.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) August 9, 2016
I hate what Trump said. It was bad. He shouldn't have said it, and he should find some way to undo the damage and to stop blurting out things that occur to him on the fly, things that might be interpreted as a call to any sort of violence. If he can't control that tendency, how could he possibly serve as President?
But I want to talk about Elizabeth Warren's tweet. It has 4 aspects worth talking about: 1. The characterization of Trump's statement as a "death threat," 2. The assertion that Trump is "a pathetic coward," 3. Warren's use of the word "girl" to refer to Hillary, and 4. The assertion that Trump is motivated by a threat to his masculinity.
1. What Trump said was: "Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." That's not literally a threat. I know Warren was tweeting and that pushes people to compress language, but if you're going to criticize other people's blunt speech and crude language, you shouldn't do the same thing yourself. Trump said that the Supreme Court can change the interpretation of the Second Amendment (which it could easily do, switching to what had been the dissenting Justices' position, finding no individual right to bear arms) and then there would be "nothing" you could do. That was a reason to vote for him. Let him appoint the Justices. If Hillary gets the appointment power, it will be too late. At that point, Trump seems to have observed — as one might do in casual conversation — that "nothing" is not strictly true. There is something. It wouldn't be to assassinate Hillary Clinton. The way I heard it, before reading anyone else's opinion, was as a reference to the right of revolution, which is why some "Second Amendment people" think the government should not be able to disarm them. I don't think it's even talking about killing Hillary Clinton. But it is bad, nonetheless, because it floats an idea of violence that some deranged person might process into a call for assassination. If Elizabeth Warren wants to call that a "death threat," then she's using cruder language than Trump used, and she's adding energy to assassination ideation. The problem is delusional people who hear things and get ideas. Don't touch them off. If you believe that, act like you believe it!
2. What is the basis for calling Trump "a pathetic coward"? He's got a lot of nerve. That's why there's so much problem with him. Why did Warren use these words? The only idea I can come up with — connecting it to the next phrase — is that she wants to take a nasty swipe at his masculinity and "pathetic" and "coward" seem well-suited to that purpose.
3. Meade called this tweet to my attention, asking how Warren could get away with using the word "girl." Is this some female privilege — she can say "girl" but a man can't? I think that what's going on is that Warren is purporting to read Trump's mind, so it's not her saying "girl." That's what's in there in his mind. He's the one denigrating Hillary, thinking of her as a girl. Or: He's reliving a childhood psychodrama, in which boys feel humiliated if they can't even beat a girl. Warren uses vivid speech that's fascinatingly similar to Trump's. She blurts out the language of a childhood taunt: Hah! You're losing to a girl! And she seems to think she can talk like the playground bully because it's not really her speaking, it's just her doing the voice of somebody else, somebody who hurt little Donald many years ago and who still lives inside his head, taunting him after all these decades.
4. I think Trump believes he's doing damned well. He had to fight through 16 Republicans to get the nomination. He had to defeat his party's establishment, just like Bernie Sanders tried to fight his party's establishment. Does Bernie feel humiliated for "losing to a girl"? That "girl" had her party's whole establishment pushing her along. She's promoted and held aloft by a former President of the United States. I think Trump feels he's in a valiant battle and it's still going on, not that he's losing. He hates losing, he loves to tell us, but his style is to keep trying to win, not to succumb to low self esteem and view himself as a loser. But even if he were upset about losing, I doubt if it would be about the fact that Hillary is female, that any decent man should be able to beat any female. Why does Warren think she can ascribe such thoughts to him? I don't think she's correctly reading Trump's mind, but I also don't think she believes she is. I think she's trying to stir up excitement for Hillary, and the most exciting thing about this candidate few voters actually like as an individual, is that she's a woman. Warren encourages us to focus on the excitement of the first woman President. Don't pay attention to the individual, Hillary. Think of voting for a woman. And think of voting against that terrible man, Donald Trump, who is fighting a woman — not because she's his political opponent in the election — but because he's a man, with screwed up man-thoughts, and she's a woman, so he needs to destroy her. Plunge into the psychodrama, people!
Posts
186 comments:
That kind of talk would be standard in a men's locker room. It's pretty masculine stuff. Maybe Elizabeth Warren is not only a Cherokee, but also a man.
I think Trump should simply reply: Why Does Elizabeth Warren call Hillary a girl?
And then he should change the subject.
Are you completely brain dead? He didn't say anything about killing anyone. What he said was "The second amendment folks may have some other ideas". The 2A folks are very organized and have a huge lobby. They will call and write and get in touch with whomever they need to, so unless Hils wants to fight with them, and she doesn't, she will fail. But nowhere does he say or even mention killing anyone. You morons are reading and smoking at the same time. You should stop.
Yeah it was bad. Surprised you aren't defending him. Guessing there will be 300 responses below that will claim he didn't mean what he said, but of course he did. He just uses the, "...I don't know..." to try to let himself off the hook.
Warren's tweet is bait to get him to dig further. He usually falls for it.
No surprise. The primary use of Twitter seems to be saying childish one liners.
Right. Elizabeth Warren is a laughable waste of time.
But she's not running for President. (I sort of think that if she were, there'd be even more of a "NeverWarren" movement than there is a "NeverHillary" movement. But in fact, they are both probably equally terrible.)
And here we are, with Trump's stupid comment being The Story for a second day in the middle of the race for president. He is just a preposterously rotten candidate. And the folks (Bill O'Reilly's "folks") are just beginning to figure that out?
Stop clutching your pearls....Obama, Hillary and the Democrats have made much more explicit threats against Trump and other Republicans...
Whatever... I hope Warren's tweet gets lots of attention...I'm sure it is worth thousands of votes for Trump.
I didn't realize Ann gave Trump the out already in the next post.
And soon Ann will post something today from Scott Adams who, for some reason, she thinks is so smart.
it is nearly impossible to understand the aversion to trump the orator when we have had for the last 4 presidents in ascending order: 1. bush 1 (a clear liar when he said no new taxes and then raised taxes); 2. bill Clinton (a blatant liar, cheat/adulterator/abuser of interns, a possible criminal a la whitewater; 3. bush 2 who was probably a good man btw but who led us to a disastrous middle east war based on hyped intelligence, became subservient to neocons, betrayed conservatives by talking sweet nothings and acting like a neoliberal; and 4. Obama who has lied about important things like healthcare, allowed genocide on his watch, issued exec orders subverting American democracy, and who says nice things and governs like a dictator.
I am sorry but the last 4 presidents have delegitimized the office of the president and I refuse to pretend that having someone who talks nice but governs like a dictator (a la Hillary) will make the presidency better off. we need someone like trump in the presidency so the whole ruse can be exposed
Trump's statements could be interpreted as:
1. An off the cuff joke in poor taste.
2. A call that 2nd amendment supporters come out in droves and vote against Hillary
3. A call that 2nd amendment supporters take action against Hillary
4. A call that 2nd amendment supporters take action against the judges
My point is that it was a random off the cuff comment with a variety of both innocuous and bad interpretations. That's the extent of it.
Similarly, Obama was derided for such a call to general violence as follows durign the 2008 election,
"“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a fund-raiser in Philadelphia on Friday, employing a phrase that could have been lifted from a gangster movie. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans,” he said, referring to the city’s football team."
I still don't understand why anyone takes that harpy seriously. A second rate mind who only rose to teaching at Harvard by lying about her ethnicity. She is one of Crooked Hillary's primary surrogates, so you know that this is part of a coordinated attack on Trump. And what he said was not that bad - Crooked Hillary has repeatedly admitted that she would nominate Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Heller. They are trying to shoot the messenger because they don't want us to hear the message.
"The problem is delusional people who hear things and get ideas. Don't touch them off. If you believe that, act like you believe it!"
I don't believe that.
Delusional people already have ideas. You are demeaning delusional people by saying that they can't format their delusions by themselves.
Shame.
I am Laslo.
My read was his reference to him winning to prevent; or if he loses to holding the senate to block appointments. I did not see the threat of violence or revolution at all. You are letting a bunch partisans decide what you think for you.
Ann - I recall you saying more than once that it is not "easy" for SCOTUS to take back rights once granted.
I proffer the word "crone".
He can't stand the fact that he's losing to a crone.
There's good feminist reclamation of that word.
Close your eyes and imagine a republican who is arguably not a native American, but got to be a professor at a prestigious university (well there's a stunning statement, since not many republicans are professors to begin with) and tell us whether the media would bother to print anything that person said. She's a phony who got to high places based on lies. But hey, she's a democrat, so let's not question it if we're the media.
The deal is say the 2nd amendment supporters will do something and
the first association in these times is a conjuring of machine gun totin
crazies. What he didn't say is NRA. NRA has some serious negative connotations
with a lot of people, maybe a lot of the undecideds.
Nobody believes he made a serious death threat. It's all theater. Everyone clutches their pearls, casts their hand to their forehead, in an affect of outrage. Trump is tiresome. The outrage is tiresome. Everyone is manipulating their emotions for the sake of political advantage. Words are tools for manipulation, passions are weapons to be deployed for the cause.
Is there any authenticity left at all in politics?
We are a decadent, indulgent society that uses emotional outbursts to give a sense of meaning.
Peggy Coffey said...
Are you completely brain dead? He didn't say anything about killing anyone. What he said was "The second amendment folks may have some other ideas". The 2A folks are very organized and have a huge lobby. They will call and write and get in touch with whomever they need to, so unless Hils wants to fight with them, and she doesn't, she will fail. But nowhere does he say or even mention killing anyone. You morons are reading and smoking at the same time. You should stop.
You're wrong, of course. Trump meant to say something far-out and provocative; that's exactly what he did. He was saying that federal judges would be the end of the line for gun rights. Specifically, a federal judiciary packed with 12 years' worth of far-left nominees from Obama and Clinton. That sort of power supercedes any legislative work on gun rights. AND SO IT WOULDN'T MUCH MATTER WHAT CONGRESS OR THE STATES TRIED TO DO, AFTER LEFT-LEANING FEDERAL JUDGES GUTTED HELLER AND MCDONALD. That was Trump's point. That was precisely why he said "It's all over," if Hillary Clinton got the power to nominate federal judges. "All over," but the shooting.
But let's assume you are right, Peggy. That Trump was making an innocent comment about lobbying power and grassroots organizing. Even if that was Trump's intent, the whole thing came off so butchered and so misunderstood, it is fair and appropriate to question Trump's choice of words and his delivery.
Trump blew it, even if you believe him, Peggy.
Catherine; why assume the negative explanation of a statement that arguably can be taken two ways? I'm and NRA member and a military veteran well trained. The second amendment is a tool of last resort to be used under dire circumstances forced upon citizens. Your interpretation, and that of the Clinton machine says more about you and the democratic party than much maligned trained gun owners who give the bad guys and gals second thoughts about what they are planning against citizens homes and property. Trump is not politically correct which is one of the moral strengths that make him popular against the anarchy of resident evil. The police support Trump because Hillary turned her back on them-the thin blue line. That should worry you if your only protection is a chain latch on your entrance doors.
1.Yes it was a death threat. Maybe in jest, maybe not. Roger Stone the unofficial spokesmouth for Trump has once again been threatening a "bloodbath" should Trump lose the election. Maybe Trump was channeling Stone or getting in the Stone Zeitgeist.
2.Yes, Trump is pathetic, a coward? Hmmm, yes that too.
3.Girl, well, no Clinton has left her girlish days behind. I think Warren was employing hyperbole or was being cute.
4.No, while Trump does get threatened when his hand size comes up, he probably said this comment out of bitterness that he is losing. He and Roger Stone, may have visions of riots and mayhem when he loses. Maybe he was trying to prime the pump of violence. Plant the seed of what the "2nd Amendment people" could actually do if he isn't elected and doesn't pick SC Justices that are acceptable to them. You know, subliminal stuff, Scott Adams has described it, suggestions.
I'm not deranged, and I read it as a call for assassination. I didn't even think about right to revolution -- and I see how that fits better now -- until you pointed it out.
MadisonMan said...
I think Trump should simply reply: Why Does Elizabeth Warren call Hillary a girl?
It's a good question, but the answer is so painfully obvious. "Girl" can be safely employed by members of that subgroup for their own fun and profit the way that "nigga" can be safely employed by members of that subgroup. All others need not -- must not -- apply.
Let me give the the Senator's tweet the respect it deserves.
Fauxcahontas speak with forked tongue.
Its foolish to stress on the details of who said what.
Anything will do.
All that matters is the size of the megaphone.
Over-analysis is a typical failure mode of an analytical personality. Its useful for some things, like legal language and reasoning, but not for knife-fights.
Yes Warren was baiting him, it's easy, fun and he always falls for it. It serves the purpose of showing how unfit he is to be president when he so quickly loses his composure. I can't wait to see what happens in the debates. Hillary will be less obvious when she baits him, more finessed.
Trump made a death threat, Warren was "employing hyperbole". That pretty much sums up the unserious approach to political conversation these days.
Make the worst possible assumption about the opponent and make the best possible interpretation of one's own side, mix in some artificial outrage and assumption of righteous indignation, spread thin on comment boards, twitter, blogs.
Has the nutrition value of cotton candy but oh-so-filling.
Decadence and privilege.
Hey, how much money would it take to get a few more Hillariites to post up in here?
"If Elizabeth Warren wants to call that a "death threat," then she's using cruder language than Trump used, and she's adding energy to assassination ideation. The problem is delusional people who hear things and get ideas. Don't touch them off. If you believe that, act like you believe it!" Bad, bad Liz. It's really bad of her to use such crude language, and to add such ideation, and not to act like she believes what she's supposed to believe. And having been apprised for the proper instruction from Madison, WI, she will change her ways right quick.
But of course this is actually nonsense. Warren is a rational politician using calculated rhetoric to beat down a clownish opponent with code that appeals to her troops and the media. She "believes" in winning and in contempt for the other side. She won't mind if anyone "gets ideas."
The normal bad faith of progs and their MSM minions does not excuse the stupidity of the clueless clown.
Wow. And a fucking U.S. Senator, to boot.
That gets a full four out of four Uglies®.
PaddyO,
Calling for 2nd Amendment remedies as opposed to calling a woman a girl, compare and contrast.
Just wait until Trump spews some of this verball diarrhea at a State Dinner.
You can bet foreign press aren't going to laugh it off like Ann does.
Donald needs some verbal immodium
And everyone should recall the 2008 campaign when Hillary refused to drop out because of Bobby Kennedy's assassination in CA during the primaries.
Ann, you are really stretching when you sayTrump's statement promotes violence. It shows that you are falling victim to pre-conceived notions of Second Amendment people. If you think seriously about it, most of the latest "victories' for those who support Second Amendment rights have been either in the Judicial or Legislative branches of the Federal or State governments. People working well within the system to claim their rights under the Constitution.
Trump was ambiguous. He's not a lawyer. Big problem.
I hope Trump wins because he is the living embodiment of the caricature the Left would create no matter who ran for the Republicans. Like vampires feeding off of the blood of the living, they could feed off the outrage and manufactured outrage for years to come.
I hope Trump loses because I loathe Trump.
Who will save me from this election of death?
It's a difficult situation to ponder. I should probably abandon the internet and public discussions altogether.
Someone find me a fainting couch...
The media will ride this horse hard, particularly in light of the Julian Assange headline on Drudge. It is critical to the DNC to keep the press focused on anything other than the possible Seth Rich/Julian Assange connection.
I'll agree Trump's choice of words was unwise, but the fervor is laughable.
It's only far out and provocative because the media is screeching about "EEEEEEEEVIL TRUMP!" 24/7
Warren can use the word "girl" just like that comic at the Nerd Ball could use the "N" word in front of Obama.
Laslo Spatula said...
Delusional people already have ideas.
That gave me another idea.
anagram(Elizabeth Warren) = Brazen Wealthier, Inert Haze Warble.
anagram(Fauxcahontas) = Fact Hoax Anus
Things I wish I had written:
But of course this is actually nonsense. Warren is a rational politician using calculated rhetoric to beat down a clownish opponent with code that appeals to her troops and the media. She "believes" in winning and in contempt for the other side. She won't mind if anyone "gets ideas."
Exactly. This isn't the Oxford Debating Society; and it isn't "Take #3" from a rehearsal for "The Celebrity Apprentice." This is real-time, live campaigning. Political combat. In a world where the Democrat-leaning bicoastal media elites always favor their own. It's just a fact. It was a known fact, when Republican primary voters were deciding on a nominee.
If Trump can't handle that state of affairs then he is fundamentally unprepared as a candidate.
And, again and again, this is not a matter of the press freaking out because they are freaking out; it is directed, coordinated, and performed on command.
You arent dealing with independent actors in the mass media.
The best analogy I can come up with is a human machine, a battalion of Hessian mercenaries drilled to Prussian standards, maneuvering and firing volleys on command. They will fire their volleys anyway, as directed.
"compare and contrast"
Compare this dust of nothingness to that dust of nothingness. Define compare. What involves a contrast? Words aren't meaningful. What is a lie but anything those other people say? What is truth but what we believe will help us win more power?
What will win. What will indulge? What will bring me maximum privilege?
Compare the artifice through wildly swirling miasma of shifting standards and unserious outrage.
It's tiresome. Be human instead.
Where can we find a true human in which there is no guile?
The term "delusional" is hurtful and othering.
I prefer "differently lusioned."
We are entering the twilight zone of reality in this country.
And by the way, I was listening to Linda Greenwood on NPR a few weeks ago trashing Clarence Thomas, as not a serious justice since he didn't believe in precedent.
I don't know if he does or doesn't, but there is a long history of settled law concerning the right to bear arms as being an individual right-- shouldn't that count as precedent or do the only rights to be enshrined in the liberal mind concern killing the pre-born?
This election has become a full statist assault on our country, beginning with a socialist almost winning the Democrat party nomination to leftist, quasi facist winning it.
People need to remember that Hillary is far to the left of her husband-- you know, the most significant achievement of her career and the reason why we she is even being considered for president.
"Even if that was Trump's intent, the whole thing came off so butchered and so misunderstood, it is fair and appropriate to question Trump's choice of words and his delivery."
-- That's ridiculous, and if you believe that, then all the people who called Trump Hitler are calling for his assassination, as well as the whole sale murder of his followers as it is the only way to prevent the next Holocaust. Which, even if that wasn't their intent, the whole thing came off so butchered and misunderstood, it is fair and appropriate to question their words and delivery.
The "media elites" don't "favor" anyone. They do as they are told, in detail and in coordination. Your paradigm is fundamentally wrong.
Its as if you think that Attilas horde was just a bunch of bandits, each of whom showed up in the same place at the same time as the others because they came up with the same idea simultaneously.
Also: Only one candidate has had ACTUAL assassination attempts against them.
I don't like the guy -- and probably won't vote for him -- but this is just ridiculous.
"Ann - I recall you saying more than once that it is not "easy" for SCOTUS to take back rights once granted."
Yes. I say that all the time. The Court is, in my opinion, unlikely to overrule Heller and say there is no individual right. I think it will only interpret the right to be so narrow that anything government chooses to do will be upheld as not violating the right. There is no reason to create the uproar that revoking the right would have. That's not the way the Court operates.
You do lose rights all the same, but it's subtle and harder to notice and talk about. It's not surprising then that the political candidate speaks in simpler terms. And frankly, Trump is choosing to speak to less well-educated people. They have the vote too.
Hillary net with Seth's parents last Monday in Omaha.
"She blurts out the language of a childhood taunt: Hah! You're losing to a girl! "
I thought this part of the tweet was funny.
I believe that saying that someone is evil and should therefore be killed is protected by the 1st Amendment. If that is not the case, then the it should be. Many evil people escape criminal prosecution. How terrible it would be if we can't wish them dead - aloud. I don't buy the argument that you may be inciting mentally ill people to commit a murder, so you must shut up. The Hinckleys of the word kill because they are crazy. Hillary is protected by the Secret Service, which is more security than most evil people get.
Warren's tweet is a pitch-perfect schoolyard taunt. She's simultaneously trolling Trump and parodying his rhetoric to mock how he has lost control of it.
Elizabeth Warren is a bitchy girl.
It's ok for me to say this because, at this moment, I identify as a liberal female.
AA
That's how liberalism operates: incrementalism.
Althouse:
About Trump's supposed hatred for losing that you mentioned in this post...
You say Trump hates to lose and I suppose that's true. I hate losing too. I'll bet you and Meade both hate losing. Matter of fact, that kerfuffle you had with Linda Greenhouse a few weeks ago makes me think that you hate losing even more than I hate losing.
But Trump doesn't warrant any special accolades, or even any particular attention, for "hating to lose." Trump has lost plenty; in business deals, in lawsuits, in media disputes.
The thing with Trump that is so noteworthy is that Trump never ever admits to losing, even when the facts clearly demonstrate that he has lost. It is that part that is so weird, and so detached from reality. It is that part, that is unique to Trump.
"I'm not deranged, and I read it as a call for assassination. I didn't even think about right to revolution -- and I see how that fits better now -- until you pointed it out."
You didn't hear it as a call to YOU to go out and assassinate somebody. You're just an observer hearing political rhetoric and thinking in the usual way about who deserves to win.
What I'm talking about is all the thousands of deranged people who might get the idea -- like nearly every famous assassin in U.S. history -- that he'd be doing the right thing and being a hero if he'd go out and kill a candidate or office holder. Now, it's not really possible to contain our speech so that delusional minds can't feel motivated by it. That would be an absurd repression. Mentally ill people could hear any sort of message in anything.
"She's simultaneously trolling Trump and parodying his rhetoric to mock how he has lost control of it."
-- She's always been just as childish from everything I've seen.
Ann who said it was a death threat. Did you watch the video and decide it was a death treat, or did you read in the media "trump threatens hillary, then view the video and say yup that's what he meant.We are sheeple.
"But of course this is actually nonsense. Warren is a rational politician using calculated rhetoric to beat down a clownish opponent with code that appeals to her troops and the media. She "believes" in winning and in contempt for the other side. She won't mind if anyone "gets ideas.""
That is to say, she out-Trumps Trump.
Earnest Prole said...
Warren's tweet is a pitch-perfect schoolyard taunt. She's simultaneously trolling Trump and parodying his rhetoric to mock how he has lost control of it.
And isn't that a page right out of the Trump playbook? Isn't that the first play, in the Trump playbook? It is the stock formation, the basic set, for Team Trump. Right?
"Why does Warren think she can ascribe such thoughts to him?"
-- Because ascribing bad motives to Republicans has been what Democrats have done as part of their political strategy for decades. Remember: He's also literally Hitler, and that's just an accepted fact.
That was Trump's point. That was precisely why he said "It's all over," if Hillary Clinton got the power to nominate federal judges. "All over," but the shooting.
Um no, it’s not “all over” because even if Hillary Clinton were elected President and had the power to nominate judges, it is up to the Senate to confirm them. The “second amendment folks” have proven themselves very adept at stopping bad gun control legislation from getting through Congress. It’s perfectly logical to assume that they know the stakes of flipping the Supreme Court and would put just as much effort into stopping a bad judicial appointment that would try to overturn or gut the Heller decision.
Ann Althouse said, "
What I'm talking about is all the thousands of deranged people who might get the idea -- like nearly every famous assassin in U.S. history -- that he'd be doing the right thing and being a hero if he'd go out and kill a candidate or office holder. Now, it's not really possible to contain our speech so that delusional minds can't feel motivated by it. That would be an absurd repression. Mentally ill people could hear any sort of message in anything."
Assassination for glory is usually the method of the left. You'll find most legal gun owners a pretty tame bunch.
And by most I mean the vast majority.
And no. Trump did not mean assassination. He meant legal gun owner should take it to the street.
On Heller, Breyer stated explicitly in his minority opinion that the Second Amendment is an individual right -- in other words, nine justices agreed on that question. But as you note, the government can still regulate the hell out of an individual right.
The implication of Clinton et al' response is that they believe the right to commit abortion can be attributed to the Constitution and perhaps the Second Amendment. The Constitution does not recognize the right of people to commit abortion for trivial causes including social justice adventurism and to terminate unwanted or inconvenient human lives.
The Second Amendment upholds the use of arms for self-defense, hunting, and recreation as a precursor to well regulated militia. Its expression is moderated by the First Amendment, which limits use of threats and intimidation to assert unilateral rights.
It's unfortunate that Democrats support abortion rites, selective exclusion, and legal exploitation. However, their conflation of disparate rights that lead them to feel threatened is a monster of their own creation. The abortion chambers and Sanger clinics loom over the Democrats' past, present, and future.
I'm a mature professional woman (attorney). I am not going to vote for someone just because she's female and it's an insult to my intelligence for anyone to presume or suggest that I would. I'm really tired of all the tedious hype about it. I guess since there are no accomplishments to talk about, you have to say something.
The way that I can see an ObamaClinton dominated Supreme Court effectively negating Heller and McDonald, essentially almost negating the 2nd Amdt would be for it to essentially accept the logic of the 2nd and 3rd Circuits that have effectively turned the "Increased Scrutiny" required by Heller into a smidgen above Rational Basis. To greatly summarize a course in Con Law, the courts apply essentially three different levels of scrutiny (Rational Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny) to laws to see if they are Constitutional. Most laws get Rational Basis scrutiny, where the govt needs to merely articulate a somewhat plausible justification for the law in question. It doesn't even have to be true or real. They just need some rational basis to believe the law will lead to a perceived benefit. Strict Scrutiny is the other end of the spectrum, requiring that the law be essentially the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest. Importantly, the law must actually work to achieve that compelling state interest. No make believe, like with rational basis scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny is in between, requiring a narrow tailoring and an important state interest. Traditionally, fundamental rights got Strict Scrutiny, while less fundamental rights got Intermediate Scrutiny (traditionally, this included sex and alienage).
Heller (and McDonald) determined that the right to Keep and Bear Arms (in self defense) was a historical fundamental right, enshrined and protected by the anti-federalists inthe 2nd Amdt. The DC gun laws so egregiously violated it, that they didn't have to determine whether or not Strict Scrutiny or Intermediate Scrutiny was required for the 2nd Amdt, because it violated both. They just said that Increased Scrutiny was required. And, if Justice Scalia had lived, they likely would have had an opportunity to clarify. The problem is that while most of the Circuits seemed to have adopted a sliding scale between Intermediate and Strict Scrutiny, depending on how close the law potentially impinges on the core of the 2nd Amdt, the 2nd (NY) and 3rd (NJ) Circuits have taken a far different approach, taking Increased Scrutiny to mean essentially almost anything above Rational Basis scrutiny. Banning of militia type firearms based solely on cosmetic features based on the wishful hope that the laws would reduce violent crime would clearly fail both Intermediate and Strict Scrutiny, but have been upheld by these courts by the way they interpret Increased Scrutiny. And affirming one of those cases is all that would be required to effectively gut the Heller and McDonald decisions.
Re #4
AA wrote, "Warren encourages us to focus on the excitement of the first woman President. Don't pay attention to the individual, Hillary. Think of voting for a woman. And think of voting against that terrible man, Donald Trump, who is fighting a woman...."
And that is all Hillary has: Historic first woman President. That's it.
AA summarizes the entire HRC campaign.
Hate loves abortion and, apparently, cannibalism, too.
The Left hear Siren calls to disarm the People and Posterity, too. Their conflation of abortion rites and human rights leaves them in fear.
The Tell-Tale Heart beats ever louder.
But I want to talk about Elizabeth Warren's tweet. It has 4 aspects worth talking about:
4? Don't think so. It's mildly interesting as a supporting example for rhhardin's theories about the effect of women on politics and media, but that's about it. Other than that, it's standard lib duckspeak.
So .5 an aspect at best - what does it mean when a society is highly sensitive to Trump's high-school bully mien, but doesn't notice that everybody else in politics and media writes and talks like pissy high-shool girls?
Of course it wasn't a death threat, but he said 2nd amendment supporters could do something about it and then got coy about what the "it" was.
So the question for the peanut gallery is, what can 2nd amendment supporters do about it that other groups can't? That's right. He didn't come right out and say it, but it floated through everybody's minds. Don't claim that it didn't, because it did.
Nobody speaks much of the genuine purpose of the Second Amendment, as a facilitator of revolt should the people be reduced to that.
Outside of most peoples frame of reference.
Or is it because it is the unstated subtext?
"Yes. I say that all the time. The Court is, in my opinion, unlikely to overrule Heller and say there is no individual right. I think it will only interpret the right to be so narrow that anything government chooses to do will be upheld as not violating the right. There is no reason to create the uproar that revoking the right would have. That's not the way the Court operates.
You do lose rights all the same, but it's subtle and harder to notice and talk about. It's not surprising then that the political candidate speaks in simpler terms. And frankly, Trump is choosing to speak to less well-educated people. They have the vote too."- Ms. Althouse
A distinction without a difference, and spoken like a lawyer.
I will concede that shotguns and rifles are unlikely to be targeted in the first round. It will be 'assault rifles' and handguns that will go first, then semiautomatic rifles.
Nice dig there, Ms. Althouse, referring to Trump appealing to the stupid-- excuse me, the less well educated people. Sigh...they have the vote too.
I will start by saying that Warren's statement was terrible. However, Trump defenders use three tactis to explain away his terrible statements, and they could easily be applied to Warren here. I do this for illustration purposes only. These "defenses" are cheap and unworthy.
1) The Scott Adams "master persuader" excuse. See. Warren is going for a, pardon the unintended pun, verbal kill shot. Trump has a history of winking at violence done on his behalf ("maybe he should have been roughed up," etc.). Warren is seeking to make that perception stick. Be on the lookout for her repetition of key phrases. She may appear crude or childish. In reality, she's playing persuasion game on a higher level than almost anyone else.
2) The "speaking for hurting people" excuse. See. There are a lot of Americans out of work and really suffering. Forty seven percent of the population does not have financial resources to handle an unexpected $400 expense. Although her language appears crude, that's how the Americans she represents talk about things. Warren is giving voice to the suffering voiceless and using their less-than-fancy ways of speaking to convey real issues. People with office jobs in padded chairs wouldn't be expected to understand.
3) The "fill in the gaps with thoughtfulness" excuse. See. Warren was limited in what she was able to say using Twitter. Allow me to express how I interpreted her words upon first reading before the Warren-derangement-syndrome types twisted them. Although "Death threats" could be interpreted to mean the assassination of Hillary or judges, it could also mean that those with guns would use them in their frustration at losing a political battle and random people might get hurt or even killed. Really, Warren was objecting to any normalizing of violence as a response to political setback. "Death Threats" was an efficient compression of that idea. The phrase "losing to a girl" may seem anti-feminist. Warren recognizes that people have initial gut reactions that even they don't realize come from our childhood memories. She is empathetically putting herself in the emotional place of Trump as insecure child. Warren is drawing attention to the natural, threatened reaction men have to a female leader, an important topic given Hillary's very real chance of assuming the presidency. Although her media enemies will distort her words, upon careful analysis she is raising important ideas.
Bruce Hayden;
I am not sure that it has been articulated as yet in this comments thread, but I'll say it here and try to keep it simple.
I agree with just about all of what you've written. Heller and McDonald are important, and a liberal-packed federal judiciary could do away with those rulings. Like the federal judiciary imposed same sex marriage on unwilling state governments and millions of voters who expressed an opposing, majority view.
You are right, about the seriousness of the topic into which Trump bumbled.
Which makes it all the more painful for me, as a conservative Republican who is suspicious of all liberal attempts to limit gun rights. Trump isn't just screwing up a winnable (for Republicans) election year. He's screwing up each and every legitimate issue he touches.
Anyway, I find discussion on this election curiously missing all the obvious and significant points, over and over obsessed with mere language.
Its the engineer in me I suppose, but reality does exist independent of language.
Of course the best answer to the tweet would be"Ha! Ha! Good one, Liz. Keep 'em coming!" Warren, like all bullies, wouldn't know what to do.
I don't think so. I think Trump's mind was just running on considering what could be done if a "Hillary! court" re-interpreted the 2 Amendment (which is quite likely at that), and one thing would be to for the "2nd Amendment folks" to get up a movement for a Constitutinal Amendment that would make the right to bear arms specific without any mumbles about "militia."
And that would be a long shot, so trailing off with "I don't know [if that would be realistically possible]."
Kind of like when he was asked if a woman who had an illegal abortion should be punished as well as the abortionist, and he thought a little and said, "yes, there would have to be some punishment [for being complicit in the crime]," which is quite true under present law, though in today's world blatantly ignored by one and all.
Chuck: Exactly. Trump is now having difficulty holding his own in street fights he thought he could pick with impunity. And a street fighter who can't hold his own is done for good.
I think that you have to do some serious camel swallowing while straining at gnats to see the utterance as a call for violence. When I first heard it I thought, like everyone who isn't looking for a reason to disqualify Trump, is that he was calling on people who support the 2nd amendment to continue to be active in the political process.
If you really thought he was calling for violence then you are projecting your own proclivities on him. But in fact, most of the people decrying his statement are just partisan asses looking to twist anything he says against him. Anyone remember the "Binders full of women" nonsense?
And I want to talk about the trope "things that might be interpreted as a call to any sort of violence". This is concern trolling at its weakest.
The concernor emits a thin tissue of innuendo connecting the concernee's words to some unspecified future atrocity. A vaporously hypothetical deranged perpetrator is imagined, who by construction lacks all agency, so we can't really blame him for his atrocious acts, can we? Who then should we blame? Obviously, it's the concernee's words that caused the atrocity. Why, the concernor even warned him!
The concernee is thus put on notice that he will be deemed responsible for any and all future atrocious acts, unless he retracts the hated speech.
More sapient than a banana slug, he understands that the conditional is a lie. He'll get the hate whether he retracts or not. He stands his ground and another 10,000 voters who are Tired Of This Shit fall into his lap.
The jig is up. Crooked rhetoric isn't doing it any more. And I had thought better of Prof Althouse.
Ann has certainly read Patrick Henry's "Common Sense". Did she also "hate" that example of ttmbiaactasov? If so, why? If not, why not?
And I think Trump made a mistake in listening to the chorus of "wise men" who told him to walk that back.
Sebastian: "Warren is a rational politician using calculated rhetoric to beat down a clownish opponent with code that appeals to her troops and the media."
Why did you bother to separate "the media" from "her troops"?
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
...
I say that all the time. The Court is, in my opinion, unlikely to overrule Heller and say there is no individual right. I think it will only interpret the right to be so narrow that anything government chooses to do will be upheld as not violating the right. There is no reason to create the uproar that revoking the right would have. That's not the way the Court operates.
From Bowers v Hardwick, to Lawrence v Texas. In 17 years. Scalia began his Lawrencedissent with that fact. And noting that some precedents get special consideration (Roe v Wade, vis a vis Casey v Planned Parenthood) while other precedents are treated with contempt (Bowers v Hardwick).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
Or maybe the Althouse theorem works only for expanding personal rights, and not the rights of majority electorates?
Hagar is right. Trump should never walk anything back, indeed he should double and triple down, every single time. Don't listen to those elites Trump, don't do it, be yourself!
I hate what Trump said. It was bad. He shouldn't have said it, and he should find some way to undo the damage and to stop blurting out things that occur to him on the fly, things that might be interpreted as a call to any sort of violence.
It's guy talk. Very standard. It's women who need to adjust.
"I'm a mature professional woman (attorney). I am not going to vote for someone just because she's female and it's an insult to my intelligence for anyone to presume or suggest that I would"
A lot of mature, professional people voted for Obama just because ...
It was only a threat because the left, the press, and Republican Elites made it so.
buwaya puti: Anyway, I find discussion on this election curiously missing all the obvious and significant points, over and over obsessed with mere language.
Its the engineer in me I suppose, but reality does exist independent of language.
The rule of clerks always ends in crude belief in word magic, and that symptoms cause disease.
Modern romcoms have man losing to a woman, say at flyweight wrestling, as the start of mutual admiration and romance.
The guys can accept this. Whatever it takes, would be the thought.
"That is to say, she out-Trumps Trump."
Or at least she's trumpeting Trump-like.
In Trump-world, she's a loser. She didn't get the nomination. Warren isn't trumpy enough to have become her party's nominee.
Only at the end of all things Trump will we see who is the most Trump of all.
I agree with 4.
rhhardin said...
I hate what Trump said. It was bad. He shouldn't have said it, and he should find some way to undo the damage and to stop blurting out things that occur to him on the fly, things that might be interpreted as a call to any sort of violence.
It's guy talk. Very standard. It's women who need to adjust.
Now, if only we had men-only elections, we'd be all set.
Elizabeth Warren has cooties.
@ Matthew Sablan
-- Because ascribing bad motives to Republicans has been what Democrats have done as part of their political strategy for decades. Remember: He's also literally Hitler, and that's just an accepted fact.
This.
Should we really not talk about what the consequences of acting against the 2nd Amendment might be before we act?
What the people think their rights are matters more than what the Supreme Court thinks.
What the Supreme Court thinks about the rights of the people ultimately matters because of what the people think about the Supreme Court. Hillary's insatiable hunger for power corrupts everything and everyone she touches. The Supreme Court will not be an exception.
Hillary is our first un-indicted felon.
So says the Indian mind reader.
If it were a "death threat" he'd be detained by the Secret Service wouldn't he? Anyone who thinks the "2nd Amendment people" are anyone other than the NRA and its lobbyists is a shill.
"I hate what Trump said. It was bad. He shouldn't have said it, and he should find some way to undo the damage and to stop blurting out things that occur to him on the fly, things that might be interpreted as a call to any sort of violence. If he can't control that tendency, how could he possibly serve as President?"
This is another indication that the scared liberals and the Republican elites are sensing the inevitable, a Trump victory.
In the 1765 edition of Blackstone, I can only find the standard reference, but I swear that somewhere (perhaps in the footntes, which are to faint for me to read anymore) I have read something like this:
Though the King is our dread sovereign Lord and we owe him instant obedience, and Parliament is the supreme power that recognizes no superior authoruty on land or sea, it could happen that one or the other forget their duties to the nation, or worse yet, could get together to opress the people, so that something would have to be done about it, and that is why the right of British people to bear arms should never be infringed upon.
Trump responded to Warren with "How."
and yes, UnknownInga, if you ar an accessory to a crime, you are considered as guilty as the prime perpetrator - I think that also comes from Blackstone.
Warren is baiting Trump. Let's see if he takes the bait :-)
Ann Althouse said...You do lose rights all the same, but it's subtle and harder to notice and talk about.
Yeah, that makes it ok, then.
Weirdly the Media doesn't have a problem "talking about" restrictions on rights when those rights are the ones the Left & Media actually care about. You know, like abortion--a state passing laws and regulations purportedly designed to make abortion clinics safer are widely talked about and characterized as infringing on the fundamental right (or, you know, "fundamental right") to abortion. For some weird reason "common sense gun laws" that severely restrict the fundamental right to bear arms just don't get talked about in the same way. Certainly not in the Media, and as far as I can tell not among the well-educated law professors & other members of the academic class, either. Ho-hum.
"I hate what Trump said. It was bad. He shouldn't have said it, and he should find some way to undo the damage and to stop blurting out things that occur to him on the fly, things that might be interpreted as a call to any sort of violence. If he can't control that tendency, how could he possibly serve as President?"
I don't think this is really beyond the pale of what Trump has already said thus far--a tasteless joke, yes, but of no import (it won't cause anyone to do violence). Sure, he can't control his stream of consciousness style, but we already knew that. If it bothers you now, it'd bother you then. It's baked into the Trump cake--it's what he does.
As for Warren, she's obviously trying to goad him, challenging his masculinity. She's calculating--reasonably--that he won't ignore her and by striking back at a third target (who isn't on the ballot) he can only hurt himself. Trump's advisers perhaps will try to restrain him, but to date they haven't been very successful at that. If he's smart, at most he'll say Hiawatha has been smoking too much peace pipe and leave her at that. He doesn't need the distraction of keeping this story going.
Hillary had another body added to her count this week,--that Iranian scientist that was spying for the CIA. His name was in at least one of the email hacked on her amateurish server setup. And she may even have another with that murdered DNC staffer. Of course the Hillary campaign is going to try and divert your attention.
Warren's schtick reminds me a bit of Rubio's brief foray into standup. I bet SJWs won't find it funny. (You know.."Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: That's not funny") Sorry Meade..that was kinda rapey.
But since there's so much "turpentatin'" running amok..
What I hear Warren suggesting is:
It's high time. She wants it.
By the way, Ann. I this latest Trump-ism is a bridge too far him to be president-worthy, is there any metric Hil has failed to suggest the same?
There was a rumor floating around that Trump had tweeted "$100 to anyone that dumps a bucket of water on Hillary AND brings me her broom."
Obama, Hillary and their surrogates have already done what they accuse Trump of trying to do.
And the inflammatory rhetoric they poured on the Black Lives Matter movement wasn't just something they blurted out.
Honestly, though, this is where we are - this is where the nation and its people are today. Warren's a big hero, Hillary's gonna be President, this is what people want.
The Court we have is barely interested in protecting most personal rights (as traditionally understood to exist under the Constitution), and the Court we will have in the future will be much less interested. The size and scope of government will grow, the space for individual liberty will shrink, and our institutions will continue to corrode and be corrupted.
There's no libertarian Renaissance coming--there's no constituency supporting small government, and all the trend lines are wrong.
I'm not sure what the point is. Warren is ridiculous, and wrong, and an asshole. So? She's a duly-elected Senator and people love her. People won't stop loving her--the people who recognize she and her big government loving pals are wrong aren't numerous enough to make a difference.
What's the point of fighting Sen. Warren?
There was a rumor floating around that Trump had tweeted "$100 to anyone that dumps a bucket of water on Hillary AND brings me her broom."
OMG - If Trump did that... He should do that. A twitter fight I can get behind.
BLM, funded by George Soros and implemented by the DNC, likes to say "What do we want? DEAD COPS. When do we want it? NOW." End of.
If Trump can't handle that state of affairs then he is fundamentally unprepared as a candidate.
Because all of the other Republican candidates have handled media bias so well for the last thirty years.
One of the reasons Trump exists is because the Republican Establishment is deathly afraid of being called a racist or an extremist by the media.
Dead Iranian Nuclear scientists and dead DNC staffers are nothing compared to binders full of women.
This race is like the old 'quiet game' parents used on road trips. Whoever can keep their mouth shut the longest wins.
Progressive women are afraid of men who speak their mind when it contradicts or criticizes them. When their world view is threatened, they lash out.
pocahontas seems to be off the reservation.
BTW...who killed the 27 yo DNC staffer?
Assange seemed to indicate he may have been a source.
Now, if only we had men-only elections, we'd be all set.
A man can dream.......
Repeal the 19th Amendment.
Meanwhile, progressive leftists assassination porn and eliminationist rhetoric addressed at Republicans will remain unexamined.
"There was a rumor floating around that Trump had tweeted "$100 to anyone that dumps a bucket of water on Hillary AND brings me her broom.""
If he kept his tweets witty as that, he'd be crushing her. Or at least hire someone who can compose tweets like that...
I still don't understand why anyone takes that harpy seriously.
Warren or Althouse?
The "losing to a girl" thing was also an unnecessary injection of gender into an issue that had nothing to do with it. Shows where the Dems' minds are--Hillary can't be just a corrupt politician, she has to bring down her whole gender with her.
and that is why the right of British people to bear arms should never be infringed upon.
I doubt it says that, because British subjects have never had the "right to bear arms", although sometimes they were given permission.
That is precisely why our Constitution does give us the right to bear arms. we are citizens, not subjects.
Where was the outrage when the Left actually wrote a book and made a movie out of their fantasy to kill President Bush?
Hillary suggesting Obama assassination, way back when.
His name was in at least one of the email hacked on her amateurish server setup.
You are full of shit. If it was on an email, we wouldn't know about it, it would still be classified. Also, there is no evidence the email was ever hacked.
Where was the outrage when the Left actually wrote a book and made a movie out of their fantasy to kill President Bush?
The difference is that those were not produced by the freaking candidate.
Elizabeth Warren, in an interview published in Business Week, said matetr of factly that Donald Trump would cause nuclear war and that's why business interests had contributed to Hillary. (before even Trump was on the horizon?)
I thought the reason was supposed to be because she did so much for the victims of Sept 11th.
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-elizabeth-warren-interview-issue/
> Given that the financial industry has given Hillary $41 million this election vs. $109,000 for Trump, do you think banks will exert renewed pressure within the Democratic Party?
I don’t see it as a swing back to Democrats so much as I see it as supporting sanity. The financial-services people, as much as many of them would like to see more deregulation, are also deeply frightened by the prospect of a Trump presidency. Nuclear war is bad for business.
Concerning the "girl" comment by Warren:
1. She has the privilege to use it since she too is a "girl." It's like blacks using the n-word. That's legit. If you're part of a group you can call your group whatever you want.
2. She using it as she thinks Trump sees the world. She's wrong about that as his hiring record shows. But she thinks by appropriating misogynist language she paint him as one.
I didn't mind the tweet but I do think Warrne diminishes herself greatly taking this attack dog role. I hated her speech at the DNC ... it was this tweet for 20 minutes (or however long it lasted). Sarah Palin was hurt by playing the attack dog role. Mike Pence and Tim Kaine both do it better, with nips rather than full-toothed bites.
A 'girl" can imply an innocent virginal creature. Everything that Hillary is not. As usual Fauxcahontas has been smoking wacky tabaccy at her latest political pow wow. Maybe she's seeing spirit visions or something.
I think that the thing that everyone skirts around is that this country was founded, in one view in response to an attempt by the British authorities to disarm their American subjects. The opening shots of our Revolutionary War were in response to the British marching to seize a militia armory. This was very much on the minds of the anti-federalists when they enacted our 2nd Amdt. (As was our fundamental right of self-defense). The Obama Administration has massively increased the firepower of the civilian portion of the federal workforce, with apparently more armed federal agents and civilian employees than US Marines. Scary, that so many federal agencies now have SWAT teams and the like (whose AR-15 lookalike rifles and carbines often sport select (fully automatic) fire, as contrasted to the semiautomatic fire that civilians are limited to). Why have they so greatly militarized our federal govt in recent years, while reducing our actual military? My theory is because they don't trust our military to try to pacify the citizenry. We have, over the last 2+ centuries implemented safeguards to prevent just that, the military being used against civilians in this country. Things like Posse Comitatus and the UCMJ. they don't apply to armed federal agents and civilian employees. And, the bigger, more powerful, the federal govt, the more intrusive, and the more that armed might is needed to enforce its will. No one should be surprised that the party that is pushing to increase the size and intrusiveness of the federal govt is also trying to disarm the American people so that they cannot contest their armed will.
Do I want to see armed rebellion? Of course not. But at some point, I expect to see it, if the left doesn't back off a bit. There are a lot of reasons that we are a constitutional republic, and not a democracy, and probably one of the biggest is to protect a minority from the majority. The need for this is rarely more evident than when a Dem President essentially says "we won", so fall in line.
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765):
“In the three preceding articles we have taken a short view of the principal absolute rights [personal security, personal liberty, private property] which appertain to every Englishman. But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as outworks or barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property:
1. The constitution, powers, and privileges of parliament . . . .
2. The limitation of the king’s prerogative . . . .
3. . . . [A]pplying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries.
4. . . . [T]he right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances.
5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute . . . and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
To vindicate the three primary rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”
I heard Trump's comment. I didn't hear it as a call to murder judges. Am I stupid or delusional because I don't understand the clear meaning of Trump's words?
Warren is irrelevant.
Not just from his political opponents but from the objective media and late night comedians we have learned that Trump has bad hair, cheats his customers and suppliers, and has incestuous urges toward his daughter. It is a wonder that this grotesque caricature of a human being is allowed to walk free much less run for President. Is there a chance that some delusional person might get hyped by all this adverse publicity and take it upon himself to save the republic?
Warren is just happy that CPUSA endorsed Hillary. That endorsement included songs calling for the killing of the bourgeois. Which is totally acceptable.
Are you sleeping, are you sleeping,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
And when the revolution comes,
We’ll kill you all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie
"That's not literally a threat. I know Warren was tweeting and that pushes people to compress language, but if you're going to criticize other people's blunt speech and crude language, you shouldn't do the same thing yourself."
Good grief. Removing the "girl" bit, the left has a long, long history of "short circuiting" words to mean what they wish them to mean. They work in concert with most of the media to hijack language to steer narratives. It's SOP.
"Trump is choosing to speak to less well-educated people. They have the vote too."-Ms. Althouse
That was very gratuitous on my part to imply you think those people are stupid. It's the sort of snarky joke that someone like Trump might use.
But let's parse that sentence in an Althousian way. You didn't just say educated people, but well-educated people. So it's obvious that Ms. Althouse believes there are two groups of educated people-- normally-educated people and then a superior group of well-educated people.
From that we can infer that well-educated people have been educated at superior schools, say elite private schools and possibly some subset of public universities considered 'top-tier'. Those merely educated therefore have received their education at run of the mill state universities or even state colleges.
But Ms. Althouse doesn't stop there. There is a third group of people that are less well-educated. Less well-educated could mean normally educated or some group between educated and well-educated.
Since we can only infer her true intent, it seems in context of the condescension in the text these people are the community college crowd or possibly...less!
Hmmm. Maybe she does mean stupid people after all.
It certainly fits the image portrayed by the media that Trump supporters are those common ragamuffins, possibly even those simple people clinging to their guns and religion.
Don't worry Mary. Obama is hopping a plane as we speak to go to his hometown to put the city at ease.
Or..he's going golfing.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
...
I say that all the time. The Court is, in my opinion, unlikely to overrule Heller and say there is no individual right. I think it will only interpret the right to be so narrow that anything government chooses to do will be upheld as not violating the right. There is no reason to create the uproar that revoking the right would have. That's not the way the Court operates.
And the people need not obey. The tipping point has been reached. A goodly number of the 100 million are not going to put up with any more nonsense.
If Obama can't calm down Chicago himself, perhaps he can recruit his neighbor "Louie" to disseminate The Fruit.
I gave my explaination of this on Patterico.
By "Second amendment people" Donald Trump meant lobbying organizations. He couldn't remember any other name than the NRA.
This is the result of somebody saying something to Donald Trump, that he didn’t quite grasp, or maybe, remember.
What was it that he didn’t quite grasp?
The Senate would inevitably confirm a nominee. The vacancies would not go unfilled. Certainly if the Republicans lost control of the Senate, because even if there was a filibuster, it would overturned also for Supreme Court nominations.
But….
There was one possibility she could be stopped from filling Supreme Court vacancies for the entirety of her term.
That would be if the Second Amendment people, who can even influence a few Democratic Senators, would make this a do-or-die issue. Even if the Republicans lost control of the Senate, they could maybe even prevail on Democrats not to overturn the filibuster rule.
This was something that was probably said almost as an offhand comment, after Donald Trump could have asked the question “Would there be no way to stop her?” several times.
Trump could have asked the question “Would there be no way to stop her?” not because he’s so dead set against her naming Supreme Court justices, because he doesn’t really have any such long term principles, but as a matter of curiosity and political safety, i.e. would it be safe for him to say that if he loses, they lose the Supreme Court?
He would have been told yes, and if he pressed some people, because he didn’t want to say something that could be rebutted, someone might have mentioned, well, maybe [the Second amendment people] could stop it.
The context is entirely that of lobbying. Not marching on Washington. That makes no sense at all. And would you refer to the marchers as “Second Amendment people?” No, some term indicating almost universal support would be used.
In other words, if Hillary Clinton was elected, yes, there was still a longshot possibility of preventing her from naming Supreme Court Justices.
What I see here is Dog Whistle politics. Someone on the right says something that is pretty innocuous, and then we are told by the Dems/left that it was some sort of coded language that they are the only ones who understand. And that is exactly what Fauxhauntis Warren is doing here, claiming that Trump was using coded language that only his more ardent supporters would understand. The logical fallacy, as usual, is that if it truly were the sort of coded language that only those on the right would recognize, leftists like her wouldn't recognize it as such. But, inevitably, it works just the opposite, with those on the left supposedly recognizing the code, while those whom the code was supposedly aimed at not recognizing it.
Lefties keep physically assaulting Trump supporters--even killing them--for the crime of wearing a hat or t-shirt with a Trump logo. Further proof that Trump promotes violence.
"From Bowers v Hardwick, to Lawrence v Texas. In 17 years. Scalia began his Lawrencedissent with that fact. And noting that some precedents get special consideration (Roe v Wade, vis a vis Casey v Planned Parenthood) while other precedents are treated with contempt (Bowers v Hardwick). Or maybe the Althouse theorem works only for expanding personal rights, and not the rights of majority electorates?"
Absolutely. My point only referred to retracting rights that have been recognized. Obviously, new rights have been found, often after precedents that don't see them yet, often after changes on the Court and in the political arena.
But what rights have been removed by the Court? I think of the economic substantive due process rights -- the "Lochner era" things. That took a Great Depression and an FDR reelection landslide to change.
And even then, the Court didn't overtly retract a right that had been extended.
The Supreme Court has had as few as 6 justices (the oiginal number specified in the Constitution) and as many as 10, and survived it all.
"The 2nd Amendment people" probably could also prevent any of Hillary!'s nominees from being confirmed, though the noise from the left would be deafening.
The Court will never take away Malia Obama's right to smoke a joint in public.
In the context of Trump's remark, delete "probably" and substitute "maybe."
there are multiple ways to interpret what Trump said. The professors and most leftists immediately hear a threat of violence rather than something else because they're programmed to hear the worst said by Trump and/or Republicans. And Trump clarified for the crybabies that he was talking about political action and not violence, so what's the big deal.
Meanwhile, Hillary is hanging out with terrorist supporting father of a mass murdering Democrat and Democrats are violently attacking Trump supporters nationwide. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
Hillary and her judges aren't going to overturn or repeal the 2nd Amendment, obviously, at most she'll push for an assault weapons ban that won't happen (unless the Dems get a supermajority in Congress--and that would be hard to do without winning people in "purple" districts and states where the Dems would be wary of angering their constituents) and some expanded background checks. The usual sops to suburban soccer mom anti-gun types that won't prevent gun violence but won't be much of a burden to most gun owners either.
The real issue will be if the Supreme Court overturns Heller, and cities start going back to substantially outlawing gun ownership within their borders (already many of them don't allow concealed carry, which is close to totally banning them--when else will you need a gun except in your car or on your person when going out around town?). Like with abortion, the real fight is the state and local level, and that's where the justices come in.
Brando said...The real issue will be if the Supreme Court overturns Heller, and cities start going back to substantially outlawing gun ownership within their borders (already many of them don't allow concealed carry, which is close to totally banning them--when else will you need a gun except in your car or on your person when going out around town?). Like with abortion, the real fight is the state and local level, and that's where the justices come in.
Well, yes; saying "the 2nd Amend. still exists but it's nevertheless legal/Constitutional to functionally deprive you of your right to bear arms for self protection" is silly, but I understand that's the game Hillary supporters will play. The analogous situation would be passing laws that would close down all abortion clinics in a given state--the Court won't allow that, since doing so would violate the fundamental personal right to get an abortion in one's state. Abortion rights are REAL rights, though, not like the 2nd Amend. rights gun nuts only think are real.
Ann Althouse said...But what rights have been removed by the Court? I think of the economic substantive due process rights -- the "Lochner era" things. That took a Great Depression and an FDR reelection landslide to change.
Economic rights most prominently, but also freedom of association rights (through application of laws and regulations, many from the civil rights era)...plus we shouldn't forget that a CENTRAL plank of the Democrat nominee is "overturning Citizens United" which would absolutely remove a fundamental personal 1st Amdend. right to freedom of association. Everyone I've heard thinks it's probable--or at least probable--that Hillary's appointees will overturn Citizens. Wouldn't that count?
sorry, that's "probable--or at least plausible--"
Hasbro's Playskool Division is fitting Hillary with a custom-designed Weebles base. No more falling down.
Proof of concept--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffLQ9gBS0ZA
@AA: ""But of course this is actually nonsense. Warren is a rational politician using calculated rhetoric to beat down a clownish opponent with code that appeals to her troops and the media. She "believes" in winning and in contempt for the other side. She won't mind if anyone "gets ideas.""
That is to say, she out-Trumps Trump."
No. Trump is not rationally calculating his rhetoric to beat down a clownish opponent. Nor is he speaking in code that appeals to the media (except perversely). Nor does he show consistent contempt for the other side. And I think, though it's beside the point, that he actually would mind if anyone "got ideas." Liz and Hill don't do Trump. They play a political game for a political purpose with the objective of using power to carry out a program. Of course, each step in that game is repulsive, each statement offered in bad faith, and the goals to which they will put power reprehensible. But they are rational actors. Unlike Dems, any GOPer, and T in particular, has to calculate the cost of statements in terms of likely MSM manipulation. Trump has shown no clue in that regard. Liz is a second-rate intellect, and Granny often confused, but Trump is ignorant on the basic issues. I think it was ignorance that made him stumble into a hapless rhetoric gesture on judges and the 2nd Amendment. Not the first time, not the last.
(CNN)A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.
"There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, the official told CNN.
Never before has a candidate who is protected by the Secret Service been questioned by the Secret Service. Good job nominating this doofus Republicans, lol.
"If Trump can't handle that state of affairs then he is fundamentally unprepared as a candidate."
That's it. This sentiment is pure bullshit. I am done discussing this with Hillary supporters. They are bad people. Hillary has demonstrated with no reserve she is a disgusting human being and anyone that can ignored her sociopathic tendencies is purely an enemy of freedom at this point.
This is for you people who pretend they think that the rights in the bill of rights are God given. If you honestly believe in this truth then you need to decide if you will fight for them. Hillary supporters are consistently participants in violence against trump supporters. It is clear the goal of Hillary Clinton is to make sure the rule of law only applies to little people. She is blatantly selling influence to wealthy supporters.
For all of the Chucks out there. Decide if you are willing to be worthy of the freedoms that are under assault right now. You can bitch about how trump is faring against the entire media democrat machine or you can get off your ass and help us fight. If someone as disgusting as Hillary was president it would be every decent Americans duty to resist.
"Well, yes; saying "the 2nd Amend. still exists but it's nevertheless legal/Constitutional to functionally deprive you of your right to bear arms for self protection" is silly, but I understand that's the game Hillary supporters will play. The analogous situation would be passing laws that would close down all abortion clinics in a given state--the Court won't allow that, since doing so would violate the fundamental personal right to get an abortion in one's state. Abortion rights are REAL rights, though, not like the 2nd Amend. rights gun nuts only think are real."
It's still very much a danger--living in one of the few non-"shall issue" states (for concealed carry laws) I can say that 90% of the reason I would wish to own a weapon (i.e., driving or walking through shady neighborhoods) is frustrated by our laws. And it wasn't long ago that in DC (and other cities) you couldn't even own a handgun in your own home, let alone take it outside. This largely renders the 2nd Amendment meaningless, and if justices enable that sort of prohibitionism it'll just get worse.
I'd like to see the pro-gun side focus more on concealed carry and similar restrictions, much the way the pro-abortion lobby has focused more on challenging "clinic rules" laws that largely reduce access to abortions. I think it'd get a lot more support than just the assault weapons bans (where the anti-gun side last had a victory in 1994, leading to a lot of defeated legislators that year).
Regarding unknown's 2:05 comment -
Henry II assigns some of his knights to protect Becket. They discuss some of Becket's statements wth him.
"Trump has shown no clue in that regard. Liz is a second-rate intellect, and Granny often confused, but Trump is ignorant on the basic issues. I think it was ignorance that made him stumble into a hapless rhetoric gesture on judges and the 2nd Amendment. Not the first time, not the last."
What struck me is what the statement suggested about "2nd Amendment types". Trump not long ago (two years ago, judging by his post-Sandy Hook comments) was pro-gun control, so in that context imagine if Hillary had said something like "if we win, nothing will stop us from overturning Heller and banning assault weapons, except maybe those 2nd Amendment types taking action". We'd be offended but not because she's suggesting someone assassinate her judges, but rather because it implies "gun nuts" are going to get violent if you try taking their guns. When's the last time a "pro gun" person went violent on a judge or politician? The Tea Party rallies where they showed up armed were peaceful.
Trump I think just talks in stream of consciousness--even his lies aren't really lies so much as total disregard for truth as he speaks--and here just rattled what was on his mind. His joke may have been poor taste, but it meant nothing, and (unlike what some critics are saying) it isn't going to make anyone go violent. It wouldn't be the first time he joked about his supporters being nuts (remember how he could shoot someone in the street and no one would stop supporting him?) but it's not worth several days of media coverage.
Unknown presumably quoting CNN -
"(CNN)A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regar. Commentng his Second Amendment comments.
"There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, the official told CNN."
Now think about that for a moment. Even if true and whether true or not, the only professional, nonpartisan response to CNN would be "No comment." In the age of Lois Lerner, is there no corner of the executive branch free from partisanship?
In an interview during the DNC convention Warren said "take him out" in reference to Trump. That's sounds more threatening than anything Trump has said.
@Brando: "even his lies aren't really lies so much as total disregard for truth as he speaks--and here just rattled what was on his mind" Right. The technical philosophical term for this is bullshit. See Harry Frankfurter. Trump is the ultimate bullshitter, Hillary the congenital liar.
"@Brando: "even his lies aren't really lies so much as total disregard for truth as he speaks--and here just rattled what was on his mind" Right. The technical philosophical term for this is bullshit. See Harry Frankfurter. Trump is the ultimate bullshitter, Hillary the congenital liar."
Yep--it's less an attempt to skew the truth and more a complete lack of care for what the truth even is. It makes him more effective at it, in a way--no sweating like Nixon! Just say whatever you please and let it flow, and it becomes your own sort of truth. Hillary, more like Nixon, knows what the truth is and tries to skitter around it.
Warren spews the latest pablum to feed the haters in the party of adult babies. And that Trump! Unless he stops saying things that his enemies can twist into something negative, than he is not fit for the presidency. Look at the way Hillary and Obama talk- open, honest, utterly unambiguous, never deceptive, and nobody could ever misconstrue or misinterpret anything they say, am I right? If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, am I right? What difference does it make anyway?
Twitter limits to 140 characters. Warren pretty good wielding a keyboard within those restrictions.
Somehow, I'm not convinced every pol constructs their own tweets. But everyone seems to assume that.
Fauxcahontas speak with forked tongue. And Hillary hasn't been a "girl" in about sixty years.
That Althouse is even willing to cast Trump's statement as something to "hate" or something "bad", even in a political context, suggests that she will never vote for Trump. Only someone harboring serious misgivings about his morality would think for a minute that his statement called for anything other than political action from a powerful lobby. That or a dupe and I don't think Althouse is a dupe.
This crap is in the same category with the "ban all Muslims forever" nonsense and his "horrible" reaction to Sharia loving, unfettered Muslim immigration huckster Khan.
Interesting that people polled cite the Khan incident against Trump and the email scandal against Hillary in the same breath, as though the two are comparable and the Khan incident is something other than a political hustle.
@Brando: "even his lies aren't really lies so much as total disregard for truth as he speaks--and here just rattled what was on his mind" Right. The technical philosophical term for this is bullshit. See Harry Frankfurter. Trump is the ultimate bullshitter, Hillary the congenital liar.
Can't disagree with that. Of course "bullshitter" has a sort of benign or harmless ring to it. And Trump isn't particularly benign or nice himself.
But yeah; this whole thing had absolutely nothing to do with any Trump "threat" aimed at anyone in particular. Trump was, as I have asserted repeatedly, joking. A bad, and badly-delivered, joke. But what he was joking about was assuredly the notion of "Second Amendment people" taking up arms against laws to restrict their gun rights.
And Trump is now lying his own ass off, claiming that he was talking about political activism. That, my friends, is some world class bullshit.
Girl means a female human being under the age of majority which in the United States is age eighteen. Did Elizabeth Warren just say that Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the United States?
"And Trump is now lying his ass off claiming he was talking about political activism." 5:48 PM
Exactly right, Chuck. Why would anyone think he was talking about political activism when he was referring to action by a powerful group of political activists?
"And Trump is now lying his own ass off, claiming that he was talking about political activism. That, my friends, is some world class bullshit."
Chuck the lifelong republican immediately takes the Hillary/media point of view. Shocker.
You are either unworthy of your freedom or part of the evil trying to take it from us.
In a world divided into boys and girls, Hillary is a girl. I think.
Those who support Trump should regard themselves as "untouchables", as beings whom no one can touch without contamination. But do they? Perhaps they regard the media frenzy in the same way as they regard efforts by new swimmers to keep their face out of the water while thrashing arms and legs in a frenzied way in order not to sink. It's something along the lines of: "There's no need for all that but try and tell them."
By a painstaking process of textual and memetic analysis, I have unmasked the true identity of Chuck the lifelong Republican... He is T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII!
And even then, the Court didn't overtly retract a right that had been extended.
I'm not legally schooled, and so I would welcome discussion of the "by their Creator phrase in its historical context. I've always taken it as an artful casting of the alleged rights as political axioms; "not open for discussion -- for these, we will fight" rather than theology.
I am of course aware of the current pragmatic nullity of this view, I'm interested in hearing your philosophical insights. Or partisan trolling, whichever comes first to your mind.
Post a Comment