June 19, 2016

"I have fun with life and I understand life and I want to make life better for people."

Said Donald Trump to Maureen Dowd — whose column today, about Trump, begins: "He won’t pivot. So I have to." And ends: "Now Trump’s own behavior is casting serious doubt on whether he’s qualified to be president." The commenters at the NYT are falling over themselves to scream — and I'm paraphrasing — Now?!! Only now?!! Doubt??! Only doubt!?!?!

119 comments:

John said...

So many on both sides are upset with the DNC and RNC choices. What would happen if the majority of voters were to write in #none of the above? Would the electoral college be thrown into a tizzy since there are no electors pledged to #none of the above?

Once written, twice... said...

Do you have any doubts you want to share Ann? Or do you want to play your Althouse Hillbillies through the Fall?

Bob Ellison said...

Dowd and Trump. Surely the universe will explode.

Hagar said...

The view from the 52nd Floor.

Unknown said...

Some people wait to see which way the wind is blowing first before expressing their doubt. Overly cautious, or cowardly?

Ron said...

I wish they understood that the louder they scream, the more appealing Trump becomes...relatively.

Oso Negro said...

The media turns on their darling Republican presidential candidate as reliably as Lucy pulls the football from Charlie Brown. But to people who believe this spells the end of Donald Trump had best recall that there is a long way to go until November.

Hillary will still appear lifeless and totalitarian on the big stage. That and the "D" by her name are enough for 47% of the votes. But what if she has a patented coughing fit in the middle of her acceptance speech? What if there is another big Islamic attack on American soil before the election? Less probably, but not impossible, is that there is a person in the FBI with sufficient integrity to make her crimes public after the Obama Justice Department decides not to indict? What if she foolishly agrees to debate Donald Trump and he whomps her up one side and down the other with every last damn thing she has done from commodity investments, to travel staff dismissal, to sweeping Vince Foster's office, to demonizing Bill's sex victims, to de-stabilizing Libya, to lying over the coffins of dead Americans about video makers?

I detest Donald Trump, but I think it would be foolish to write him off too soon. She is the political Establishment, he is the outsider.

Terry said...

Now?!! Only now?!! Doubt??! Only doubt!?!?!
All of these people believe Hillary -- who most would acknowledge is, in fact, aptly described as "crooked Hillary" -- is qualified to be president.

Hagar said...

They don't - but she is their party's candidate.

rhhardin said...

Self-awareness only goes so far at the NYT.

rhhardin said...

Being offensive to leftism is Trump's whole support base.

The left absurdly thinks that this is unfriendly.

Unknown said...

I doubt Trump will ever debate Clinton. He may be robbed of the nomination at he convention, or he may chicken out and hold another fundraiser. Clinton will come out of any debate with Trump looking intelligent, in control of herself and informed on the issues. What will Trump look like?

traditionalguy said...

Realism has no place at the Narrative Fantasy media industry. And it has no place at the narrative Conservative Righteousness industry either. Trump's voters are realists. And they connect easily with crazy Trump's attack style that so offends Industrial Strength corruption politics.

Hillary will not win this time. The length of her term will be set by a Federal Judge.

Kate said...

Caroline Glick today at RCP has an article on Trump that explains well his appeal. We're not allowed to say ANYTHING anymore without being a bigot, racist, or unemployed. I wish more people understood that stifling speech is a greater threat than Trump's lunacy.

mockturtle said...

Trump's voters are realists.

Sums it up nicely. The public has been bullshitted for so long by the media and the political establishment that most don't know what reality really is. Common sense---so uncommon today.

mockturtle said...

Maybe that should be bullshat?? Can someone conjugate that verb for me?

Paul said...

"They don't - but she is their party's candidate." Oh yes they do.

n.n said...

The New York Times' own reporting casts doubt on whether their JournoLism should be protected under the First Amendment.

harrogate said...

Yeah, it's weird when comments sections get filled with people "falling over themselves to scream" the same thing. Isn't it?

Paul said...

Political correctness is killing us and will finish the USA as we know it. Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Mitt Romney...who believes any of these guys, beta white knight boy scout types to a man, would have the stones to push back against the overwhelming onslaught of herd mentality and public shaming that the SJWs and their media cohorts will unleash against the republican nominee? There is only one man with the ZFG alpha mentality to take it to the mat with these deviants. His orangeness and idiosyncrasies are but style points that pale in significance to the gravity of the nature of our, and thus the worlds, peril. It's time for you folks to get a grip. There are two options.

Roll the dice, or put the barrel to the temple and pull the trigger.

Michael K said...

" think it would be foolish to write him off too soon. She is the political Establishment, he is the outsider."

Yup. This is the weirdest election since 1860.

I don't know if Trump will be hurt that much by all the ads Hillary runs. MTP played one this morning. I thought it was weak.

I can see his ads running. They write themselves.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I understand you probably feel that fellow narcissists have to stick together, Ann. But do you ever intend to get critical of Trump? Ever? The guy can't even unite his party. Republicans are defecting to Hillary and you're talking about NYT readers and how the anti-Trump contingent on the left is supposedly extreme? Man, that is one delusional bubble you put yourself into. I realize you do it in the name of open-mindedness, but at some point you'd have to be a little more cognizant of how far out of your head your brain is falling.

What you are currently exhibiting should be called "cruel sycophancy". Don't kid yourself into thinking he's going to hire you at the end of this.

AReasonableMan said...

Once written, twice... said...
Do you have any doubts you want to share Ann? Or do you want to play your Althouse Hillbillies through the Fall?


This is a legitimate question. Althouse voted 'strategically' for Cruz in the hope that this would help Ryan railroad Trump at the convention. In contrast, Maureen Dowd has been quite open to Trump's candidacy. Now, this is largely because Dowd hates the Clintons with the heat of a thousand suns, but nonetheless perfectly willing to countenance a Trump presidency. Dowd''s current lack of enthusiasm largely reflects the fact that Trump has had a very poor month and Dowd has begun to see Clinton as inevitable. While I am not quite as certain on this point, Trump needs to get his act together or he won't even be the nominee.

HT said...

Ron said...

I wish they understood that the louder they scream, the more appealing Trump becomes...relatively.
6/19/16, 9:17 AM

________

That ship has sailed.

Paul said...

"What you are currently exhibiting should be called "cruel sycophancy". Don't kid yourself into thinking he's going to hire you at the end of this."

Althouse has been quite clear she's repulsed by Trump. She only pushes back against what she perceives to be unfair attacks by the media as far as I can tell. I think she is also fascinated by the spectacle, as it's so far outside the norm. I imagine her preferred candidate would be a Scott Walker type, who unfortunately would fold like a jellyfish when the forces in Washington came to bear on him.

AReasonableMan said...

In other news, Gun shop owner is shot dead by one of his own students during a conceal and carry class. The bullet went through a wall and into the room where he was sitting, hitting him in the neck. This is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the 'guns everywhere' crowd. Shoot outs in houses or crowded public places inevitably kill more people that just the target.

Paul said...

"This is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the 'guns everywhere' crowd. Shoot outs in houses or crowded public places inevitably kill more people that just the target."

Now is your chance to explain the very high homicide rate in Chicago where gun laws are the strictest in the nation. Feel free to contrast with any city with shall issue CC laws.

R. Chatt said...

Obama is in fact "tolerant" of Islamic terrorism. He's already pointed out that a person is more likely to die in a bathtub accident than by a terrorist action. The risk of Islamic terrorism compared with the benefits of increasing the Muslim population in the US is worth taking, according to Obama's calculations. I'm not sure what those benefits are, but I'm sure he thinks it's the right thing to do.

AReasonableMan said...

Paul said...
Chicago where gun laws are the strictest in the nation.


Chicago gun laws are no stricter than NYC. One big difference is that NYS as very low gun ownership rates compared to Illinois.

gadfly said...

MoDo says:
[Trump] yearned to be compared to Ronald Reagan, a former TV star who overcame a reputation for bellicosity and racial dog whistles to become the most beloved Republican president of modern times.

Reagan had a reputation for bellicosity and racial dog whistles? Bellicose is correct since he brought the Soviets to their knees, but "racial dog whistles" sent me scurrying back to a speech that Dutch made back in 1979 in Neshoba, MS to kick off his presidential campaign. According to the Daily Fish Wrap, the town was made up of honkies reliving the 1964 Civil Rights Act every day - and Reagan had the audacity to bring up the subject of States Rights. Big imaginations were shown here among liberals stretching back to 1964 then redepositing circumstances into 1979 for the benefit of young folks who never lived in those times.

Here is what Reagan said:
Today, and I know from our own experience in California when we reformed welfare, I know that one of the great tragedies of welfare in America today, and I don't believe stereotype after what we did, of people in need who are there simply because they prefer to be there. We found the overwhelming majority would like nothing better than to be out, with jobs for the future, and out here in the society with the rest of us. The trouble is, again, that bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there is no way they can get away. And they're trapped because that bureaucracy needs them as a clientele to preserve the jobs of the bureaucrats themselves.
I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].
I believe in state's rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.


Why call these seminal liberal references "dog whistles?" Plucking a sentence from an entire speech and bending it to fill a political need is poor journalism at best and an obvious distortion of content. Further disguising this distortion as a "dog whistle" effectively labels incidents as negatives - for example, as does the mere mention of the names of Eugene McCarthy or Robert Bork.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I like the sentences that immediately followed the start of Maureen Dowd's column:

Having seen Donald Trump as a braggadocious but benign celebrity in New York for decades, I did not regard him as the apotheosis of evil. He seemed more like a toon, a cocky huckster swanning around Gotham with a statuesque woman on his arm and skyscrapers stamped with his brand. I certainly never would have predicted that the Trump name would be uttered in the same breath as Hitler, Mussolini and scary menace, even on such pop culture staples as “The Bachelorette.”

The reference to toon, I think is to the movie (and book) "Who Killed Roger Rabbit" in which the cartoon characters are imagined as being n the real world)

Guildofcannonballs said...

http://youtu.be/mr9LocllyFs

Bark like a dog.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Althouse has been quite clear she's repulsed by Trump.

She has? Sorry if I must have missed that.

She only pushes back against what she perceives to be unfair attacks by the media as far as I can tell.

But that's funny. How does one define an "unfair attack" on the candidate to fight more unfairly than any other in history? We're in uncharted waters here and her inclination is to find the unfairness against him (which could conceivably exist) rather than all the unfairness he's dished out? I realize everyone else is covering the latter but if she really is repulsed by him I'd have expected to see more balance.

I think she is also fascinated by the spectacle, as it's so far outside the norm.

So disappointing. The guy's a narcissistic demagogue, and unnecessary economic decline tends to make these things happen. He's a symptom and not the disease. Why is she as averse as all the others to figuring out that a dysfunctionally lazy two-party system that marches toward declining living standards after creating the best standards in the world, is going to breed Hitler types? We know this is what happens, we've seen it before.

I imagine her preferred candidate would be a Scott Walker type, who unfortunately would fold like a jellyfish when the forces in Washington came to bear on him.

Lol. Exactly the type of nobody who would perpetuate the problems that create Trump-type politicians. Except on steroids.

chickelit said...

John asked..What would happen if the majority of voters were to write in #none of the above? Would the electoral college be thrown into a tizzy since there are no electors pledged to #none of the above?

As I understand it, the Electoral College has already telegraphed intent to select Hillary. The rest of this is all down ballot strategy.

Miriam said...

Interesting how so many have finally come to their senses of late. Maybe the spell is broken, the hypnotized have awoken and realized Scott Adams was full of shit all along.

Sammy Finkelman said...

John said...6/19/16, 9:05 AM

What would happen if the majority of voters were to write in #none of the above?

Nothing like the way nothing happens in Nevada, where "None of the Above" is always on the ballot.

Besides which you are voting for Electors, not a candidate for president. You need to write in the names of Electors.

Rhythm and Balls said...

ARM doesn't understand that unlike any other right, the 2nd amendment provides a completely unlimited right to have as much firepower on you at all times wherever you go for any purpose and regardless of whatever your troubles are with the law.

Soon we will have Second Amendment Relief Brigades smuggling arms into prisons. Barring arms from prisoners? What is this, a tyranny? That's exactly how tyranny works. Incarcerate and disarm. The Nazis didn't just keep arms from its minuscule Jewish population. It confined them. This will not stand. Arm the prisoners and suspected terrorists, they are the most obvious victims of a tyrannical federal government run amok.

chickelit said...

So, R&B finally jumps on the Trump=Hitler crazy train.

chickelit said...

Miriam hissed...Interesting how so many have finally come to their senses of late. Maybe the spell is broken, the hypnotized have awoken and realized Scott Adams was full of shit all along.

What are you talking about? Whom are you talking about?

William said...

I think Dowd is sufficiently hostile to Trump for most people, although not for Times readers. She does highlight one interesting fact. How did a man so patently bigoted and sexist and so given to impulsive displays of hatred manage to prosper and thrive in public life for so long? Why were such keen observers of human behavior as Maureen Dowd so blind to his blatant flaws? Even Democratic politicians were willing to break bread with him. Was this hateful man so subtle and charming as to be able to hide his monstrosity behind a crafted facade.......It's a conundrum. Either Dowd and Hillary are stupid or Trump is subtle and charming, but that's impossible on either side of the equation. It's beyond human understanding.

AReasonableMan said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Soon we will have Second Amendment Relief Brigades smuggling arms into prisons.


The sad thing is that this isn't even hyperbole. "Ammon and Ryan Bundy want their Constitutional Rights –including the Second Amendment– to be recognized in jail and are considering suing the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office to get them."

Rhythm and Balls said...

So, R&B finally jumps on the Trump=Hitler crazy train.

I guess you feel protective when it comes to your fellow Pennsylvania Dutch.

Same phenomenon, whether you disagree in scope. Completely wasteful, deliberate economic dislocation ===> a demagogue who has no answers other than hyper-nationalism and defining an internal, ethnically "different" enemy to fixate on.

Trump is doing this to a greater degree than any other American pol that I know of, depending on how far the Know Nothings got in the 19th c.

He kept a book of Hitler's speeches on his nightstand and never refuted Ivana's claim to that effect.

He makes it a point to avoid disavowing KKK support more than any other major presidential candidate ever. (Wallace had the "advantage" of being a spoiler instead of the actual, major-party candidate).

It's not hard to do the math.

Don't be a dildo. Have a purpose in life that doesn't just disappear after someone else's self-gratification.

chickelit said...

R&B wrote: Soon we will have Second Amendment Relief Brigades smuggling arms into prisons. Barring arms from prisoners? What is this, a tyranny? That's exactly how tyranny works. Incarcerate and disarm. The Nazis didn't just keep arms from its minuscule Jewish population. It confined them. This will not stand. Arm the prisoners and suspected terrorists, they are the most obvious victims of a tyrannical federal government run amok.

That's just hysterical in view of a conversion we had a year or so ago. You supported giving convicted felons -- even felons in prison -- voting rights!

Miriam said...

"Althouse has been quite clear she's repulsed by Trump."

Odd that one would feel so strongly defensive of someone they are repulsed by. Trump surely needed defending, because he and his true believers didn't defend him enough. It's like infantalizing him on one hand while admiring his strength on the other. His big booming voice spewing outrage was just too enticing for some, until they came to their senses.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"In other news, Gun shop owner is shot dead by one of his own students during a conceal and carry class. The bullet went through a wall and into the room where he was sitting, hitting him in the neck. This is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the 'guns everywhere' crowd. Shoot outs in houses or crowded public places inevitably kill more people that just the target. "

Tell us your thoughts on hospitals killing patients via bacteria, misdiagnosis, and Satanic heart impulse, among the other reasons.

You, reasonably, know this is a much much bigger problem than accidental gun deaths, and you will explain it to the weak and stupid as I command.

Do so now Chumpy McChumpity Chumped.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Paul said...
Chicago where gun laws are the strictest in the nation.

Chicago gun laws are no stricter than NYC. One big difference is that NYS as very low gun ownership rates compared to Illinois.

Are you comparing Illinois to NYC or are comparing Chicago to NYC? You seem to have two different criteria. Compare like to like. Chicago didn't have a restriction on firearm ownership until Richie Daley. He wanted to make it illegal to even transport a firearm in the city of Chicago. Gangs loved Richie Daley. Their victims were too afraid to break the law and arm themselves.

William said...

Oscar Wilde recounted an interesting parable about Narcissus. The pool of water where Narcissus was wont to gaze was asked if it mourned his death. The pool of water replied that his passing was very sad. The water claimed that when Narcissus leaned over the pool, it could gaze deep into his eyes and see the beauty of its waters reflected in them........Both Trump and Obama are narcissists, as are their most enthusiastic supporters.

Michael K said...

"Trump needs to get his act together or he won't even be the nominee."

I don't think there is much chance of this. I do think this is the weirdest election since 1860.

I don't know what he will do about TV ads but they showed one Hillary ad on MTP this morning and it was pretty weak.

The media keeps saying he won't get keep getting free media and then they cover him obsessively.

I'm not sure he can depend on free media but I thought he would implode last fall.

I also think events, as Harold MacMillan once said, will dominate the news and this will work for Trump as almost every event, foreign and domestic, is a disaster. I think we will have another Muslim terror attack. Europe will implode and Obama can't help but look either an idiot or evil to many Americans.

Rhythm and Balls said...

That's just hysterical in view of a conversion we had a year or so ago. You supported giving convicted felons -- even felons in prison -- voting rights!

You are so dumb.

You're the one who resents Hitler/Trump comparisons but apparently feels that democracy is imperiled just by ending the disenfranchisement of the incarcerated or formerly incarcerated - a population here that outstrips the size of anyone else's thanks to our concern that non-violent drug offenders who might self-harm are somehow the social equivalent of violent psychopathic murderers.

AReasonableMan said...

chickelit said...
That's just hysterical in view of a conversion we had a year or so ago. You supported giving convicted felons -- even felons in prison -- voting rights!


This is not exactly out in left field. "In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated." Much the same is true in many western countries. And, Vermonters love them some guns.

What if the laws leading to their incarceration are unfair? Why shouldn't they get to vote for the law makers?

Michael K said...

"He wanted to make it illegal to even transport a firearm in the city of Chicago. Gangs loved Richie Daley. Their victims were too afraid to break the law and arm themselves."

I remember well when that was made the law. My father turned in a couple of pistols I would love to have had.

That was after he had already been attacked on the front porch of our house and saved by letting the dog out. Soon after, he sold the house and joined "white flight" which was probably accelerated by Daley's stupid decision.

Michael K said...

Yes, ARM, and they should certainly be allowed to serve on juries, right ?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Anyone who doesn't grasp the distinction between not freaking out by voting former or even current felons and arming those dangerous enough to be designated suspected terrorists is too stupid to discuss civics, period.

The history of disenfranchisement in this country (or probably anywhere) has a sordid and never noble lesson.

Not true with disarming actually convicted prisoners, which is just common sense.

As for an unlimited second amendment right and why arming suspects is good, you'll have to do your own archaeology on demonstrating the wisdom of that one. I doubt there are good examples to learn from - which will of course in no way prevent you from simply applying common sense and reason.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Chicago gun laws are no stricter than NYC. One big difference is that NYS as very low gun ownership rates compared to Illinois."

Well, that certainly explains why a certain segment of the population of Chicago is so enthusiastic about shooting each other. And those magical state and city boundaries, that magically block the transport of items that magically animate themselves and kill folks. Avada Kedavr...oh, fuck it...Allahu Akbar!.

Michael K said...

"Odd that one would feel so strongly defensive of someone they are repulsed by."

Only to the political left. I am repulsed by criminals but very concerned that they not lose their civil rights.

You apparently don't care.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Disenfranchising the incarcerated or formerly incarcerated is the most obvious road to tyranny. How do you end (or disrupt) democracy? By jailing anyone and everyone you want!

Contrast that to this idea that not arming terrorism suspects ever led to tyranny.

The right-wing simply loves and supports the poorest evidenced and reasoned conclusions it can find. They are too emotional to avoid supporting wrong answers.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Anyway, last I heard, most dangerous felons had a violence problem. Not a group decision-making (i.e. democracy) problem.

But the right wing are nothing if not completely illogical.

chickelit said...

@R&B and Miriam: If you want to talk about Althouse's arc of Trump reaction* from the beginning, you should have either been paying better attention or reading the archives. She was so repulsed by Trump's initial announcement that she refused to tag it "trump." This was followed by a phase of bemusement as she realized that he wasn't going away. Then came an initial bond as she talked to Glenn Loury about "closeted Trump" people. Then came a petulant vote "for" Ted Cruz "against" Trump in The WI primary. Now we're seeing the "not a Trump-hater" phase. The weather could change at any moment.

@R&B: As for the Trump=Hitler meme which you are now embracing, I've watched for it since at least last July: link

I went the Trump rally in San Diego earlier looking for signs. I didn't see any.
_________________

*arc de Triump?

Rusty said...

This from ritmo.
"The right-wing simply loves and supports the poorest evidenced and reasoned conclusions it can find. They are too emotional to avoid supporting wrong answers."

The irony.
We're all waiting for a reasoned response from you or ARM. But so far all we're getting is your usual Ethel Merman impression. Must be you guys time of the month.

chickelit said...

R&B wrote: Anyone who doesn't grasp the distinction between not freaking out by voting former or even current felons and arming those dangerous enough to be designated suspected terrorists is too stupid to discuss civics, period.

This why I keep forgiving you and engaging with you over and over again.

Rhythm and Balls said...

@R&B: As for the Trump=Hitler meme which you are now embracing, I've watched for it since at least last July: link

That's because you are an autistic man who obsesses over the obvious.

I went the Trump rally in San Diego earlier looking for signs. I didn't see any.

You have difficulty finding the right ones and are looking for the wrong signs.

Courting the David Duke vote: That's a sign.

Kicking off your campaign by calling Mexicans "rapists, drug dealers," etc., and other dangerous national threats? That's a sign. Making that your core issue and refusing to provide any intelligible or even concrete proposals for any other commonplace national security issues? An even bigger sign.

Keeping a volume of Hitler's speeches and breaking new ground in your country when it comes to over-confident, demeaning demagoguery? That's a sign.

Telling a judge that he has no right to decide your case because of his ethnicity? That's a pretty good sign.

Flirting with the idea that the military will shelf longstanding legal, moral and ethical codes because your cult of leadership is just that obviously self-important a priority? Yep. That's a pretty big fucking sign.

You are blind to the signs.

Miriam said...

Chickelit,
If you had paid better attention you would've seen Althouse pivot toward Trump after the WI primary. The Scott Adams blogposts came fast and furious and Althouse was lamenting the strident criticism of Trump. If anyone deserved strident critisicm it was Trump, he was given a pass for far too long by the press. Then it even got too weird for them. Too many were swept up by his outrage, ignoring his "weirdness". A day or two ago Althouse seemed to pivot away from Trump once again, signaling that his weirdness was a factor in moving away from him. This post about MoDo might just be a signal to Althouse readers that she has come to a decision. Is it a "How Trump lost me" post. Maybe she's letting her readers down easy, to avoid riots, lol.

Michael K said...

Hysteria by the two crazy commenters. I no longer respond.

Paul said...

Well I think I've assessed Althouse's position pretty accurately. She can chime in if she likes but those of you who think she's a fan are poor observers of evidence at hand. But the fact that you are lefties in the first place pretty much affirms that.

Paul said...

"Chicago gun laws are no stricter than NYC. One big difference is that NYS as very low gun ownership rates compared to Illinois."

Besides the apples to oranges comparison of states vs. cities apparently your conceding that the strictness of the gun laws doesn't correlate to the homicide rate.

Also you didn't take the challenge of comparing Chicago to any city with permissive gun laws and we all know why.

The fact that all these mass killings take place in gun free zones should make it obvious to even someone of minimal intelligence that armed citizens are a deterrent to this type of crime.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I no longer respond.

And no one's complaining or missing you. Goodbye, Asshole!

AReasonableMan said...

Paul said...
The fact that all these mass killings take place in gun free zones should make it obvious to even someone of minimal intelligence that armed citizens are a deterrent to this type of crime.


By US standards NYC and NYS are largely gun free zones. NYC is one of the safest big cities in the world. The point about Chicago is that it is impossible to block the movement of guns into the city when they are freely available in the surrounding state, but then this should have been obvious. Are guns the only problem in Chicago, obviously not. Do they exacerbate existing problems, only the dimmest dimwit would argue otherwise.

chickelit said...

I have to laugh at (and oppose) those who say the goal of "the Right" is to arm everybody. As I understand it, the real intent is to arm just enough of the population so that the gun-toting crazies always suspect that someone may be armed. This is the working theory of Federal marshaling of flights. This what led to the spectacular foiling of the attack on Pam Geller in Texas.

chickelit said...

That's because you are an autistic man who obsesses over the obvious.

I don't know about the autistic label (I've never been accused by any one but you). However, I admit to obsessing over the obvious; it's gratifying at times to see something new in what has been hiding in plain sight.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I have to laugh at (and oppose) those who say the goal of "the Right" is to arm everybody.

It's implied by their insistence that the unarmed should be given less consideration than people who are actually paranoid enough to insist that they get to walk around everywhere strapped.

Paul said...

"Do they exacerbate existing problems, only the dimmest dimwit would argue otherwise"

Well that depends entirely on who has said guns in their possession doesn't it? They don't shoot themselves. You could arm every law abiding citizen in a given locale and have a murder rate of zero. They certainly will exacerbate the problems of a criminal confronting an armed citizen however. I'm gonna go out on a limb and extend to you the credit of being able to comprehend this.

And you still won't touch the challenge of comparing cities with permissive laws to places with strict laws that still have high gun murder rates.

Paul said...

I have a shotgun handy in my bedroom closet and for the life of me I can't understand why it hasn't murdered anybody yet! lol

Unknown said...

@Miriam. Agree, Scott Adams is full of shit.

Mitt Romney captured about 60m Reps votes in 2012 and lost. Trump has definitely captured 13m died-in-the-wool Trumpsters but needs another 43m to match Romney knowing he has the most unfavorables ever seen.

Trump likely believes that there are tens of millions of closet Trump voters. It is equally likely that there are tens of millions of Reps who say they will follow the party line and vote Trump but on the day will vote Clinton. Why? Because, Americans love their country.

Paul said...

"It's implied by their insistence that the unarmed should be given less consideration than people who are actually paranoid enough to insist that they get to walk around everywhere strapped."

This is just plain stupid. You just make shit up and throw it out there apparently oblivious to the fact you're making a complete jackass out of yourself.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oooooh! You really do have your finger on the pulse of the debate, Paul! I expect they'll be interviewing you on on MTP momentarily.

Michael K said...

"it is impossible to block the movement of guns into the city when they are freely available in the surrounding state,"

This is the lame excuse Chicago pols use but, as someone else pointed out, guns don't shoot themselves.

The theories all sound racist so are never mentioned but but has to do with the "black family"or lack thereof.

Or it could be the "warrior gene."

Or maybe there is just nothing else to do when you live on welfare.

Or maybe its the classic Doves and Hawks in evolutionary game theory.

For example, if you play the strategy Hawk against an opponent who plays the strategy Dove, your payoff is V; if you play the strategy Dove against an opponent who plays the strategy Hawk, your payoff is 0.)

In order for a strategy to be evolutionarily stable, it must have the property that if almost every member of the population follows it, no mutant (that is, an individual who adopts a novel strategy) can successfully invade. This idea can be given a precise characterization as follows: Let ΔF(s1,s2) denote the change in fitness for an individual following strategy s1 against an opponent following strategy s2, and let F(s) denote the total fitness of an individual following strategy s; furthermore, suppose that each individual in the population has an initial fitness of F0. If σ is an evolutionarily stable strategy and μ a mutant attempting to invade the population, then....


And

Given this characterization of an evolutionarily stable strategy, one can readily confirm that, for the Hawk-Dove game, the strategy Dove is not evolutionarily stable because a pure population of Doves can be invaded by a Hawk mutant. If the value V of the resource is greater than the cost C of injury (so that it is worth risking injury in order to obtain the resource), then the strategy Hawk is evolutionarily stable. In the case where the value of the resource is less than the cost of injury, there is no evolutionarily stable strategy if individuals are restricted to following pure strategies, although there is an evolutionarily stable strategy if players may use mixed strategies.

Just too many following the "Hawk" strategy, The hawks all kill each other. Too bad.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Nobody should own a gun if they don't want to. However, I will not permit those people to tell me I am wrong for owning one.

"It's implied by their insistence that the unarmed should be given less consideration than people who are actually paranoid enough to insist that they get to walk around everywhere strapped."

Beyond ridiculous. Link, please, nasty little boy. Point out to us all who actually insists that the unarmed should be given less consideration. You can't because you are a liar.

As a matter of fact, the unarmed in places profit from the presence of the armed. Criminals are less likely to attack if they aren't sure if their victims are armed or not. Which is, as has been pointed out many many times and only the mentally handicapped fail to grasp it, why 97% of all mass shootings occur in gun free zones.

Ritmo and his goofy sidekick, Inga are here to do the Retard Two-Step. Watch out for their flying spit.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Off to a barbeque, but here's a vid just for Inga, ARM and Ritmo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttMuvmspa8o

Rhythm and Balls said...

...the "warrior gene."

Another debunked myth for a surgical science-hater to keep relying on.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Paul and Mainstreet have been spotted yet again.

That "barbecue" is really just another open carry tailgate session in the Home Depot/Target parking lot.

exiledonmainstreet said...

That "barbecue" is really just another open carry tailgate session in the Home Depot/Target parking lot

Nah, but that sure sounds fun though. Too bad there really aren't open carry tailgate sessions in the Home Depot/Target parking lot. That's just a figment of your pissy, hysterical tiny little mind - just like 99.9% of everything you write here.

William said...

I think if the Republicans had nominated some candidate other than Trump, Dowd and her friends in Hollywood would have been perceptive enough to point out all the fascist, racist, sexist qualities of that candidate which the Republican Party was too dense or bigoted to take note of.........I won't mention the name of the country. Too invidious. I do, however, remember reading about a country where 50% of the women claimed that they had been raped and 25% of the men claimed that they had participated in a rape. The most telling tally is not the number of felons in prison, but the number of felons who are not in prison.

Rhythm and Balls said...

More Althouse commenters.

And over here.

But maybe not these ones.

exiledonmainstreet said...

*sigh* still can't come up with any original insults, R & B?

You're so boringly predictable.

AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

Yup. My "tiny little mind". Tinier than your humongous clitoris dong.

These, too. Observations of people with "tiny minds". (i.e. the NRA).

Mega-clitoris's friends.

AReasonableMan said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
Off to a barbeque, but here's a vid just for Inga, ARM and Ritmo.


A toddler managed to shoot and kill her mother the other day. Not just pissing around on a gun range. A big high five from all of us here at Althouse to that little girl. Hard to imagine how things won't work out well in her life.

Rhythm and Balls said...

A toddler managed to shoot and kill her mother the other day. Not just pissing around on a gun range. A big high five from all of us her at Althouse to that little girl. Hard to imagine how things won't work out well in her life.

Maybe she'll grow up to be like exiledonmainstreet. Perhaps that explains her own personality.

In any event, noting those facts is something he/she will just call "boring, unoriginal or predictable."

Reality is intended to excite. And man, is her massively engorged megaclitoris excited.

It doesn't occur to her/him that excitement has nothing to do with what's true or not, honorable or not, defensible or not.

But hey, it's not like she would let her PCOS get in the way of her need for drama (i.e. "excitement")

exiledonmainstreet said...


A toddler managed to shoot and kill her mother the other day. Not just pissing around on a gun range. A big high five from all of us her at Althouse to that little girl. Hard to imagine how things won't work out well in her life.

And that was the fault of the adult who left a firearm within range of a toddler.

I'm not worried about the girl in that vid. My father grew up on a farm, learned to use a rifle at very young age and somehow managed to live to be 75 without once shooting himself or others.

Michael K said...

"Not just pissing around on a gun range. A big high five from all of us here at Althouse to that little girl."

I would say, not knowing the facts as you did not include a link, that the mother probably failed the Darwin test.

There are ways to have guns be safe around small children.

Michael K said...

"My father grew up on a farm, learned to use a rifle at very young age and somehow managed to live to be 75 without once shooting himself or others."

I grew up in the city but my family had a farm downstate. I got my first gun at age 9. I was allowed to shoot it under strict supervision at the farm.

I was nearly shot one time by an idiot friend of my father who was careless with a shotgun but no one was hurt.

We should resume gun instruction in schools as we did when "gun violence" was a non-issue.

We won't, of course.

david7134 said...

I don't get this attitude to Trump. He has said some things that the average politicians would not. He has definitely not said anything overtly racist. His reference to Mexicans is only to illegals and if you live in a state with a large number of these folks, then you clearly understand the issue. As to Muslims, you have to have had your head in the sand for the last 60 years to not understand they are extremely violent and their religion allows them to act out. Now, contrast that to Hillary. She carefully frames her words so that she can never be caught saying something that people would disagree with or that she can't use to claim you did not understand the definition of a simple word or phrase. She has a track record we can look at. She made a fool of herself in Russia and energized the Russians to begin another round of conquest. She and Obama have destroyed the middle East and as a result have allowed unsavory elements to invade Europe. She killed 4 Americans and could care less about the affair, then she lied to their families over their bodies. Hillary is a deplorable person and is a horrible leader. She is a failure. Yet you want her over someone who talks rough???

Rhythm and Balls said...

I was nearly shot one time by an idiot friend of my father who was careless with a shotgun but no one was hurt.

Damn.

It's almost always only the good who die young.

Rhythm and Balls said...

My father grew up on a farm, learned to use a rifle at very young age and somehow managed to live to be 75 without once shooting himself or others.

Which everyone else is worse off for.

buwaya puti said...

The unarmed are unable to, collectively, prevent the Attorney General of California from shutting down a journalist by seizing all his computers and data. His crime was making a fool of her political allies, Planned Parenthood. Said journalist did nothing that any number of leftists havent done as a matter of habit.
That is what is becoming the new normal.
Eventually the armed will have to do something, or acquiesce. The future is Orwells boot in the face.

buwaya puti said...

Weapons are the last political firewall.
This is a political question, not a prudential one.

Fernandinande said...

harrogate said...
Yeah, it's weird when comments sections get filled with people "falling over themselves to scream" the same thing. Isn't it?


I think it's weird when people fall over themselves to scream the same thing in a comments section.

wildswan said...

I'm glad we're having a break from the election opinionating.

mockturtle said...

@R&B It's almost always only the good who die young.

Then I guess YOU don't have anything to worry about.

Jon Ericson said...

Hey Waxie, How did you choose your troll name?
Same question for you, Miriam. How did you choose your troll name?

mikee said...

Just so I'm clear on this, getting blow jobs during the work day, from an intern, is perfectly acceptable and does not cast any doubt on one's presidential qualifications, but "starting a conversation" about policy choices other than progressive diktat makes one completely ineligible for office.

And using open bribery of congress critters to pass by a single vote the most contentious legislation in decades is OK, too. But stating that Muslim terrorists should not be allowed in the country is a disqualifier.

OK, I got it.

Screw the NY Times, Dowd, and the extremely stupid horses they rode in on.

Jon Ericson said...

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Jon Ericson said...

Miriam (מִרְיָם, Miryam—"wished for child," "bitter") was the sister of Moses and Aaron, and the daughter of Amram and Jochebed. Her story is told in the books of Exodus and Numbers in the Hebrew Bible.
Ah.

Jon Ericson said...

rhythmandballs.com
Heh.

narciso said...

everything she has touched from north africa, to the niger river delta seems on fire, the ukrainians can tell her about the reset, the yazidis about her other great move,

Jon Ericson said...

I guess they were up late last night.
Or maybe they're attending a weekly online 'talking points' seminar.
Perhaps they're boinking.

Jon Ericson said...

What DO toons like 'wax boy', 'bitter', ARM, and Unknown have in common?

Jon Ericson said...

Aside from the obvious.

Jon Ericson said...

Man, that must have been a long, long online seminar.
I'm sure they'll be back Monday with some really, really tough something or other.
Perhaps they have some homework to do.
Like how to appear rational.

Jon Ericson said...

Mostly, though, Wax Boy needs to trim his(?) sails.

Jon Ericson said...

I am SO sorry 'Wax Boy' or 'bitter' could not be with us tonight.
'would be SO much fun.
Maybe tomorrow.

Jon Ericson said...

En garde, sphincters.

Jon Ericson said...

A pineapple and a jackhammer.
(Some imagination required)

Jon Ericson said...

I better watch out.
Good thing there are no 'Brazilian Steakhouses' nearby.
Wouldn't be a good thing.
I'd hate to be giged by some hairy Brazilian.

Be sure to attend the Brazilian Olympics though...

Jon Ericson said...

Speaking of Jackasses...
http://heyjackass.com/
Please lick it gently.

Jon Ericson said...


https://youtu.be/o1LsBdvnqyQ

Go Away Assholes!

Rusty said...



Blogger AReasonableMan said...
exiledonmainstreet said...
Off to a barbeque, but here's a vid just for Inga, ARM and Ritmo.

A toddler managed to shoot and kill her mother the other day. Not just pissing around on a gun range. A big high five from all of us here at Althouse to that little girl. Hard to imagine how things won't work out well in her life.

A tragedy, yes. How are all gun owners responsible? Or is this a case of, " if it saves just one life."

damikesc said...

Yeah, it's weird when comments sections get filled with people "falling over themselves to scream" the same thing. Isn't it?

Very much so.

You must've missed the Trump fights here for the last, oh, several months.

Try and keep up. We hillbillies might need to dumb down stuff enough for you to get it.

Republicans are defecting to Hillary and you're talking about NYT readers and how the anti-Trump contingent on the left is supposedly extreme?

So the GOP was a large tent with a wide array of views while the Dems were always a narrow teepee of thought? Intriguing.

Anyone who doesn't grasp the distinction between not freaking out by voting former or even current felons and arming those dangerous enough to be designated suspected terrorists is too stupid to discuss civics, period.

"Suspected terrorists"?

OK, I suspect you're a terrorist. I don't need any proof --- just a suspicion. What rights will you forfeit for the years it'll take to sort this out? Assuming you can, when there is no actual clear way to fix the problem. 40% of the people on the "suspected terrorist" list have no ties to terrorism. None.

So, Spell them out for us, please. What rights will you give up for years, possibly forever, if I become President and decide you're a terrorist --- maybe.

damikesc said...

Hell, why even give you a choice.

Let's suspend ALL rights for suspected terrorists.

Rights are for Americans...not terrorists, right?

Why should terrorists be able to hide the evidence of their foul deeds behind due process rights?

Why should they be permitted to talk and poison minds?

Why should they be able to vote for people to enact their evil schemes?

The Left feels due process isn't needed to restrict gun rights. Fine. I'll give them that.

I feel due process isn't needed to restrict ALL rights. I'll compromise.

...and don't worry, President DaMikeSC ---- I won't place names on a suspected terrorist list without a really good reason. And, no, you cannot see the evidence. You have no right to see it. You're a terrorist.