September 19, 2016

Bear in mind: the "mead paw."

I've got "bear" in mind today, because I'm teaching District of Columbia v. Heller — the main case about the right to bear arms. I was looking up the word "bear" on the theory that it connected to the word "embarrass," which comes up in older constitutional law cases about the power of Congress, including McCulloch v. Maryland, also in today's assignment. When the people gave Congress its various powers, Chief Justice Marshall says in McCulloch, they couldn't have meant "to clog and embarrass its execution by withholding the most appropriate means."

But the "-bar-" in "embarrass" isn't like the "bear" in "bear arms." It comes from "baraço" which was the kind of cord or leash you'd use to restrain an animal — perhaps a bear. But the "bear" in "bear arms" is an extremely old root that has always referred to carrying a burden. "Bear," the animal, takes us somewhere else entirely, to the word "brown." Northern Europeans took to calling a bear "the brown one," disconnecting from the Latin "ursus" because — the theory goes — hunters had a taboo on saying the names of wild animals.

Wanting to know more about this taboo, I found a blog post that caught my eye because it inadvertently said the name of my husband: "'Mead Paw' the Original 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named'":
... Bronze-Age hunters came to believe that using the bear’s true name allowed the animal to hear and comprehend the hunter. This would allow the bear to either elude the hunter or come seeking him, who would then become the hunted. The bear was the only really dangerous animal in the great Germanic forest, so to reduce this danger, men changed the rules....

In the Slavic lands, a similar taboo deformation resulted in the Russian name медведь (from *medu-ed) meaning ‘honey-eater’. This compares with our familiar Beowulf which literally means ‘Bee-wolf’ – an obvious poetic euphemism for Bear, in light of the bears notorious liking for honey. Beowulf is ‘bear-like’ in his great strength....

Of all the animals, the most sacred was the bear, whose real name was never uttered out loud. The bear (“karhu” in Finnish) was seen as the embodiment of the forefathers, and for this reason it was called by many euphemisms: “mesikämmen” (“mead-paw”), “otso” (“wide brow”), “kontio” (“dweller of the land”), “lakkapoika” (“cloudberry boy”).
That post proceeds the issues of not saying the name of God and the Harry Potter taboo on naming Lord Voldemort, but my mind wandered to the subject of Donald Trump. It was just 2 posts down that I was writing about an Andrew Sullivan essay, which I had searched for the word "Trump" and, finding nothing, praised for not mentioning Trump, and which I had to come back to and update when I realized that Sullivan was treating Trump as one who must not be named. It was right there in the one paragraph I'd excerpted: "a walking human Snapchat app of incoherence."

Suddenly, I realized that I'd started out doing the same thing. I would not accept the existence of Donald Trump as a candidate for President. Look at this post from June 16, 2015:
Look at that tag: Nothing! June 16th. I wouldn't say the name. That was this day:

81 comments:

James Pawlak said...

Please explain the lack of judges' and other officials' inability to understand "shall not be infringed".

Hagar said...

Bear (animal) - bjørn.
Bear (to carry) - bære.
Brown (color) - brun.

rhhardin said...

Back in the 80s when I had my first Doberman Susie, who on a literal count onto a paper napkin knew 200 words and phrases in context, met my dad, who did not believe in dogs.

After a bit of visiting with her, his view was unchanged but he spoke to her in pig latin, lest she understand him. She understood him anyway.

Wanting her to stop looking at him for a morsel at the dinner table, "Ixnay."

So she went over to the next potential benefactor.

201 words.

holdfast said...

What about Gordon R. Dickson's The Right To Arm Bears"?

https://smile.amazon.com/Right-Arm-Bears-Gordon-Dickson-ebook/dp/0671319590/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1474309741&sr=8-2&keywords=The+Right+To+Arm+Bears


rehajm said...

Lord Mud Pant only needs to turn Colorado he's the next president!

madAsHell said...

Hmmm.....how did Neil Young end up being the sound track for a Trump grand entrance?

Etymology is fun!!

Chuck said...

And since that day -- when Trump declared -- just think how the quality of your comments/commenters has declined.

Your blog's readership has seemingly veered away from intelligent observation and the sensible conservatism of Scott Walker, into the fever swamps of Trumpkinland.

I don't think you did much to encourage it, Professor. Just a little. Your curious toleration of Trump is really all that it took. And you are not alone. The comments at the American Spectator and even the Journal have become almost unimaginably contentious. Like the Althouse blog.


Wilbur said...

AA, it's been interesting to watch your evolution regarding Trump.

I've evolved as well, as have many others.

Hagar said...

A lot of it is also spun from moonshine and horsefeathers - especially when the author could also happily speculate about pre-historic religious practices.

eric said...

Has everyone seem the spooky conspiracy theory about the Simpsons and Trump and that elevator scene Althouse puts there?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=irrbuaiUMVw

It's already been debunked. But it's still spooky to watch.

Ann Althouse said...

@Hagar

Here's the OED: "Etymology: Old English bera = Old High German bero, pero, Middle High German ber, modern German bär, Middle Dutch bere, Dutch beer < Germanic *beron-. The Old Norse björn < *bern-oz seems to be an extended form. Supposed by Fick to be cognate with Latin ferus wild, as if ‘the wild beast’ of northern nations."

The link in my post text goes to Etymonline.

Ann Althouse said...

"Brown (color) - burn."

Keep in mind that "bruin" means bear (the animal).

The point is that the northern Europeans stopped using the Latin-derived word, such as you see in French and Spanish.

Ann Althouse said...

"AA, it's been interesting to watch your evolution regarding Trump."

I adapt to reality. Not instantly. But I get used to it. I'd get used to anything.

I've got to say that I'm curious about what Trump would do and I'm not terrified of it like some people. I don't have any feeling of wanting to see what Hillary would do, and I have a longstanding aversion to her having the distinction of First Female President.

Ann Althouse said...

"Your blog's readership has seemingly veered away from intelligent observation and the sensible conservatism of Scott Walker, into the fever swamps of Trumpkinland."

Scott Walker is so boring compared to Trump. It's just incredible. Now, I could see his boringness as somewhat charming -- notably his I-got-a-haircut-today-and-ate-doughnuts Twitter feed -- but there's nothing interesting to say about him. His enemies lent some interestingness to the year 2011, but other than that -- what can you say?

Clayton Hennesey said...

I'm thinking if Andrew Sullivan changed his name to Cloudberry Boy he might finally be able to get a fresh start on the Internet while leaving the temptations of porn behind.

Achilles said...

Blogger Chuck said...
"And since that day -- when Trump declared -- just think how the quality of your comments/commenters has declined.

Your blog's readership has seemingly veered away from intelligent observation and the sensible conservatism of Scott Walker, into the fever swamps of Trumpkinland.

I don't think you did much to encourage it, Professor. Just a little. Your curious toleration of Trump is really all that it took. And you are not alone. The comments at the American Spectator and even the Journal have become almost unimaginably contentious"

To paraphrase:

Oh the humanity! The plebes are objecting! We told them how smart we are. Just because the we are running the country into the ground and selling out their freedoms doesn't give them the right to criticize us!

You people are not as smart as you think you are. That you support Hillary is proof enough of your perfidy.


Ignorance is Bliss said...

James Pawlak said...

Please explain the lack of judges' and other officials' inability to understand "shall not be infringed".

Apparently I don't lack the inability to understand that sentence.

Chuck said...

I've got to say that I'm curious about what Trump would do and I'm not terrified of it like some people. I don't have any feeling of wanting to see what Hillary would do...

Yeah, me too. I have almost no fear of a Trump presidency, knowing that he'll never have a congressional supermajority like the '09 Obama.

My concern is what an Obama Administration would do to the Republican Party. Presidencies produce their own power-centers. They produce cabinet secretaries, and personnel, and they seep into the fabric of their party.

traditionalguy said...

We've all come a long way in a short time. I had an early advantage in being used to the Trump type on communication. It is my briar patch

But at first Trump would bluntly say that he just did not have time for political correctness, and he lost the more civilized voters for a year or more.

Then Bobby Knight explained it to us. Now all but a few Establishment types are letting Trump be Trump, provided only that the SOB limits it to whatever KellyAnne says is aceptible.

Chuck said...

lol. Freudian slip of the year!

My concern is what a TRUMP Administration would do to the Republican party.

I know what Obama did to the Republican Party. It did as much as anything, to make Trump the nominee:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-obama-trump-dialectic-1449621957

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Chuck said...

Your blog's readership has seemingly veered away from intelligent observation and the sensible conservatism of Scott Walker, into the fever swamps of Trumpkinland.

I must strenuously object to this slander. I have never, in all my years commenting here, proffered a single intelligent observation!

Chuck said...

So, Professor... neither one of us is terrified of a Trump presidency.

Are you terrified of a Clinton presidency?

I am close to being terrified of a Clinton presidency. With two or maybe three young Ruth Bader Ginsburgs added to Kagan and Sotomayor. A godawful young, strong majority to last the next 25 years.

Big Mike said...

Oh! I thought it was the right to bare arms. Because the company dress code makes me wear long sleeve shirts except for casual Fridays.

Chuck said...

To add to my Clinton terror...

If she wins, I expect that it will be with a very large turnout of black voters. And she will owe them so much. I'd say that they would own her, but for the fact that her ownership is already so complete, and so multilayered and multifaceted.

Snark said...

I see Trump 'evolutions' more as passive desensitizations. And not here specifically, but more broadly, as the partial result of a generalized boredom and lack of fulfilment. He's a distraction like any other unpredicted, unpredictable and maybe dangerous event, but attached to a longer news cycle. I find it all pretty depressing.

Achilles said...

"lol. Freudian slip of the year!"

You already know the Obama administration sent the IRS after republican voters. You know Hillary will do the same. But you were and are ok with that.

No the real fear is what Trump will do to the Republican Party. He might actually listen to republican voters and attract other disaffected voters who don't like the uniparty.

Paul Snively said...

Dr. Althouse, you might appreciate your sometime-Bloggingheads-interlocutor Dr. John McWhorter's The Story of Human Language, where he discusses the evolution of "bear," as in "to carry," in some detail, along with much more fascinating material on the evolution of human language.

wild chicken said...

Being "terrified" of some political event is more of a Pajama Boy thing isn't it? Didn't know Conservatives were so emo.

jdniner said...

Trump won't do the GoP in. Romney and McCain already did that. Rather he is giving them a reprieve so they can refocus with more balanced media attention. The GoP is already lost if nevertrumping is the way. People won't forget. It is illuminating to see all these party and process stalwarts jump ship the minute someone shows them how to shine their buttons.

Chuck said...

You already know the Obama administration sent the IRS after republican voters. You know Hillary will do the same. But you were and are ok with that.

You're going to point out where exactly I suggested that I was "ok" with the Obama/IRS depredations, right? No, wait; you're not going to do that because you can't do that because I never ever came close to making such a suggestion.

This, on a comments page where I specifically noted to Professor Althouse that like her I was mostly unafraid of a Trump presidency. And nearly terrorized by the prospect of another Clinton presidency.

This is what I mean, Professor Althouse, about the dumbing-down of your commenters in the Trump era. Any criticism of Der Donald sends the True Believers into fits.

Quaestor said...

Northern Europeans took to calling a bear "the brown one," disconnecting from the Latin "ursus" because — the theory goes — hunters had a taboo on saying the names of wild animals.

If those Neolithic hunters understood "the brown one" to mean that very large plantigrade carnivore as opposed to those other brown ones — like the elk, the horse, and the mammoth — isn't that the name of that very large plantigrade carnivore, and as such forbidden to speak lest the brown one comes to devour your children? Philology is interesting, but sometimes scholars, particularly those whose studies don't punish errors by laboratory explosions, go way beyond the evidence. Theory? harrumph!

Sometimes I wish I were back in the classroom with nothing to do but learn and horse around, but then I picture myself snorting in derision at more than half of the lecture and realize we're all better off that I'm not.

Quaestor said...

Any criticism of Der Donald sends the True Believers into fits.

Delusional as usual.

madAsHell said...

I picture myself snorting in derision at more than half of the lecture and realize we're all better off that I'm not.

Wasn't that a Rodney Dangerfield movie??

The Cracker Emcee said...

"I am close to being terrified of a Clinton presidency. With two or maybe three young Ruth Bader Ginsburgs added to Kagan and Sotomayor. A godawful young, strong majority to last the next 25 years"

Such a majority would also break the power of the court and it wouldn't take anything like 25 years. It's a curious institution these days. It's continuing authority depends almost entirely on being in near-balance. I think Roberts understands that. I doubt any of the liberal justices do.

madAsHell said...

The comments at the American Spectator and even the Journal have become almost unimaginably contentious. Like the Althouse blog.

Chuck....maybe the problem is in the mirror?

Chuck said...

madAsHell;

No the problem is that discussions become incomprehensible. It barely makes any sense for me to proclaim my Republican bona fides on this blog anymore. So pervasive is the contention that I am a Hillary supporter, a plant, a troll. The Trumpkins can't maintain a coherent nuanced thought, if it isn't all about how their man is a master media manipulator.

Meanwhile -- for reasons not yet articulated -- Professor Althouse seems fascinated with the dog-bites-man story that the NYT is being unfair to the Republican nominee for president. She's followed that narrative to the exclusion (mostly) of the bizarre series of lies, deceptions and policy weirdness that is Trump.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me remind everyone about the danger her of Crooked Hillary getting to appoint a couple (or maybe evene one) Supreme Court Justice. Heller found an individual right to keep and bear arms (esp in self-defense). A majority leftist Court would probably not be crazy enough to actually overrule Heller by going back to the community/group right interpretation that so many on the left believed prior to Heller. Rather, they would more likely try to "distinguish" any new cases from the Heller and McDonald cases. I would think that the easiest way to do that would be to loosen up the required level of scrutiny. Heller stated that since the right is a fundamental (enumerated) right, increased scrutiny, and not rational relationship, scrutiny. But, they refused to go beyond that, since the laws overturned failed under both intermediate and strict scrutiny. Going beyond, and setting the actual level of scrutiny required would thus be dicta. The problem is that several circuits, notably the 2nd (NY) and 3rd (NJ) have essentially defined increased scrutiny to only require a mere smidgen above rational basis scrutiny. All the Supreme act would need to do would be to affirm one of those cases, and Heller is essentially gutted. As I see it, from a lawyer's point of view, that is precisely what she has promised to do with her Supreme Court picks.

Chuck said...

Let me remind everyone about the danger her of Crooked Hillary getting to appoint a couple (or maybe evene one) Supreme Court Justice. Heller found an individual right to keep and bear arms (esp in self-defense). A majority leftist Court would probably not be crazy enough to actually overrule Heller by going back to the community/group right interpretation that so many on the left believed prior to Heller. Rather, they would more likely try to "distinguish" any new cases from the Heller and McDonald cases. I would think that the easiest way to do that would be to loosen up the required level of scrutiny. Heller stated that since the right is a fundamental (enumerated) right, increased scrutiny, and not rational relationship, scrutiny. But, they refused to go beyond that, since the laws overturned failed under both intermediate and strict scrutiny. Going beyond, and setting the actual level of scrutiny required would thus be dicta. The problem is that several circuits, notably the 2nd (NY) and 3rd (NJ) have essentially defined increased scrutiny to only require a mere smidgen above rational basis scrutiny. All the Supreme act would need to do would be to affirm one of those cases, and Heller is essentially gutted. As I see it, from a lawyer's point of view, that is precisely what she has promised to do with her Supreme Court picks.


Exactly right. And for making that observation, and also observing that it is false for Donald Trump to continually whine that Hillary "wants to abolish the Second Amendment," I've been accused of being a Hillary operative. Welcome to the club, Bruce. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton will make you Ambassador to Liechtenstein. She already promised me Tuvalu.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Can you understand that no one is interested in the hair-splitting you are trying to do here Chuck? Can you get that through your skull?

The primary reason you can't communicate here, aside from your own incompetence, is because you are brulé my boy, burnt, toast. You have no reservoir of goodwill that would lead anyone to give you a second chance. You, like PBJ, should probably change your name and/or slink the hell off this board. Nobody will miss you.

Now. Don't go bawling to mommy, I claim no authority, I'm just telling you how it is. If you had burnt down a judge and jury trying to make the same case like you have this blog, you would be well-advised to withdraw as counsel from that case.

gadfly said...

Andrew Sullivan's dark rant on the nature of this year's political happenings and his attempt to withdraw from that disheartening world followed by his unwilling return is dramatically summed up in his final paragraph.

I haven’t given up, even as, each day, at various moments, I find myself giving in. There are books to be read; landscapes to be walked; friends to be with; life to be fully lived. And I realize that this is, in some ways, just another tale in the vast book of human frailty. But this new epidemic of distraction is our civilization’s specific weakness. And its threat is not so much to our minds, even as they shape-shift under the pressure. The threat is to our souls. At this rate, if the noise does not relent, we might even forget we have any.

I rarely even understand Sullivan's points of view, let alone agree with him, but this exception brings temporary sanity. My dilemma is the political darkness emanating from both ends of the political structure driven by unhealthy and sometimes criminal but always overly emotional spews that cannot stand against reason. When the world again turns next January, heads will roll and people will die under strange circumstances. Sadly, it matters not at all which side of the political duopoly wins the presidency. The establishment Ruling Class will have won another round with empty promises and more government spending and government involvement in our everyday lives. In four years, the out-party will adopt "We Shall Overcome" as its political slogan and the beat goes on and on.

Chuck said...

Bad Lietutenant: I couldn't care less, what interests you. You are, assuredly, not my judge or jury. More than anything, I hope that this is the election that wipes out the Axis of Stupidity; Trump/Hannity/Bolling/Stern/Savage/Bannon. All of the New York-suburb jagoffs; the guys who have never held any place of importance in American conservatism.

Bad Lieutenant said...

That was about the kindest meant advice I am likely to throw your way. I certainly didn't expect you to take it. Go your way, by all means.

But when you say:

More than anything, I hope that this is the election that wipes out

You have said that your chief hope is for the victory of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 election for POTUS.

I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like what they call a confession. Unless of course you're too stupid to know the meanings of the words you say.

Chuck said...

You have said that your chief hope is for the victory of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 election for POTUS.

Where, you assclown? Where have I said such a thing? Quote me. Quote me or shut up and leave me the fuck alone.

I don't want to see Hillary win anything. But that doesn't stop me from hating all the guys like you.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Read the line above that you idiot. I just translated for you.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Also, because you are either unbelievably stupid or unbelievably obtuse: it's in italics. Your words are in italics. That is the quote.

James Pawlak said...

Mostly White armies freed Southern Blacks from physical slavery. Too many have sold themselves (Their votes and sous) back into slavery to the DNC for public welfare check and stamps as "House----Slaves".

Bad Lieutenant said...

Here, let's spoon feed you. Your words:

"More than anything, I hope that this is the election that wipes out...Trump"

My translation of your words:

You have said that your chief hope is for the victory of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 election for POTUS.


Are you really of such low intelligence that you don't realize that you can't have the one without the other? Perhaps you are. You really don't sound very bright to me.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Do you need the timestamp, Chuck? Because I have quoted you, I won't shut up, and I certainly won't leave you the f*** alone.

Bad Lieutenant said...

That's Chuck at 9/19/16, 4:17 PM


MadTownGuy said...

"Scott Walker is so boring compared to Trump. It's just incredible. Now, I could see his boringness as somewhat charming -- notably his I-got-a-haircut-today-and-ate-doughnuts Twitter feed -- but there's nothing interesting to say about him. His enemies lent some interestingness to the year 2011, but other than that -- what can you say?"

Perhaps something about the attempt to resurrect John Doe by way of leaked documents?

MadTownGuy said...

It used to be that the reference for "bull" was "ox," "gentleman cow," or, more obtusely, "the animal." No such constraints apply nowadays.

Bay Area Guy said...

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -- John F. Kennedy

ellamentary said...

I for one miss the days when Althouse couldn't be bothered to say Trump's name, let alone take him seriously. Now I visit this site far less than I used to, because it depresses me to see what was once a lively place for discussion now dominated by Trump apologists who twist themselves into pretzels to defend every inane statement and act of his. The sympathy that Althouse displays, from the fawning over every pronouncement from too-cool-for-school Scott Adams to the "the NYT is picking on him" posts, leaves me wondering what alternate universe I'm in these days.

BTW, did everyone swoon today when Trump made that speech in which he rambled on about the NY/NY terrorism? I was chilled to the bone listening to him. Yes, it was truly scary and you can scream at me all you want that refusing to vote for him means I am supporting the election of Hillary Clinton all you want. I cannot and will not in good conscience vote for him. Today he recited a poem about a woman who nurses a snake back to health, only to be surprised when it bites her, and bemoaned at great detail that we treat our criminals and our enemy combatants like human beings even as we relentlessly bring them to justice. He had the crowd booing in anger at the thought that the terrorist who was arrested today was going to be treated in a hospital and given a nice hospital bed and, later, a lawyer to defend him. So, Mr. Trump--- and his fan club here--- is it your feeling that America should abandon her core values, cherished for the past 200+ years, and just string up the accused without a trial, like in the "good old days"? We're better than that. Or at least, I have always believed that we were.

Ann Althouse said...

"Perhaps something about the attempt to resurrect John Doe by way of leaked documents..."

No. That is boring.

Chuck said...

It's been said many times on these comments pages, that Donald Trump is pissing off all the right people. I don't agree with that, of course. Trump has pissed off a lot people who are probably essential support for any Republican who would hope to win the presidency. Still, I admire the poetry of "pissing off all the right people."

Sometimes I think I am pissing off all the right people.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Good choice, Chuck. You're much better preening about whatever it is that you're preening about, than facing the corner you have painted yourself into.

In case you missed it, I quoted your words as requested. I could do so again, or just paraphrase: your main goal in life is the defeat of Donald Trump.

And of course the election of Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, which you don't go on to say, but you don't need to.

I don't know if it's some kind of lawyer trick, but you seem to have this notion that nobody knows anything that you don't tell them. Does that work in the law? Cuz it doesn't work anywhere else.

So now that we've established that you are a traitor to the Republican party and, far, far more importantly, to the country, you were saying you were happy about something?


Ella, who are you?

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Ella, who are you?"

A remarkably ham-handed concern troll. The Left is graceless these days.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said... [hush]​[hide comment]

You have said that your chief hope is for the victory of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 election for POTUS.

Where, you assclown? Where have I said such a thing? Quote me. Quote me or shut up and leave me the fuck alone.

I don't want to see Hillary win anything. But that doesn't stop me from hating all the guys like you.


;mon Chuck. You may not want Hillary to win, but you definately want Trump to lose. Then, you will have been proven right. And, should Trump win, you want him to fuck up terribly, once again proving you right. Calling anti Hillary voters "Trumpkins" and other nonsense does not actually contribute to raising the level of discourse here. Kinda goes with your threats against Greta and Ivanka towards making you seem less intelligent than you obviously are.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Thanks, Cracker.

Is it bad that I want them to suffer?

Achilles said...

Blogger Chuck said...

"I don't want to see Hillary win anything. But that doesn't stop me from hating all the guys like you."

Bye Chuck. We have taken the Republican Party away from the people who hate us. We plan on having a border and fighting the people who are trying to take our freedom. We don't need pretend conservatives who won't fight for anything and spend their time trashing the republican nominee.

Nobody wants you around. You want to be a republican as long as you don't have to fight for anything and you get some government cheese. You are worse than useless and you aren't very smart.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Is this Chuck some kind of known person? He talks pretty big.

Chuck said...

;mon Chuck. You may not want Hillary to win, but you definately want Trump to lose. Then, you will have been proven right.

This is correct. Sort of. I never said I wanted Hillary to win, and I've said repeatedly that I would fear and loathe another Clinton presidency. I have said so several times on this thread already. Bad Lieutenant can't be reasoned with.

I think it is fucking hilarious, how the Trumpkins want to attack me and -- worst of all by far, I suppose -- make me a Hillary supporter. You couldn't count the number if times and the number if ways I have declaimed any good feelings toward any Democrat. It is doubtless all part of a Trumpian personal attack on one of the few Althouse commenters who dares criticize Trump. Why there aren't more like me is a mystery here. Unless they have been driven off. For myself, I like a good fight.

As for my wanting Trump to lose so that I would be right about his failure as a candidate, I think I'd much prefer a Supreme Court saved from the Democrats. And that's not news either. I've said the same thing many times before. But there is no wording too trivial, for the Trumpkins to label me a closet Democrat.

Oh; and Trump is still an asshole.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Bad Lieutenant can't be reasoned with.

How would you know? You haven't tried. You asked for your words to be quoted to you and I rammed them down your throat. Clearly, you won't admit how you like the taste.

Are you going to even offer a defense? Maybe that I twisted your words somehow? No more than you've twisted Trump's, or connived at their twisting by others.

Bad Lieutenant said...

You know, if you said something you didn't mean, you could just retract, rephrase, apologize, cringe, just as it seems you want Trump to do every time he says something you don't like. Try it on for size. See what you think of its effectiveness as a tactic.

cubanbob said...

So, Mr. Trump--- and his fan club here--- is it your feeling that America should abandon her core values, cherished for the past 200+ years, and just string up the accused without a trial, like in the "good old days"? We're better than that. Or at least, I have always believed that we were."

So tell us why the fascist, grifter, criminal and traitor and the party that is lockstep with her at every level is going to exemplify core American values. I do hope we are better than fascism, graft, criminality and treason. However one despairs when the likes of a Clinton is a high probability candidate for president.

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
...
...
Bye Chuck. We have taken the Republican Party away from the people who hate us.


God, I love this comment. Because the trashtalk level is so high, and it is so demonstrably wrong.

Let's presume the 2 to 1 odds hold, and Trump loses. Whaddaya got then? Nothing. Not a thing. Trump's a loser, gone from American politics forever. With not a single Trumplike figure out there of any consequence.

The Trump wing of the whatever had three swings at putting up Trump-lite candidates this primary season. Trumpsucker Matt Drudge promoted all the primary challenges. And they all lost. Drudge tried to bring down Paul Ryan in his primary. A resounding win for Ryan. He tried to unseat John McCain, who might well start thinking about retiring. But not before kicking his primary challenger's petite ass. And then last and best; there's Little Marco. He didn't even want to run again. The GOP Establishment convinced him to run, he won in a landslide, and now the Florida seat that looked lost appears to be a clear winner with Rubio.

Here's the part I think is cute. I'd wager that Rubio will win Florida with better numbers than Trump. In fact, I expect Rubio to win Florida, and Trump to lose the state. Which is a neat trick, given what Trump did in the Florida primary. I think it goes to show just how pathologically fucked up was the primary electorate that gave the nomination to Trump.

Thanks so much for asking, and have a nice day.


Chuck said...

Oh, and let's think about a Trump victory too. By rights, it sure should be a win. Over the crappiest candidate put forward by Democrats in almost a hundred years.

Trump will still not have "taken the Republican party" as Achilles claims.

The Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, still hates Trump. Mitch McConnell will still hate Trump. Vast majorities of the Republican congressional House and Senate caucuses will still hate Trump. Trump will be hated by the Republican governors of Wisconsin (Walker), Ohio (Kasich), Michigan (Snyder), New Mexico (Martinez), Maryland (Hogan) and North Carolina (McCrory). (Don't bother me with the half-assed "endorsements" of Walker, Kasich and McCrory; they still hate Trump.)

If Trump puts Jeff Sessions into his administration, I'm not sure that there will be a single member of the 100-seat United States Senate who likes Trump.

That ain't much of a takeover.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Is that what politics is about, Chuck, people who like you? That explains so much about why your version of the Republican Party stinks on ice.

Meanwhile it's hypocrisy: your choice of Cruz has been said to be the most unpopular man in the Senate, and I forgot who said that if he were murdered on the Senate floor, no one would prosecute.

I extend my remarks which you have fled from like a man with a bad conscience.

Chuck said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
Is that what politics is about, Chuck, people who like you? That explains so much about why your version of the Republican Party stinks on ice.


No its mostly about winning. Which is my second-biggest gripe with Trump. Right after, "World's most contemptible asshole." I don't think he'll win. He might; I don't like predictions. Sometimes I like a bet here and there. When I think I have superior knowledge to beat the odds. Which is rare. And with Trump, I just don't know.

Meanwhile it's hypocrisy: your choice of Cruz has been said to be the most unpopular man in the Senate, and I forgot who said that if he were murdered on the Senate floor, no one would prosecute.

Lindsey Graham said it, at Washington Press Club Foundation dinner. And when was Ted Cruz "my choice"? I didn't vote for him in our state's primary. I voted for Kasich. I might well have chosen Ted Cruz, if it was a 2-way race with Trump. In an two way race I might even have voted for... whoa, wait! I just asked myself a trick question. I can't trap me that easily. It takes Bad Lieutenant to trip me up so effectively.

tim maguire said...

Beetlejuice!

tim maguire said...

Bloody Mary!

tim maguire said...

I'm trying to make a third post shouting out the name of a classic Althouse troll, but damned if they aren't a forgettable bunch.

Quaestor said...

Scott Walker is so boring compared to Trump.

In an ideal world government would be the most boring of subjects, and only tedious and uninteresting people would want to work in government. Unfortunately American political history has always been interesting, even when the people made supreme efforts to pretend otherwise, such as the long sleepy decades between Jackson and Lincoln when the intensely interesting political question of slavery continued to boil even though intensely ignored. Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan — a more insipid crew could hardly be found, which was too bad for all concerned. The times were interesting regardless of the bland, colorless men chosen to manage those times. With the fall of the Soviet Union some of us hoped a new colorless era was dawning, so we chose an uninteresting man as Chief Executive (N.B. Infamous and interesting are not synonymous. WJC was and remains a libertine and a grifter, but he's not interesting.) and we've paid an enormous price for our folly. In spite of our desires the times remain interesting, which calls for an interesting personality in the White House.

Anne said...

Trump will be battling Washington uni-party for the next 8 years....and the GOP/Bush party did it to themselves. Apparently the betrayal of the 2014 GOP congress on amnesty and no actual budgets for 7 was a bridge too far for the base. Trump kicked open a rotted out door ...but he didn't cause the rot. He is not over powering a strong entity. He's crushing a failed one

traditionalguy said...

I sort of respect Chuck for his courageous resolve to sink the USS Trump with a personal Kamikaze flight rather than make an unconditional surrender. The Bushido Shrine guys will long remember Chuck's sacrifice while the USS Trump sales to victory after victory.

Achilles said...

Blogger Chuck said...

"God, I love this comment. Because the trashtalk level is so high, and it is so demonstrably wrong."

You are the people who constantly talk trash. You fight against trump harder than you fight the democrats. When you aren't passing obamas budgets on voice votes you are trying to pass amnesty and eliminate our borders and telling us how dumb we are not supporting this cowardice.

"Let's presume the 2 to 1 odds hold, and Trump loses. Whaddaya got then? Nothing. Not a thing. Trump's a loser, gone from American politics forever. With not a single Trumplike figure out there of any consequence."

If Hillary wins we have a liberal Supreme Court for 20 years. Republicans haven't passed a balanced budget since Coolidge. The borders will be in effect eliminated with the aid of the republicans. The rule of law will be dead. The Republican Party will be a vestigial appendage of no value. You wish for an end to the republic.

You put a lot of faith in the national level GOPe. Nobody has lower approval ratings. The state and local republicans are nothing like them. They are part of the machine body politic. They spend every day using the federal government budget and laws to ensure their reelection. You like aristocracy and you don't even understand how our country became an aristocracy or how we are an aristocracy. They have ceded power to a bureaucracy that passes all of the laws and protects the aristocracy even as it wields the power of the aristocracy .

Bad Lieutenant said...

I never studied law, but I was a debater in high school. In debate, when you don't answer the opponent's arguments, you lose.

But then, Chuck, you are used to being a loser.

Go trip yourself.

chickelit said...

Chuck is just playing the role that Crack EmCee played in the the 2012 election. Rewind the blog to see what I mean. Crack had a 24/7 obsession with hating Romney but offered little to nothing in return. Ultimately, Crack melted down and went away. Chuck is playing the same spoiler role this year. Some may think that such commenters make the Althouse blog more interesting; I say it makes the comments more boring and predictable.

chickelit said...

As far as Althouse's evolution on Trump, alert readers will recall subsequent posts wherein she quoted her mother on how to not to encourage people like Trump and then there was the brief phase when Althouse appeared to buy into Trump's rise paralleling the rise of Hitler. It's all there in the archives.

Chuck said...

chickelit said...
As far as Althouse's evolution on Trump, alert readers will recall subsequent posts wherein she quoted her mother on how to not to encourage people like Trump and then there was the brief phase when Althouse appeared to buy into Trump's rise paralleling the rise of Hitler. It's all there in the archives.


In the end, there was Althouse opining, "I think Trump is pro-gay, and being cagey about it."

And I think she is right.* And, for her, she may well be acting rationally in her own political interest, in doing a soft promotion of Donald Trump. She now has a national election in which every candidate is pro-gay marriage. The first-ever Republican nominee who seems to be pro-gay marriage even when he (unconvincingly, like her boy Barack) says otherwise.

*Right, insofar as she is seeing the situation accurately. Not right in a way that suits my political or legal preferences.

Chelsy Kho said...

Numpang Promo ya

PAPADOMINO agen poker online terpercaya
judi poker
bandar poker
domino online
agen poker online
poker online
capsa susun
poker online terpecaya