think I might have hurt his tongue.”

Through his lawyers, Trump has vigorously denied the claims made by Dorris:

Jenna Ellis, legal adviser to the Trump campaign, said in a statement to NBC News that the “allegations are totally false. We will consider every legal means available to hold The Guardian accountable for its malicious publication of this unsubstantiated story. This is just another pathetic attempt to attack President Trump right before the election.”

The report says that Dorris showed reporters that supported the claims of her encounters with Trump, including a plane ticket to the US Open and photographs with her and Trump in New York during the specified time period.

Additionally, the report says that Dorris confided in several people immediately after the alleged incident took place:

Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.

–Dana

88 Responses to “Another Day, Another Allegation That Trump Sexually Assaulted A Woman”

  1. I don’t want this to be a vicious thread. I would like to be able to understand how Trump’s loyalists process stories like this, especially those in the faith.

    Dana (292df6)

  2. I’m not a Trump loyalist, but I question the timing of this.

    norcal (a5428a)

  3. Yes, there’s that.

    Dana (292df6)

  4. It’s entirely possible that this happened; it fits the modus operandi that we’ve heard from other people whom Trump has encountered in similar situations.

    That said, I’m very interested in this question though: why did Ms. Dorris, who the story says lives presently in Florida, end up giving this story to The Guardian, a British-based left-wing newspaper? Did she first try to take it to the New York Times, the Washington Post, or even the Miami Herald or Orlando Sentinel only to have those newspapers pass on it? And if that’s the case, why exactly weren’t those outlets interested?

    JVW (ee64e4)

  5. And in light of the many allegations against him….

    My answer doesn’t change just because the accused is Trump instead of Kavanaugh.

    beer ‘n pretzels (cd0a6e)

  6. I want to ask readers, especially loyal Trump supporters,

    I am a reader but not a loyal Trump supporter, so I guess I’m included in the ask.

    My reaction? One more story that fits into the “Trump’s A Lowlife Scumbag” theme. Which I already know. This story may be true, or it may be politically motivated. It doesn’t matter to me because it does not change my already-low opinion of him personally.

    Nor does it change my opinion that, all things considered, he is the lesser of two evils that we face as a choice this November. And woe to us that that is our choice.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  7. Of course the timing is regarding the election. Of course Trump set himself up bragging he gropes women, peeping on the pageant girls, wishing Ghislaine well after trying to fire the head of the team that arrested her.

    I have worked with women who survived the like and sometimes they just straight up refuse to name names when all reason says they should. It’s a real thing that has caused me no small amount of frustration. It’s easy to dismiss from a distance, but this stuff is sometimes real.

    We’ve come such a long way from Monica being proof of our decline in values.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  8. I totally get than Trump is/was a cad and would do this. Now was it consensual?

    She’s now saying “no”.

    He’s now flat out denying it.

    But several warning bells are ringing in that guardian article:
    1)

    Binn did not respond to a request for comment. However, according to Trump’s lawyers, Binn told them he had no recollection of Dorris telling him that anything inappropriate had happened with Trump or that she felt uncomfortable around him.

    So, the boyfriend can’t substantiate her allegation? I’m sorry, but as a boyfriend and if true, I would NEVER forget that.

    2)

    The day after the alleged assault, Dorris and Binn returned to Trump’s box at the US Open.

    Why on earth would she go back?

    3)

    Two days later, on 8 September, 1997, Dorris said she attended a memorial service for Gianni Versace with Binn and Trump.

    Again… why go back?

    4) This seems weak:

    Asked why she continued to spend time with Binn and Trump in the days after the alleged assault, Dorris said: “I was there from Florida and I was with Jason. I had no money, nowhere to go. We were going from event to event and it was overwhelming.”

    Of course there’s this:

    Trump’s lawyers said it seemed incredible that Dorris would voluntarily choose to be in the vicinity of Trump, at the US Open and the Versace memorial, in the days following the alleged assault. They said Binn had raised similar questions about her account. Trump’s lawyers also questioned why Dorris sat next to Trump at the Versace memorial, when she could have sat the other side of Binn.

    They said Dorris had never raised the allegations with a law enforcement agency or to Trump, and said the timing of the claims so close to the November presidential election suggested they might be politically motivated.

    I reiterate norcal’s post:

    I’m not a Trump loyalist, but I question the timing of this.

    norcal (a5428a) — 9/17/2020 @ 2:49 pm

    So, I’ll respond to your original questions:

    how you process these sorts of stories, and whether you view them as little more than an attempt to sabotage the President?

    I’m deeply cynical of these allegations. I do believe he’s the personality who’s unfaithful to his marriage and is really sexually aggressive towards women in general.

    And in light of the many allegations against him, does yet one more description of what happened at the hands of a man who infamously said about women: “And when you’re a star, they let you do it…” raise any questions in your mind about whether he might have actually done this?

    The question here was it consensual at the time and/or that she didn’t make a big deal about it when she turned him down.

    Finally, with regard to credible allegations, is there a certain number that would need to be made that would cause you to change your mind about him?

    I’m super cynical about these sorts of things… especially most of the allegation really didn’t kick in gear until he ran for office.

    Plus… look at the calendar. We’re days away from election day, so expect a LOT of fishing “October Surprise” stories in the hopes one would catch on fire.

    whembly (c30c83)

  9. I can’t decide who to believe, her or Tara Reade ?

    Brion Mitchell (18e8bb)

  10. I don’t consider myself a loyalist so this might not help but

    Another Day, Another Allegation …

    Are these really coming everyday? Ridiculous allegations are because it’s Trump and we’ve got an election around the corner but daily sexual allegations is a reach. That sort of stuff is a red-flag and makes me think you don’t really take the sexual aspect of the allegation seriously either.

    @2

    I question the timing of this.

    Ditto.

    Then there’s the fundamental question; even if this were true would it matter. I’m not sure it would. I’m not trying to play whatabout, but this hasn’t impacted previous presidents ability to execute the requirements of the office. It’s also a game of pick your poison. Both Biden and Harris are horrible people. Even recent previous contenders who’ve managed their image are just that, a managed image.

    So, let’s assume it’s true and I’ve got to pick a lying handsy perv that is so-so on things I care about and a lying handsy perv with a bunch of marxists behind him who is horrible on things I care about. I’ll pick the first one.

    frosty (f27e97)

  11. Donald Trump is accused by a woman of kissing her against her will. Joe Biden actually filmed doing it.

    I can’t decide

    Brion Mitchell (18e8bb)

  12. I hope Joe’s handlers are careful with this story around Joe. Otherwise he might plagiarize it to some catchy Latin music.

    frosty (f27e97)

  13. @12 :)

    norcal (a5428a)

  14. I don’t see this as about Trump per se, as I see it as an election stunt. She has had 20 years to think about this, if true, and NOW is when she brings it up? Too convenient.

    If she had made the same claims about Biden now (as opposed to a year ago) I would say much the same thing.

    Also, this is not quite the same thing as, to pick a random example, as groping someone backstage at a beauty contest. She’s at the US Open, in Trump’s box, and her presence and her flight might have been paid for by Trump.

    Now, I personally don’t think this justifies any action by Trump, but she had to know what men want by the time she’s 24 (and a model). Yet she wanted to go to the US Open, it seems, and hang out with Trump — she has pictures — and Trump is the kind of guy who might think he’d bought something. In context, and at the time, I don’t think this shocked anyone at all.

    Assuming it happened, of course.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  15. norcal (a5428a) — 9/17/2020 @ 3:41 pm

    I feel like I should apologize about that one. Dana made a point and I couldn’t help going off track.

    frosty (f27e97)

  16. Both Biden and Harris are horrible people

    Harris is worse than Trump who is worse than Biden. Harris is smart, mean and vindictive. Trump with brains and a amen-chorus press.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  17. So, let’s assume it’s true and I’ve got to pick a lying handsy perv that is so-so on things I care about and a lying handsy perv with a bunch of marxists behind him who is horrible on things I care about. I’ll pick the first one.

    As the Brits say, hear, hear. (Or is it here, here?)

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  18. You would think that Biden would know better than being the heartbeat between Harris and real power.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  19. I have to assume that, like Tara Reede and Paula Jones, Amy Dorris has a valid story to tell.

    So I assume most highly placed or wealthy or famous men are serial abusers. All of them. In politics, in media, in industry…

    So. We are left with choosing our leaders or products or entertainments on some other basis.

    Which policy-maker is making the most policies choice that I tend to suppose will turn out well?

    pouncer (b0e023)

  20. Romney had binders full women, Trump has a running list of ’em.
    Regrettably, Trump’s past sexual transgressions are probably already baked in and won’t amount to nuthin’, electorally. There are bigger present-day concerns.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  21. He eats peas with a knife and drinks milk from the carton, too.

    What a terrible mistake it was for Biden to quit his presidential run in 1988. With so many Republicans and ideological conservatives content to betray their principles and party, overlook his plagiarism, fallacious tales and voicing support and intent to vote for him just because he’s not Trump, America and the world have been spared the hell of the sinister, evil Bush-Quayle years, the comedy gold of the Dukakas ‘tank trap'; Crazy Ross and all things Clinton-Gore. 😉

    “I’ll have a lemonade. In a dirty glass!” – Chester Hooton [Bob Hope] ‘Road To Utopia’ 1946

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  22. 21. Jealous. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  23. Oh. My. God.

    Joe’s CNN town hall forum literally looks like a 1955 drive-in movie parking lot. Watch for the DeLorean, Marty and the Doc to zip through at 88 mph.

    “Libyans!” – Marty McFly [Michael J. Fox] ‘Back To The Future’ 1985

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  24. I question the timing.

    I question the presence of this “revelation” in The Guardian, an avowedly leftist rag.

    I question all of you people here who are arguing about who’s worse than who.

    Gryph (f63000)

  25. I am fully as loyal a Trump loyalist as the previous commenters who claim they are not are really not, and I can believe that Trump felt that too many people had seen him checking out Rafter and Rusedski too often and for too long and he needed to do something to show that he really likes girls. But what difference at this point does it make, and is it likely that he went to a place no man had ever gone before with this “model”?

    nk (1d9030)

  26. Not that my 5:48 pm comment is something Western civilization will not survive without, but I am curious what put it in moderation.

    nk (1d9030)

  27. I released the comment, nk. I had to google Rafter and Rusedski. And yes, if he did it, you bet it matters. And may it’s nothing new with certain kinds of men and “models,” but that doesn’t excuse it.

    Dana (292df6)

  28. Thank you! Ruse[]i, right?

    nk (1d9030)

  29. It shouldn’t matter to anyone. It sounds like another “October Surprise” from the media.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  30. The pictures on Google are the more revealing. There’s no way Trump was ever 6’3″ even with elevator shoes (and an alligator hat). Six feet even? Maybe.

    nk (1d9030)

  31. I question the timing of those folks who question the timing.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  32. Trump has less to worry from the woman whose pu$$y he was grabbed in the 1990s and more to worry about Ms. Troye, who served on his CV19 task force. To me, this was bad enough…

    In the video, Troye recounts when Trump, a noted germaphobe, met with the coronavirus task force, early on in the crisis, and told its members that perhaps the pandemic was a good thing because he would no longer have to shake hands with all the “disgusting people” at his rallies and other public events.

    …but was worse was this…

    Sadly, the surprise here is not that Trump acted so callously in the midst of a pandemic but that so many senior government officials know that this is happening and are doing nothing to stop it. Troye’s testimony, like that of so many others, is from inside the room—in this case, from inside the very room that is supposed to be dealing with the single biggest crisis currently afflicting the United States.

    …because of all the sycophants in his circle who sold their souls to Trump over public safety. There will be a reckoning. Ms. Troye is a great and brave American, like Vindman is a great and brave American.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  33. @32: Looks like some are upset that Trump is failing to be the dictator we were warned he wanted to be.

    beer ‘n pretzels (cf9671)

  34. Well he bought the steele drinking game so hes game for anything.

    Bolivar di griz (d4a914)

  35. @32: Looks like some are upset that Trump is failing to be the dictator we were warned he wanted to be.

    Um, what?
    Seriously, my comment had nothing to do with his dictatorial proclivities and everything to do with his pathological selfishness and his coterie of suck-ups.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  36. @32: Looks like some are upset that Trump is failing to be the dictator we were warned he wanted to be.

    Trump most of all. It’s all the flea-market Mussolini whines about.

    nk (1d9030)

  37. Most low-rent President ever.

    nk (1d9030)

  38. Even Chris Rock figured out your game, Paul.

    beer ‘n pretzels (cf9671)

  39. Even Chris Rock figured out your game, Paul.

    Do tell, beer.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  40. Trump is a sexual predator with no morals, or loyalty to his wife. This is well known and the latest announcement doesn’t change that. His supporters don’t care. By extension they don’t care about family or Christian values as a important leadership characteristic. At least not in comparison with other things.

    At this point it is funny to see people make excuses for why they don’t believe this as means to avoid saying they don’t care if the president is a sexual predator as long as he appoints good judges/owns the libs/stands up to the media or what have you.

    This doesn’t change my opinion of Trump. It does further cement my opinion that ‘morals’ voters aren’t being honest about their motivations.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  41. Trump is a sexual predator with no morals, or loyalty to his wife. This is well known and the latest announcement doesn’t change that. His supporters don’t care. By extension they don’t care about family or Christian values as a important leadership characteristic. At least not in comparison with other things.

    One could write this paragraph about Bill Clinton.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  42. This doesn’t change my opinion of Trump. It does further cement my opinion that ‘morals’ voters aren’t being honest about their motivations.

    Or perhaps the morals voters have a more nuanced take than you are giving them credit for.

    The last president was, to his credit, a dedicated family man. But his admininstration was overtly hostile to religion, and he and he fellow travelers used the levers of government to intrude on religious/moral sensibilities and rights. He even gave speeches where he reduced freedom of religion to freedom to worship as you see fit.

    This president is an immoral scum bag in his personal life, but he and his administration seem to be willing to let religious people alone. That includes, but is not limited to, his judicial appointments.

    So given the choice, morals voters prefer the latter to the former.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  43. the good man, who corrupted the cdc, the atf, the cia, that one, who was collaborating with russian chinese iranian potentates,

    https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/biden-institute-board-member-obama-ccp/

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  44. @41, Yes. But we knew that Democrats didn’t place a high value traditional Christian morality. Now we also know Republican’s don’t.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  45. he made the sisters of the poor chose between breaking their vowels and bankruptcy, he put a known pedophile, in the education department,

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/17/leaked-2016-call-reveals-joe-biden-risked-national-security-to-sabotage-trump/

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  46. The last president was, to his credit, a dedicated family man. But his admininstration was overtly hostile to religion, and he and he fellow travelers used the levers of government to intrude on religious/moral sensibilities and rights. He even gave speeches where he reduced freedom of religion to freedom to worship as you see fit.

    This president is an immoral scum bag in his personal life, but he and his administration seem to be willing to let religious people alone. That includes, but is not limited to, his judicial appointments.

    So given the choice, morals voters prefer the latter to the former.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 9/18/2020 @ 5:52 am

    This is true but stops short of recognizing the fact that there were other choices in 2016. They picked Trump. It also doesn’t address the unflinching support he gets from the evangelical Christian community. There’s no pushing back on things like this.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  47. same people who covered up epstein, and weinstein and nxim (which involves the father of a sitting senator) who has been at the forefront of the witchhunt against male students on university campi,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  48. @40 This doesn’t change my opinion of Trump. It does further cement my opinion that ‘morals’ voters aren’t being honest about their motivations.

    Time123 (ae9d89) — 9/18/2020 @ 4:45 am

    @47 This is true but stops short of recognizing the fact that there were other choices in 2016. They picked Trump. It also doesn’t address the unflinching support he gets from the evangelical Christian community. There’s no pushing back on things like this.

    Time123 (ae9d89) — 9/18/2020 @ 6:19 am

    I think you misunderstand the rationale of these ‘moral’ voters.

    Most of them are transactional voters. And (excepting rabid Trump supporters) they don’t put Trump on that “saintly” pedestal like many of the Obama voters did for Obama.

    It’s a binary choice as to which candidate would advance their preferred agendas. Such as:
    -support religious liberty (of course)
    -reduce/ban abortions
    -support 2nd amendment
    -lower taxes
    -judges
    -etc…

    Many of these ‘moral voters’ and ‘christian communities’ can easily justify voting for a cad like Trump knowing that one of the above agendas would be advanced by Trump ~or~ as a defensive voting behavior to prevent expansions of Abortion rights, or prevent additional regulations on 2nd amendment or prevent a more leftwing tilt in the courts…etc.

    whembly (c30c83)

  49. @49, again, doesn’t address their choices in the 2016 primary or their lack of rhetorical condemnation about his action.

    For instance, if our host votes for Biden and then criticizes all the stupid things he will undoubtedly do I’ll believe it was transactional. If our host defends them, especially for 3 years, I’m going to view him as a supporter.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  50. This is true but stops short of recognizing the fact that there were other choices in 2016. They picked Trump.

    Really? “They” did? I was not aware that the Evangelicals were instrumental in the GOP picking Trump in 2016.

    It also doesn’t address the unflinching support he gets from the evangelical Christian community. There’s no pushing back on things like this.

    I don’t know what you mean by pushing back. They support him because he is better for what they are trying to do for their families and their communities. Do they have to hold their noses to satisfy you?

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  51. If Christian men are the only thing that can protect America from godless communism then evangelical support for Trump is not transactional. It is fundamental.

    DRJ (aede82)

  52. Of course it was the evangelicals who gave Trump the 2016 primary. But I think that comrade Time123 is otherwise expressing the disappointment of high expectations. Unrealistically high expectations.

    There is nothing especially Christian or moral about evangelicals. On the contrary. They are largely the lees and dregs of the Christian wine vat.

    nk (1d9030)

  53. There is nothing especially Christian or moral about evangelicals. On the contrary. They are largely the lees and dregs of the Christian wine vat.

    Maybe as an Orthodox Jew I am ignorant. But isn’t that a very un-Christian thing to write?

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  54. @53, I was concerned that my comments were to harsh and would be taken as insulting.

    But that’s really insulting. I don’t think calling a religious denomination ‘lees and dregs’ meet the commenting rules.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  55. And just because a Kenyan Communist Muslim could see a distinction between “freedom to worship” and “freedom of religion”, it doesn’t mean that we need to.

    I won’t insult your intelligence with talk of human sacrifice, but is the use of peyote in Native American religious ceremonies freedom of religion or freedom to worship?

    If the Mormons pass a law in Utah, and they have, that makes it a crime for a mother to allow her underage children to see her bare breasts, inside her own home, is that freedom of religion, freedom to worship, or totally f***ed up bullsh!t?

    nk (1d9030)

  56. But isn’t that a very un-Christian thing to write?

    No. We are absolutely under no obligation to tolerate false prophets, blasphemers, heretics, and hypocrites. (See also the Samaritan Woman At The Well for shaming the licentious.)

    I don’t think calling a religious denomination ‘lees and dregs’ meet the commenting rules.

    I do.

    nk (1d9030)

  57. It’s a binary choice as to which candidate would advance their preferred agendas. Such as:
    -support religious liberty (of course)
    -reduce/ban abortions
    -support 2nd amendment
    -lower taxes
    -judges
    -etc…

    I’m not sure why it’s binary with that many variables. Add in setting an example of moral character, or leading the free world with a prestigious nation rooted in respect and fairness.

    On lower taxes, Trump is the worst in our lives because he spent the most. One way or another, be it a 1040 or high inflation, that spending is a tax increase. But on judges, Trump’s been fine. On the important issue of abortion, those judges probably aren’t solving the problem, but they aren’t making it worse I suppose. If we lose our 2nd amendment rights, “Liberate Michigan” and the corrupt NRA conduct won’t have helped.

    So it’s not really binary. You and Bored Lawyer make some great points why an evangelical almost can’t support the democrats. It’s foolish of the dems to make it so hard to do. But Trump is really putting that to the test.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  58. @57, It’s a insult against an entire faith. You should apologize.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  59. Question: Why do GOP appointees immediately write tell-all books after they leave or get fired? Why do they come out and gratuitously say they are voting for the other guy> Why do Democrats do neither of the things?

    1. Because the Democrats are much better at punishment?
    2. Because the press won’t give free advertising to those that do?
    3. Because publishers don’t want such books (and see 1 and 2)?
    4. Because Democrat administrations are so squeaky-clean it would be boring?
    5. Because Republicans are mostly white and publishers hate black and brown people?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  60. @57, It’s a insult against an entire faith. You should apologize.

    In the first place, the evangelicals are not an entire faith, or denomination as you also called them, they are several thousand splinters that call themselves some kind of Christian or other. Like Antifa, except that they’re more numerous.

    In the second place, I qualified my “insult” with “largely”. I did not say they all were lees and dregs. I allowed for some potable wine.

    In the third place, oh puhleese!

    nk (1d9030)

  61. Dustin,

    It IS a binary choice on the 2nd Amendment. Biden has said that he’s for rounding up all the guns, and Harris has a virulent history in that regard. Her method is probably even legal: she will simply redefine what arms are “safe” and those will be technological wonders (fingerprint sensors (that don’t work), micro-stamping (that doesn’t exist), limited cartridge counts, low-power ammunition, “loaded” indicators, etc) that make the gun really expensive and allow “retirement” of “obsolete” designs.

    This is a process that already started in CA on her watch as AG.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  62. Kind of like the cigarettes in “The Fifth Element”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  63. It IS a binary choice on the 2nd Amendment.

    Without a doubt, we know which party is on which side of that issue.

    2020 had a lot of examples of openly carried rifles at statehouses and street corners, in my opinion a bad thing, but by and large the chaos is encouraging gun ownership.

    My fear for gun control isn’t these James Bond fingerprint guns (but that would very much be bad) but some kind of tax on ammunition making proficiency impossible for most people.

    Harris’s record on this is bad, and it’s a good example of how the democrats make it difficult for moderate folks to support them. There’s so many issues though, that binary choice, crisis this election, it’s just not right. It’s leading to these extreme low quality candidates who tweet LIBERATE MICHIGAN like that doesn’t hurt the right to bear arms cause. We say these rights are endowed by the creator, merely recognized by the government, but that’s not true. Every time the NRA scams someone or an openly carried rifle puts a protestor in a body bag, that chips away at the right. Trump’s been a lot worse for the second amendment than, say Dubya or Romney would have been.

    But it’s hard to vote for just the 2nd amendment.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  64. For instance, if our host votes for Biden and then criticizes all the stupid things he will undoubtedly do I’ll believe it was transactional. If our host defends them, especially for 3 years, I’m going to view him as a supporter.

    You have it exactly backwards. If it’s truly transactional it’s likely the case that every stupid thing Biden does is less stupid than what the viable alternative (Trump) would’ve done.

    I do expect most here backing Biden to turn on him once he’s elected so as not to own the results of their choice. That’s not being transactional. That’s just being a weasel.

    beer ‘n pretzels (d6c4fd)

  65. @65… not really bnp. If the transactional stance is “of moral character, or leading the free world with a prestigious nation rooted in respect and fairness” as Dustin stated, it’s perfectly valid to use that to not vote for Trump.

    whembly (c30c83)

  66. I’m not looking for any knee-jerk “FAKE NEWS!” outrage or “TDS” deflection but rather a thoughtful response explaining how you process these sorts of stories

    Dana, you were thinking Trumpers were going to take this sideways?

    frosty (f27e97)

  67. I do expect most here backing Biden to turn on him once he’s elected so as not to own the results of their choice. That’s not being transactional. That’s just being a weasel.

    Like Trump does with practically all his appointees, the weasel?

    nk (1d9030)

  68. I’ll throw Biden under the bus right now, if you’d like. The only reason I’m voting for him is to get rid of Trump. It’s Trump’s fault, not mine, that Biden will be your President for the next our years and Harris for the eight years after that.

    nk (1d9030)

  69. Dustin (4237e0) — 9/18/2020 @ 8:22 am

    There’s nothing hurting the argument for the 2nd. Current events have undermined every argument for more gun control and restrictions. If this

    or an openly carried rifle puts a protestor in a body bag

    is referring to Rittenhouse you’re being dishonest.

    We say these rights are endowed by the creator, merely recognized by the government, but that’s not true.

    The right to defend yourself is inherent. It’s not a gift from out betters.

    But it’s hard to vote for just the 2nd amendment.

    Sure, one at a time. It only takes one or two and they’re all meaningless.

    frosty (f27e97)

  70. nk (1d9030) — 9/18/2020 @ 8:47 am

    I’ll defer to you on weasels. You do seem to be our resident expert.

    frosty (f27e97)

  71. I learned it all from you, frosty.

    nk (1d9030)

  72. The right to defend yourself is inherent. It’s not a gift from out betters.

    I understand this ideal, but it’s not really true. Every LIBERATE VIRGINIA or protestor brandishing chips away at this right. You’re right as far as John Stuart Mill is concerned, but not necessarily as far as the voters in ten years, if this keeps up.

    Abuse it and lose it. Just how it is.

    There’s nothing hurting the argument for the 2nd.

    Harris is going to be the president eventually if this keeps up. That hurts the cause. I’m voting for Biden/Harris to stop Putin’s foreign policy and this decline in our nation overall. It’s not a decision I like. Had Trump behaved kinda normal over the past few years there is zero percent chance I’d be voting against him. At worst I’d sit it out.

    I’m reading about this USPS mask idea being shut down. That kind of thing is really hard to understand.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  73. I voted for Trump in 2016 but have criticized him since then when he does things I think are wrong, dumb, or immoral. Loyalty to political candidates instead of to ideas, results and principles is tribal. Democrats are tribal. GOP voters weren’t tribal until Trump.

    Granted, it is better for the candidates and parties when supporters are tribal because loyalty is everything then. But it is lemming-like and we may all end up going over a cliff.

    DRJ (aede82)

  74. Name-calling, again, frosty?

    DRJ (aede82)

  75. For instance, if our host votes for Biden and then criticizes all the stupid things he will undoubtedly do I’ll believe it was transactional. If our host defends them, especially for 3 years, I’m going to view him as a supporter.

    You have it exactly backwards. If it’s truly transactional it’s likely the case that every stupid thing Biden does is less stupid than what the viable alternative (Trump) would’ve done.

    I do expect most here backing Biden to turn on him once he’s elected so as not to own the results of their choice. That’s not being transactional. That’s just being a weasel.

    beer ‘n pretzels (d6c4fd) — 9/18/2020 @ 8:30 am

    I think we’re working from different paradigms. For me it’s about results. I don’t care which team is winning. I only care about the specific results. I see no problem with saying I’ve been clear in other threads that I think Biden is going to do a poor job, just a better one then Trump. I’m not going to defend his big government instincts.

    If feels like you view it as once you join the team you need to back the team no matter what comes. Maybe I have that wrong but its what I’m getting.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  76. Dustin (4237e0) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:05 am

    Harris is going to be the president eventually if this keeps up.

    Harris, Biden, and any other D you can shake a stick at were in favor of bans before any of the recent “this”. Do you really think “defund the police”, “you don’t need guns because the police will protect you”, “we won’t prosecute looters and rioters”, and “we’ll prosecute people defending themselves” are winning anti-gun arguments? Do you think all of the new gun owners who’ve made purchases in the last few months are also thinking those new guns they bought should be banned? Even the left is arming up.

    I’ll say it again, current events have undermined decimated every argument for more gun control and restrictions. Harris/Biden aren’t in favor of gun control on any rational basis. It’s a purely ideological play. There isn’t anything that “hurts the cause” because they are already dead set against “the cause”.

    For example,

    Every LIBERATE VIRGINIA or protestor brandishing chips away at this right.

    there is no rational basis to explain how peacefully exercising a right chips away at the right. This is like saying peacefully (and I don’t mean “mostly” peaceful) protests chip away at the 1st. Anyone who sees a person peacefully exercising the right to keep and bear arms and thinks the right should be restricted is reacting from some irrational fear.

    frosty (f27e97)

  77. DRJ (aede82) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:16 am

    Projecting again DRJ?

    frosty (f27e97)

  78. Projecting again DRJ?

    frosty (f27e97) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:47 am

    DRJ didn’t call anyone any names. She is referring to you calling someone a weasel. nk was harsh, but against no specific commenter here. I think that’s the distinction. We’ve all seen the kind of person who projects via religious dogma. The Falwell Jrs. It isn’t something I want to debate or anything, but we know who nk was talking about.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  79. Dustin (4237e0) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:03 am

    This seems tedious.

    She is referring to you calling someone a weasel.

    If we’re making distinctions, I didn’t call nk a weasel. I called him our resident expert, i.e. [weasel] expert or expert [on weasels]. If I had gone with “resident expert weasel” this would be a valid criticism. But then what’s the point? Expert weasels aren’t by default experts at spotting other weasels any more than expert boxers are good boxing coaches.

    In order to read “resident expert weasel” or “calling someone a weasel” you’ve got to project just a little bit.

    frosty (f27e97)

  80. Frosty, come on. You were calling NK a weasel. You were just doing it in a way that has plausible deniability, but that fools no one. Just own it. NK is owning insulting a large group of Christians. Which I think is crap but apparently that’s just me.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  81. Thank you, DRJ, Dustin, and Time123, but frosty is not really worth the trouble. I called his Orange Crush a weasel, he couldn’t resist taking a shot at me, and I couldn’t resist taking a shot back at him. That’s all. A waste of Patterico’s pixels.

    nk (1d9030)

  82. there is no rational basis to explain how peacefully exercising a right chips away at the right.

    I think that’s loading the dice a bit. If you reconsider my point, I’m talking about people brandishing guns at protests, about Trump calling for a “LIBERATE MICHIGAN” action from nuts.

    It does chip away at your rights. You’re lucky it takes a lot more than a rational basis to shut gun rights down.

    Think about all those ‘this is how you get Trump’ blog post in 2017, back before he broke most of his promises and just became a ‘I’m not a democrat and democrats are going to do all bad things’ candidate.

    See that guy with the AK 47 and the infowars shirt? This is how you get Harris.

    Also, DRJ did not project my friend. DRJ just pointed out your disagreement became something else. I have done the same sin a thousand times and I’m not judging. Just saying.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  83. Dustin (4237e0) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:55 am

    I think I understand your point. You’re arguing from a practical perspective. I just disagree from both the practical and ideological perspective.

    I’m talking about people brandishing guns at protests

    This is a peaceful exercise of the 2nd amendment. If this was about people shooting people, and I’m not talking about arguable self-defense situations, I’m talking about NAFC and getting frisky at a protest and it turning into a second Greensboro Massacre, I might agree in part on ideological grounds but I’m still not sure I’d agree on the practical side. I’d think that was a horrible situation on its own independent of the larger context but I’m not sure even that type of a situation would move the needle. School shootings haven’t in the past. The Danielson shooting isn’t moving anyone on the pro-2A side to the anti-2A side it’s doing the opposite. COVID was already spiking gun sales and the BLM/A violence has only brought more people over to the pro-2A side. From an ideological perspective you are just articulating the standard boogieman of gun control, i.e. the simple fact that people have guns is a problem in an of itself. Even if Harris/Biden win they’d still be pushing what I think is becoming an increasingly unpopular position.

    about Trump calling for a “LIBERATE MICHIGAN” action from nuts.

    This is a peaceful exercise of the 1st amendment. It’s not “a call for violent action” and again this is the standard boogieman of gun control. We’ve gotten to a place where simply saying people should be free to exercise their 2nd amendment rights is interpreted as a dog whistle for violence. Actually, it’s worse, we’ve gotten to where this is reflexively called a racist dog whistle for violence. I don’t think this is as commonly held a position as you might. In fact, “I think that’s loading the dice a bit”.

    This argument that free exercise erodes the right or is somehow invalid on it’s face isn’t limited to the 1st or 2nd and it’s not new, e.g. why are you remaining silent when you could cooperate and clear this up, why do you need a lawyer if you aren’t guilty, why can’t the police search your house/car/person if you’ve got nothing to hide, etc.

    See that guy with the AK 47 and the infowars shirt? This is how you get Harris.

    Harris wasn’t picked because of her stance on guns even though she is reliably confused about them and the 2nd. She was picked because Biden’s handlers promised to pick a woman of color. At the time I think everyone thought that meant black woman but here we are. If the AK and infowars stuff was really the issue you’d be seeing more of Beto.

    frosty (f27e97)

  84. Time123 (f5cf77) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:40 am

    I was taking a shot. Not for the reason nk gives. I’ve got a functioning long term memory unlike some of our POTUS choices.

    I’m not sure why this went sideways today. I’ve called nk worse in recent memory and of course he’s owning insulting Christians. He doesn’t think that’s a bad thing.

    frosty (f27e97)

  85. Another week, another QAnon fruitcake wins a GOP primary.

    As a bonus, the GOP nominee for Biden’s old Senate seat is also a 9/11-truther and a self-described flat-earther.

    It really is Donald Trump’s party now.

    Dave (1bb933)

  86. Every criminal accusation should be viewed skeptically, and yes, the timing of this one is very suspicious. I’ll wait for the accuser and her account to be vetted, as I’m sure they will be, before I draw any conclusions. If she turns out to be a pathological liar like Tara Reade, I’ll dismiss her allegations accordingly. If she doesn’t, and all we’re left with is a he said, she said, then Trump’s own pathological dishonesty, as well as his long, credible history of committing similar sexual assaults will obviously work against him.

    What difference will any of this make, other than to the accuser and possibly the accused’s wife (though at this point I highly doubt that)? None whatsoever. This is just another category of Trump’s depravity of which to those not already convinced, no additional evidence could be sufficient.

    lurker (d8c5bc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3347 secs.