March 13, 2016

"Have we contributed to this culture that has turned American politics and the American political discourse into the equivalent of the comments sections in these blogs?"

That's the question Marco Rubio said "we all need to take a step back" and ask. He adds: "Presidential candidates are now basically Twitter trolls."

That's my transcription from "State of the Union" this morning, where the moderator Jake Tapper is bearing very heavily down on the subject of the violence and anger supposedly fomented by Donald Trump.

ADDED: Here's a taste of Tapper. Note the woeful face and the dire words:

87 comments:

David Begley said...

Not THIS blog.

rhhardin said...

Fomenting has to do with ants.

rhhardin said...

"We all need to take a step back."

That's the fallacy of composition.

If everybody stands on their toes, everybody can see better, being the prototype.

Titus said...

It is so important to take care of the SPIRIT. We are not bodies with souls, we are souls with bodies...We are our own greatest healers. If we could all heal ourselves, we could heal the world.

i am very zen today and all about chakras and shit, really feeling the inner me and stuff, third eye, wide second, etc. sometimes the feelings are very powerful and overwhelming. I am at that place right now. I am actually listening to and focusing on my breathing right now and I am just like really into it and crap.

when i am walking on the street i am observing everything-smelling a flower, petting a dog, giving money to the homeless. i am also very aware of sights and sounds and smells.

it is like almost like being high on a drug but the drug is life and living and being here NOW, yea.

i would love to share this gift with all of you and pass on my intense positive energy I am currently experiencing.

thank you and namaste

Titus said...

reiki and healing arts are becoming integral to my exercise regime.

AReasonableMan said...

If Titus can be a unifier anyone can.

Beaumont said...

I'd be interested in A.A.'s answer to the question.

Basil said...

It's not the internet troll model that's the problem, it's the cry bully syndrome pouring out of higher Ed. If you don't agree with someone, you have the right to disrupt their speech through violence and noise. Classic Alinsky.

Of course, Rubio blames the victim, Mr. Trump, who is being harassed by the Soros and Sanders brown shirts and then slandered by the media. Reason number zillion for the failed Rubio campaign.

EDH said...

"Have we contributed to this culture that has turned American politics and the American political discourse into the equivalent of the comments sections in these blogs?"

I'd say yes, you have, by giving a pass to the leftist Storm Detachment that disrupted the Trump rally.

Ken B said...

EDH
+1

It's simple. Condemn violence and intimidation as unjustifiable even if Trump's rhetoric is (insert your Condemnation here). Yet not one candidate did.

Unknown said...

It is now obvious to all media that Trump has been inciting violence from the get go between pre-dominantly white supporters and pre-dominantly non-white protestors. Trumps political strategy is that he will benefit from any and all violence because it will be televised 24/7 between mostly whites going about their business and the unworthy others.

The solution for the Democrats is simple. They should get the word out to all their supporters across the country to stay as far away as possible from all Trump rallies and to make sure they vote in November. Trump can continue to incite violence at his rallies and the rest of America and the World can watch in fascination.

Meade said...

I predict Jesus will return in the form of a troll.

Again.

PB said...

The Gang of 8 was always going to do him in, but his attacks on Trump were counter-productive.

Bob Boyd said...

"This" is never going to be "over".

"This" is what maturing beyond our need for encouragement and optimism looks like.

Michael K said...

"it's the cry bully syndrome pouring out of higher Ed. If you don't agree with someone, you have the right to disrupt their speech through violence and noise. Classic Alinsky. "

Yes. They will not stop.

"They should get the word out to all their supporters across the country to stay as far away as possible from all Trump rallies and to make sure they vote in November."

There is no chance they will do this.

If I were the fire chief in Cleveland, I would get plenty of sleep. He'll need it.

Meade said...

"Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the iCloud with great power and glory." -- Mark 13:26

Sebastian said...

"They will not stop." They won't because it works, aided and abetted by the MSM and clueless GOPers. Almost makes me like Trump. Almost.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

What BS this argument is- Trump's fault cause he says mean things. Democrat party progressives have built this since the Haymarket riots in the anarchist/Red days. It's time for anti-democrats to bring their guns, get in their opponents faces and punch back ten times as hard! Let's have it out on the streets when the BLM scumbags stop traffic and block roads! Let's put on the hard-hats and smash the skulls of dirtbags occupying our public places! If this means war, let's have it, right here, right now!

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Unknown said...
It is now obvious to all media that Trump has been inciting violence from the get go between pre-dominantly white supporters and pre-dominantly non-white protestors.
3/13/16, 10:43 AM

More BS. Even Tavis Smiley realized that this is a lie.

Chuck said...

Basil I am curious about a charge that Trump has been "slandered by the media."

The intersection of "Trump, the media and slander" is of interest to me because I have defended a national publication in litigation and I'm sort of familiar with the law on defamation. And Trump says he "will change those laws."

Trump doesn't say how he would change any laws, or which laws he'd change. Of course as President, he wouldn't be able to change any federal statutes on his own; that is an Article I prerogative.

But moreover, the "laws" that one suspects Trump doesn't like are the carefully modulated line of cases following from New York Times v Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., and the President of the United States is powerless to "change" any of that common law, which we should also note is largely based on the First Amendment's press freedom provisions as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a matter for states, in the first instance (consistent with most traditional intentional tort law) but for state and federal courts in the second instance, when such laws and causes of action are reviewed under constitutional guidelines.

Fabi said...

That screen-grab image of Little Marco is worth 10,000 words. Shell-shocked. He obviously believed all the smoke that the National Retard blew up his ass, and he now realizes how utterly stupid he was to ever believe that he could be president. Hope that sting lasts for years and years, little boy.

TCom said...

Some people are still delusional, thinking the genie can be put back in the bottle.

What Trump is doing is exposing the ugly truth for all to see. People are terrified, they glance at each other with problematic, worried frowns. How awful this all is!

Finally, they realize all he did was hold up a mirror. It's taken 9 months, but more and more are starting to get it.

Bob Ellison said...

Chuck, most of us non-lawyers have a different concept of the word "slander". It means to bad-mouth with ill intent and lack of evidence. Might not work in court.

As Michael Fitzgerald suggests above, the anti-Trump forces are organized and funded, and even Fox News doesn't seem to much wonder how and why. They just want the story.

Bob Ellison said...

It's getting worse, very fast. Anti-Trump folks are turning into Trumpeteers every day.

Marxism and Leninism teach that you must first get to a crisis before you can get where you want to go. That's what's going on.

Meade said...

"Neither shall they say, Troll here! or, Troll there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)

Ken B said...

David Begley: Allow me to introduce Amanda.

Bob Boyd said...

As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade

Fabi said...

Rove had a very forceful defense of Trump on Wallace's show this morning. He called out the BLM thugs perfectly. He equivocated a bit after that, immediately after declaring that he wouldn't equivocate; but nobody ever accused "The Whiteboard Architect" of being smart.

jr565 said...

Trump is certainly not guiltless here,but he is not blameless either.

but this is also the fault of the left. Even moreso. This is actually the lefts tactics coming home to roost.
Trumps rallies are only violent insofar as he deals with protesters. So, one of the things that those opposed to Trump say is that he tells his supporters to beat people up, and he'll pay their legal bills.

But what was the context of that. Here's his quote: "There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It won’t be so much ’cause the courts agree with us too."
It wasnt' then just about protesters, it was protesters who are engaged in violent behavior. Throwing stuff at people is in fact violent behavior. Is he telling people to knock the crap out of people who arent' throwing tomatoes?(engaging in violent protest). I dont think so.
But its being characterized that way, even by some on the right. So the question is, why are lefty protesters throwing tomatoes? what is it about lefty protests that leads to violence?
If you watch Trump rallies and they deal with a protester who isn't violent Trump doesn't say "beat that guy up". He says "Ok. get him out of here" then he turns his back for a minute. then he turns around and makes some snappy comment. Usually protests are not violent and so get dealt with as a minor disruption.
the times where he does say they shoudl be dealt with harshly its usually when they are throwing punches or engaged in physical violence.
For example, the time he said he wanted to punch someone in the face. The reason he said was because the person was throwing punches himself and was being treated with kids gloves by the cops.
and he said "“We’re not allowed to punch back any more,” Trump lamented. The billionaire said he missed the “good old days,” when the man would be treated differently."

Not he says punch BACK. meaning the person punched first.
Did the protester actually punch first as Trump alleges? I dont even know. But his statements are not endorsements of offensive violence, they are endorsements of fighting back.
Remember obama's statement "punch back twice as hard". This is an extension of that same articulation.
If the protesters dont want to get punched, dont act like Black Lives Matters protesters. we all know that they can be really obnoxious, sometimes violent. But they'l get in your face and start cursing at you. A lot of people have held back, probably because they dont like to think that they woudl be viewed as a white person punching a black person, but the fact is, the tactics used are provoking a fight, and sometimes people will fight back. But its the instigator who is to blame.

Just providing context for what trump is saying. He's not JUST saying punch peopel who disagree with him, even if that's how its characterized.
But now, lets be honest. He's being reckless with his speech. He simply is. I already showed how his speech is defensible if he simply says its for self defense. But he can't really get into nuance so he sounds like an authoritarian thug.
Rubio and others are right to call him out on that speech. Just don't blame the big protest being shut down on that. Or at least call out the agitators for creating this whole mess by protesting the way they do.

Chuck said...

Bob Ellison said...
Chuck, most of us non-lawyers have a different concept of the word "slander". It means to bad-mouth with ill intent and lack of evidence. Might not work in court.


That is why Donald Trump, who has a First Amendment right to say mostly whatever he wants, should shut his ugly fat yap about things he doesn't understand.

Alternatively, it is why the nation at large, with a chance to reflect on these important topics, should be laughing at Trump's incompetent stupidity.

Hagar said...

It is now obvious to all media that Trump has been inciting violence from the get go between pre-dominantly white supporters and pre-dominantly non-white protestors. Trumps political strategy is that he will benefit from any and all violence because it will be televised 24/7 between mostly whites going about their business and the unworthy others.

The solution for the Democrats is simple. They should get the word out to all their supporters across the country to stay as far away as possible from all Trump rallies and to make sure they vote in November. Trump can continue to incite violence at his rallies and the rest of America and the World can watch in fascination.


Pardon, but is the above meant as subtle sarcasm, or is it for real?

Chuck said...

And I want to add, for Professor Althouse...

Trump's little dissertations on defamation laws would not last ten seconds in a First Year class.

Professor Althouse is actually a real, live qualified expert on the subject. Why not a simple, clear blog post on how far Trump is from any cognizable legal theory on this subject? If what Trump is saying is a legal joke, and much of the American public is being misled, why wouldn't law profs engage in one of their rare acts of public service and debunk the falsehoods?

[Jumping in with a defense of Professor Althouse to my own above-described charge, it must be understood that Trump hasn't really offered anything in terms of a defamation law reform. There's no policy statement on the subject. It is just a personal grievance with Trump, borne first of his own hilarious history of litigation in the field, and secondly as Trump's standard segue' into how unfair the press is to him.

With no policy to refute or even discuss at the level of standard legal scholarship, it's hard to know what to say.]

jr565 said...

"The solution for the Democrats is simple. They should get the word out to all their supporters across the country to stay as far away as possible from all Trump rallies and to make sure they vote in November. Trump can continue to incite violence at his rallies and the rest of America and the World can watch in fascination."

he doesn't incite violence unless protesters are throwing tomatoes at him. (or he percieves their protests as violent). So if no protesters actually protest him, my guess is he has perfectly normal rallies where no violence is discussed.

jr565 said...

"Chuck, most of us non-lawyers have a different concept of the word "slander". It means to bad-mouth with ill intent and lack of evidence. Might not work in court."

He might bring the lawsuit just to get the discovery. Where all the groups who coordinated this riot essentially, have to go into detail about how they were involved. Sometimes you dont bring a suit with the intent to win.

TCom said...

"That is why Donald Trump, who has a First Amendment right to say mostly whatever he wants, should shut his ugly fat yap about things he doesn't understand.

Alternatively, it is why the nation at large, with a chance to reflect on these important topics, should be laughing at Trump's incompetent stupidity."

Wew. It's going to be a long 8 years for you, pal.

Unfortunately for you, we aren't laughing. We're 100% fed up. It's going to be a big problem.

For you.

gadfly said...

"Presidential candidates are now basically Twitter trolls."

The Urban Dictionary defines "trolls" as trolls as:

One who posts a deliberately provocative message [to an internet site] with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Yabut - that is what twitter posters do - its the name of the game.

As for presidential candidates (and you know that Marco was talking about Trump), no single person could possibly post all tweets done in The Donald's name and some of his stand-ins cannot spell worth a damn.

jr565 said...

"Of course, Rubio blames the victim, Mr. Trump, who is being harassed by the Soros and Sanders brown shirts and then slandered by the media. Reason number zillion for the failed Rubio campaign."

Rubio said that the rioters also had a good share of the blame. He was talking specifically about Trumps use of words that seem to suggest he is inciting violence. And while its true that the protesters did cause the breakdown of the event thorugh their violent intimidation and action, Trump isn't doing himself any favors by being so blunt about telling people to hurt protesters.
Instapundit and Ace of Spades made the point "The Fact That Trump is Provocative Does Not Excuse Left-Wing Crybullies Rioting in the Streets.”
True, but the fact that Left Wing crybullies are rioting in the street does not mean that Trump is not provocative (in his use of violent rhetoric).
Anyone on the right expects the left to act like crybullies who will riot in the street or on a college campus. Doesn't mean that Trump shouldnt tone down his message and be a little less brutish with his calls to arms. Or at least explain himself better.

Bay Area Guy said...

In basketball, there's a saying that the Refs always see the punch thrown, but rarely see the prior elbow to the ribs.

Something similar is going on with Trump.

The Left specializes in shutting down opposing speech and protesting/rioting when they are upset about something. (See Ferguson, see BLM, see Occupy Wall St, see a zillion others)

Have we ever seen a group of conservative males protesting or disrupting a Bernie Sanders rally? Of course not.

The media and its enablers ignore riots/violence/disruptions by the Left. But then they seize on any intemperate statement made by Trump or the isolated sucker-puncher at a Trump rally to declare Trump the cause of said violence. And, regrettably, we see some mushy statements by other GOP candidates joining the fray against Trump.

Just to help those with amnesia - in 1968 the Democrats rioted at their own convention in Chicago, which gave Nixon a very close victory.

This is how the Left operates. If the Right were rioting on college campuses, disrupting Hillary's or Bernie's campaign speeches, I'd be calling them out too. But it doesn't happen.

Laslo Spatula said...

Real Republican Man says:

There is a Line, people, there is a Republican Line and you are either on one side of the line or the other. Or you are straddling the Line. You are a straddler, and Republican don't straddle: we take a wide stance sometimes, but we don't straddle. Democrats straddle.

Or I guess you could be going back and forth like you don't even know the Line is there. Like some reprehensible drunkard.

But there IS a line. It takes both feet firmly on the right side of the Line to be on the Right Side of the Line, Republican-wise.

I know where the Line is, and what is on either Side, I KNow the Line: I Respect the Line. Those that Disrespect the Line are to be Disrespected. Because they Disrespected the Line. They are Disrespecters to be Disrespected. It's pretty simple, really.

And still the Gate-Crashers insist on Shitting in the Caviar. Because we keep large amounts of Caviar on the Right Side of the Line. Real Republicans do NOT shit in their Caviar. Gate-Crashers do not appreciate Fine Caviar, and think nothing of shitting in it. That is why there is a Line: to keep the Shit out of the caviar.

I have a List of those that Shit in the Caviar.

I am Laslo.

Hagar said...

"Protestors" have a right to stand outside with signs and bullhorns, etc., or hold an opposing rally in the next parking lot over, but they do not have right to enter the hall for the express purpose of disrupting the rally and prevent the speaker from being heard.

Fabi said...

@jr565: You must be joking. Are you really suggesting that Trump modify or explain his behavior due to the actions of the rent-a-mob thugs? Do you believe that it's something specific to Trump's rhetoric that caused their behavior? I hope not. They're very pleased to have it as an excuse or deflection, but they're only after Trump because he's the front runner.

This has been their plan before Trump even announced his candidacy. If Trump were to drop out of the race today, they'd be doing no different at a Cruz rally tomorrow.

Chuck said...

TCom said...
...
...

Unfortunately for you, we aren't laughing. We're 100% fed up. It's going to be a big problem.

For you.


You are mistaking me, for someone who cares about how "fed up" you are. I'm not talking about you. I am talking about defamation law. I'm really talking to Professor Althouse. But if you have some expertise in Constitutional, media and tort law, feel free to respond.

Michael K said...

Chuck is educating us about why lawyers are so popular.

Nice work, Chuck.

TCom said...

"You are mistaking me, for someone who cares about how "fed up" you are."

You obviously care, because Trump is driving you bonkers. Nice try, though.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...

...

They're very pleased to have it as an excuse or deflection, but they're only after Trump because he's the front runner.

This has been their plan before Trump even announced his candidacy. If Trump were to drop out of the race today, they'd be doing no different at a Cruz rally tomorrow.


Fabi I am really glad you made this point. Here's what I'd say in direct response...

It would be sad and ironic for ANY Republican to start making common cause with MoveOn, BLM, or the Sanders campaign. I won't do it. I'd LOVE to push back hard against them.

It would be so much easier to push back against them, if we didn't have to fight rear-guard actions about Trump's own stupid and incendiary comments.

Shouting Thomas said...

The comments section of the blog is what political discourse should be.

Not the regulated, "respectable" range of opinion endorsed by the bipartisan elite of the DNC/RNC, coastal media and the consultant class.

I played a teeny role in the development of this internet tech. I'm kinda proud that that tech is tearing apart the ability of the "respectable" players to control the parameters of debate.

A McLuhan scholar friend keeps telling me that Trump is the first "internet candidate." Remember, The Medium is the Massage! That's right, the massage.

Chuck said...

lol;

On my substantive points...

...crickets.

Owen said...

Two things:
(1) Agree with jr565 (at 11:30) that Trump might bring suit just to get discovery. Or maybe just to burn up the adversary's time and money. Sometimes the process is the punishment.

(2) As for Chuck's complaint that Trump hasn't said how he would change the [defamation] laws: fair enough, but as a famous man once said, "I have a pen and a phone," so there's always that. Plus every litigation is part of the "living body of the law" as a dynamic process. Every decision "changes" the law even when it merely applies and affirms it. It becomes another instance whereby the common law realizes itself. Yes, this is all very airy but (see point #1) it can get very gritty and real, at least for the named defendants. Maybe Trump would take us on a voyage of discovery to see if the broad shelter of the Sullivan cases has an outer limit after all?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

When people supporting Trump are violent it is Trump's fault.
When people opposing Trump are violent it is Trump's fault.
If we weren't talking about Trump this would apply to any other Republican.
Very simple.

Crazy Jane said...

Nobody will confuse me with a Trump fan, but I think we all need to get a grip.

A headline in today's Washington Post: "Is it possible to contain what Donald Trump has unleashed? The racially tinged anger that has fueled his political rise -- and stoked the opposition to it -- has turned into a fire unto itself"

A headline in today' New York Times: "Trump's Heated Words Were Destined to Stir Violence, Opponents Say"

Last night's SNL opening essentially called Trump a racist about 10 different times.

This is what the cool kids believe now -- a young cousin told me recently that "All Republicans are racists."

Accusing someone of racism is about the most awful thing you can say. If you are going to say it, you damned well better bring the goods. Doing so casually and repeatedly foments violence like that in Chicago Friday just as surely as anything Donald Trump has said or done.

(BTW, if Larry David could be signed to a four-year term playing Bernie Sanders on SNL, I might consider becoming a Bernbro myself.)

Chuck said...

Owen said...
Two things:
(1) Agree with jr565 (at 11:30) that Trump might bring suit just to get discovery. Or maybe just to burn up the adversary's time and money. Sometimes the process is the punishment.


You -- probably without knowing it -- have just come very close to describing actionable "abuse of process." And if Trump filed a suit "just for discovery" that too would be very close to establishing a FRCP Rule 11 violation, for which a court could impose actual costs, court costs, and contempt-like penalties.

If you are describing Trump as someone who has regularly abused litigation processes -- hardly a qualification for a President of the United States -- I might easily agree.

Beaumont said...

I believe one of the critical parts of Rubio's answer regarding contributors to the current political volatility has to do with taking personal responsibility (or the lack thereof), i.e. how all the various parties to the current political dysfunction seem absolutely allergic to the notion of taking personal responsibility for their own conduct and statements and instead blame others, distort and demonize the other, and perceive themselves to be the innocent victim unfairly blamed. Rubio acknolwedged that everyone needs to take a step back (including himself) and examine the role they play in contributing to the tosic state of political discourse. Whether he is able to follow his own advice or not, does not make his statement any less true or beneficial. At present, our political environment does not seem to allow politicians to take personal responsibility for their contribution to various problems and keep his or her job. Instead, those politicians who are most talented at blaming others for the problems in the country while taking credit for our attainments are most rewarded. Moreover, voter supression efforts and gerrymandering political districts discourage politicians from attempting to reconcile the needs and interests of a diverse electorate leading to further ideological, economic, ethnic, and racial polarization and accentuating the us vs. them, all good vs. all evil conceptualization of various interest groups and political persuasions.

Individuals who continually blame others for their poor lot in life, who repel personal responsibility, who demonize the other, who view themselves as the victim, who simplistically split the world into good and evil often struggle in life, particularly when it comes to their relationships. These individuals often act out, provoke acting out in others, and are involved in very volatile and unstable relationships. We view this behavior in most adults as dysfunctional (and typical of children). Is it a conincidence that this sort of behavior seems to charactize the public behavior of our most successful politicians?

pm317 said...

Looking at the comment stream on Ted Cruz's facebook page is better than any fivethirtyeight.. Nate Silver's analysis. Backlash against Cruz for his comments against Trump are real and damaging to his campaign.

gadfly said...

TCom said...

Wew [sic]. It's going to be a long 8 years for you, pal. Unfortunately for you, we aren't laughing. We're 100% fed up. It's going to be a big problem. For you.

The royal "we" straight from the Hive Mind. Donald Trump remains the most unpopular candidate running with negatives higher than positives. #NeverTrump is also serious and that means that a Hillary win will be about the Hive. A choice between two crooks in November will also be on the T-rump crowd.

P.T Barnum was absolutely right and William Penn Adair Rogers never met Donald Trump.

Fabi said...

Chuck@11:56 -- I believe that we're in agreement about that. I really do. I would like a more ideal situation and a more ideal front runner. As my father-in-law used to say about his slice off the tee box: "Sometimes you gotta dance with the one you brung."

Chuck said...

Crazy Jane: You are not so crazy! You should rest assured (I expect you need no convincing) that if Trump is the Republican nominee, all elements of the mainstream media will be arrayed against him, and that they will regard it (with the opportunity of Scalia-replacement) as their fight of a lifetime.

In opposition, Trump won't have the benefit of the "movement conservative" media. He might well get the Rush/talk radio support.

But Trump will also be up against about $850 million in anti-Trump communications. Maybe more.

It's only a taste of things to come. Trump, as a dangerous, racist, lying, fraudulent demagogue. Much worse than anything Barry Goldwater had to face.

It you suggest to me, that this is precisely what Trump has been up against all along, I'd say yes indeed it's true, to a much lesser extent than what we'll see in the future. And so far it has resulted in Trump cementing support of about 35%, and hardened bipartisan opposition of about 60%. It is the recipe for a Democrat landslide.

Chuck said...

Fabi - See Ann Coulter's column about "the taller handsome man"...

You'll like it.

Hagar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

So we now have Republicans saying that if Leftists attack Republicans and shut down their rallies, its the Republicans fault.

Great Precedent. I'm sure the Left loves it.

Hagar said...

In 1871 the Republicans in Mesilla, NM scheduled a rally to be held on the Mesilla plaza and the Democrats in Las Cruces heard about it and decided to saddle up and ride on over to "protest." So the Republicans formed up and started to march around the plaza, and the Democrats did the same in the opposite direction. The columns met on the far side, fist started flying, and somebody pulled his shooting iron and fired. When it was all over, they had 9 dead and about 50 wounded.
And that in a little small town you never heard of before.

rcocean said...

I always love how people like Kasich and Rubio never miss an opportunity to stab another Republican in the back in order to gain an advantage or win some PC points with the Liberals.

rcocean said...

If I were Hillary, I'd offer Rubio the VP - he'd probably take it.

The Cracker Emcee said...


"When people supporting Trump are violent it is Trump's fault.
When people opposing Trump are violent it is Trump's fault.
If we weren't talking about Trump this would apply to any other Republican.
Very simple."

This is it in a nutshell. And the truth of this is what really emphasizes Cruz's and Rubio's cowardice. The people they're making common cause with would do the same to them in a heartbeat. Sometimes your enemy's enemy is absolutely not your friend.

Titus,
That spiritually your experiencing? It's one of symptoms of a healthy middle-age. Embrace it.

traditionalguy said...

Typing " Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."
And that is the test of who is a real Conservative and who is a Jack Ass playing one on AM Radio.

I am pulling for ElRushbo to get off straddling the fence and fight for his country. How much money does he need to put away.

Laslo Spatula said...

Real Republican Man says:

It is up to Real Republicans to keep the Republican Party Pure:
we must not let the Blood of the Republican Body be tainted with the Blood of the Impure.

It is the Octoroon Republican and Quintroon Republican that will muddy the Republican Body beyond all Salvation -- impure votes coursing through their veins, vain in belief of their True Republican Belonging. They are NOT of Us, people: Not One Drop.

They are Real Republicans like Lawn Jockeys are Real Jockeys. Their unappreciation of Caviar -- the Caviar of Proper Taste and the Caviar of Pure Thought -- leaves them eating metaphorical Chicken McNuggets and Watermelon. We are NOT the party of metaphorical Chicken McNuggets and Watermelon.

Stay Pure. And NEVER Shit in the Caviar.

I am Keeping a List.

I am Laslo.

rhhardin said...

thinking the genie can be put back in the bottle

Threaten them with toothpaste.

chickelit said...

Laslo: It's the damn Reinceheitgebot!

Bob Ellison said...

I've been trying all my life to master the English language, Chuck. It's said to be a pretty easy language compared to others. Let me know when I can write or speak it for safe consumption by others.

Original Mike said...

"The solution for the Democrats is simple. They should get the word out to all their supporters across the country to stay as far away as possible from all Trump rallies and to make sure they vote in November. Trump can continue to incite violence at his rallies and the rest of America and the World can watch in fascination."

Good luck with that.

Drago said...

Poor Chuck. He's given himself away as a dem in sheeps clothing in so many ways that his effectiveness in creating dissension amongst the conservatives and repubs has been hopelessly compromised.

Whats most dissapointing is that one would be hard pressed to discern whether soros or Rove was behind it.

Such is the state of the current political situation.

gadfly said...

Noah Rothman takes an important look at the Trump-encouraged violence with a deeper look into the points that Marco Rubio made. Read about over at Commentary, "Careening Toward the Abyss".

I hope it doesn't appear behind the paywall.

Birkel said...

traditionalguy about Rush Limbaugh:
"How much money does he need to put away."

Why is that any of your damned business?

Owen said...

Chuck (@12:18): "...You -- probably without knowing it -- have just come very close to describing actionable "abuse of process."

Actually I do know about Rule 11, thanks. And while I haven't checked, I think it is rarely invoked, and even more rarely with success.

But if one wants to invoke Rule 11 in any "close case," then it would have an in terrorem effect on litigants trying to "change the law." So never mind the excellent substantive points you made (about who makes the laws; about federal versus state jurisdiction; about the strong precedents limiting recourse by "public figures"), let's just threaten to drop this procedural nuke.

Would Trump be deterred by it? Pass the popcorn.

Fabi said...

@gadfly: That linked article was nothing but a Marco mash-note. An "important look"? Not hardly. Just an empty sonnet of half-truths and distortions from another magazine that lost all of its credibility this year.

Chuck said...

rcocean said...
I always love how people like Kasich and Rubio never miss an opportunity to stab another Republican in the back in order to gain an advantage or win some PC points with the Liberals.



You gotta be kidding me.

Trump is right now running ads aimed at blue collar independents in Ohio, telling them that Governor Kasich will let their jobs get shipped to Mexico and China.

You are free to vote for that notion, and you're free to support Trump. Just don't call it "Republican."

traditionalguy said...

@ birkel...I pay my money to Limbaugh every year. Does that bore you too?

The Boer War beat goes on.

jr565 said...

"You -- probably without knowing it -- have just come very close to describing actionable "abuse of process." And if Trump filed a suit "just for discovery" that too would be very close to establishing a FRCP Rule 11 violation, for which a court could impose actual costs, court costs, and contempt-like penalties.

If you are describing Trump as someone who has regularly abused litigation processes -- hardly a qualification for a President of the United States -- I might easily agree.

I'm not a trump supporter. SO, im not syaing it IS a qualification for presidency. I was just talking about how litigious people use the court system. He may think he has a grievance. But may realize he will lose. But still go through with it ultimately becasue he wants to get info out in the public on who was pushign this protest. If that was his goal, but he said his goal was TO WIN, how would you prove him wrong?
This is the problem with the court system, actually. Trump, will use the court system to his advantage just like everyone else that does the same thing. No one goes in saying "my lawsuit is frivolous" they may realize it is (and I'm not saying he does think its frivolous) but they are not going to say it out loud.

Birkel said...

Why is how much money anybody has so important to you, traditionalguy?

I would bet it's not and you just think it sounded like good rhetoric instead of making you look cheap and petty.

dreams said...

The liberal media and the elite think they've found the formular to stop Trump. I hope they fail.


"It has been publicly documented that Occupy Wall Street-type protesters influenced by MoveOn.org, a group inspired by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and similar friends of fundamental transformer Barack Obama, purposefully targeted Donald Trump's Chicago rally with intent to incite violence and create chaos.

On cue, major media networks, the DNC (redundant, I know), and GOP "elites" desperate to preserve the status quo of "Think Tank Life" seem motivated to stereotype Donald Trump and his voters as "the problem." Before our very eyes, we are witnessing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy writ large. Strange bedfellows, indeed, when liberals, progressives, #BlackLivesMatter crazies, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich unite to defeat their arch-enemy: Donald Trump. Or is their enemy we?"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/media_hypocrisy_on_trump_rally_hard_to_stomach.html#ixzz42lpg5VrJ

cubanbob said...

Unless there are some surprising setbacks the next round of primaries will be pretty much conclusive for the Republicans. And for better or worse it looks like its going to be Trump. What Perot couldn't do in 1992 and 1996 as a third party candidate it is starting to appear that the barely in disguised third party candidate Trump is about to pull off. If that is the case does the formal Republican party kiss and makeup with Trump and strive for victory while trying to seriously elect the most conservative candidates for Congress that is possible? Are they so stupid as not to do so? I'm afraid the answer is yes they are.

traditionalguy said...

My mistake Birkel. It's Sunday, and I slipped up and treated you as if you are good hearted.

Birkel said...

So just cheap and petty? Or jealous too?

Jonathan Graehl said...

Everyone wants a ticket to the billionaire boys' club. Haven't you heard? We're for HRC.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Thank you for 'shit in the caviar', Laslo.

Fen said...

Lefties are such hypocrites. Here is their script:

Leftist Mob: "Hey, let use Union Thugs to intimidate Althouse and shut down her speech"

Rightwing: "That's not acceptable and should not be tolerated"

Leftist Mob: "Can we get some muscle over here to shut these Rightwingers up?"

Rightwing: "....thats wrong, but effective and no one is willing to stop you. Okay, fine, we'll do the same back at ya, play by the same rules"

Leftist Mob: "Thats not fair! Politics has become uncivil. People should never use force to shut down free speech. Time out for everyone! Violence is off the table... until we decide we need it again"

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

This is what the cool kids believe now -- a young cousin told me recently that "All Republicans are racists." Accusing someone of racism is about the most awful thing you can say. If you are going to say it, you damned well better bring the goods.

The Left does this to demonize you. As soon as they started comparing Trump to Hitler, I knew violence was just around the corner - they need to pretend you are a monster so they feel justified in punching you.

Here's a prediction to prove the point: at some point in the future, the Left will start a false narrative that conservatives are taking to the streets to shoot people they disagree with. That will be proven to be a lie, but not before the Left starts beating up people in the streets by pretending they are "monsters" that had it coming.