September 22, 2016

"What do you do if you want to piss off your teachers, piss off your parents, piss off your friends, be rejected from polite society..."

"... and in all other ways be thought of as an untouchable miscreant? Vote for Donald Trump!" says Milo Yiannopoulos (dressed as a woman).




ADDED: He begins with a comic singing of the American national anthem (and he's not an American citizen). Shades of Roseanne Barr.

ALSO: His first topic is "fat shaming." What I notice is that he's sort of doing standup comedy, but it's not funny enough. People aren't laughing. He's sort of just being a lecturer.

71 comments:

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

There's something profoundly wrong with someone proud of their spiteful tendencies.

Chuck said...

Is the gay community enthused about the Trump candidacy? Why?

Bob Boyd said...

Lady Gaga.

traditionalguy said...

Gay men are out and proud nowadays. That takes courage. Why wouldn't they want to end the Political Correctness bans being put upon free speech? That factor makes a bold realist speaker like Trump their natural ally.

It is not about the Gays. It is not about Trump. It is all about bold free speech being the sine qua non of all social good.

Without bold free speech we will all , both Gay and Christian, have to surrender to Sharia; and we will have to cease speaking or writing the Calvinist claims of Christ to authority.

So why not join the Trump Train.

bagoh20 said...

His points are simply true. People have a right to be fat, or smoke, or drink, if they choose, but lying about it and proclaiming it healthy or good is worse than shaming. Both are simply opinions, but one is worth listening to if you value health, life, and love. You can choose to believe either message, but one is a lie.

bagoh20 said...

Is there any popular movement on modern campuses that is not a destructive lie?

Nyamujal said...

From a funny Twitter account I follow:

TRUMP: Hey. Saw your clown spread, and--
MILO: I'm homosexual.
TRUMP: Yup, I know.
MILO: I suck dicks.
TRUMP: Right.
MILO: DICKS, Donald!
TRUMP: You're gay. I'm fine w/ it. Not one of my big bigotries.
MILO: I like BLACK dicks best.
TRUMP: Yes, Milo, you have sex w/ black guys
MILO: Sometimes I fuck a guy and then I suck his dick.
TRUMP: Terrific! Sounds nice for you guys. Listen--
MILO: I FUCK BLACK MEN.
TRUMP:
MILO: Did I OFFEND you, Donald?
TRUMP: You did not.
MILO: Did I take a DARING stand against culture?
TRUMP: I don't think so, actually, no
MILO: Are you AFRAID of--
TRUMP: Kid, you're the most boring fucking person I've ever spoken to. You fuck guys. Terrific. Now shut UP.
MILO:

That just about sums it up. Milo is remarkably vapid, vain, and vacuous.

bagoh20 said...

"That just about sums it up. Milo is remarkably vapid, vain, and vacuous."

That fake dialogue is, but after listening to Milo quite a bit, it sounds nothing like him. Such a dialogue is entirely impossible between those two men, and thus vapid and dishonest. He makes a thing of his gayness mostly because it has a disarming effect on leftist hypocrisy.

Milo mostly makes valid points that his critiques rarely make any substantive attempt to refute - mostly because they can't.

Bob Boyd said...

Okay so here's Milo, dressed like Lady Gaga, camping it up in the deep south, supposed home of racists, homophobes, ignorant, intolerant, violent haters, the ones we're all supposed to fear...yet the house is packed and the crowd loves him.
The only ones who are trying to shut him up are the so-called liberals.

Michael K said...

I'm toying with taking my "Deplorable Member" tee shirt this weekend to a reunion.

The reaction would be interesting.

I haven't decided yet.

Laslo Spatula said...

The Edgy Gay Conservative says:

You know how edgy gay conservative I am? I'm so edgy gay conservative that when I fuck a man I just met I use a condom...

I'm so edgy gay conservative that I believe you have to buy someone dinner before having anal sex...

I'm so edgy gay conservative that I think sex with young boys is wrong, even if they are hot...

I'm so edgy gay conservative that I believe transsexuals really DO have a problem...

and:

I'm so edgy gay conservative that I think Amy Schumer is Fat...

Laslo would know where to go from here.

I am The Replacement Laslo.

Roughcoat said...

Michael K:

Do it, man. For God's sake, do it. We're too old to care what other people think.

Chuck said...

I'm pondering "Deplorable Member" and "Laslo Spatula" in successive posts.

Was Donald Trump pro-gay marriage before Hillary Clinton was pro-gay marriage? I think so. Of course Trump has flipped back (again, and again) so that he doesn't really have the flip-flopper argument against Hillary. I'm not so sure he's even made much of a coherent argument about where he stands. I think he's letting all of his supporters, from Jerry Falwell Jr. to Milo Yiannopoulis, decide for themselves.

Anyway, I just have not seen a lot of discussion about Trump As Metrosexual on Hannity.

holdfast said...

Sometimes I worry that Milo will turn out to be another David Brock.

But mostly I just enjoy the show.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I think he's letting all of his supporters, from Jerry Falwell Jr. to Milo Yiannopoulis, decide for themselves.


OMG!!! Can't have that! We must have someone decide for us!

If you are a Republican, Chuck...

Why? Better parties?

Laslo Spatula said...

"Chuck said...
I'm pondering "Deplorable Member" and "Laslo Spatula" in successive posts."

I've been 'pondered' by Chuck!

I'm not quite sure if the sensation is Tingling or Burning.


I am The Replacement Laslo.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...Is the gay community enthused about the Trump candidacy? Why?

Enthused compared to what, Chuck? Was the gay community enthused about Mitt Romney's candidacy? Would the gay community have been enthused about Ted Cruz's candidacy? Is the gay community enthused about Hillary Clinton's candidacy?

I doubt even Milo would say that Milo accurately represents the views of the "gay community" as a whole.

I'm not really sure what your point is, here, Chuck. As a lifelong Republican I'm sure you are about winning a larger percentage of the homosexual vote than Repubs have in the past, but you're not really stating an argument that Trump is hurting that cause.

Chuck said...

I just like clarity, that's all, Bad Lieutenant.

Instead of Bill O'Reilly coyly sucking Trump's deplorable member I think it might actually be interesting if O'Reilly asked Trump to discuss Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v Hodges. And then ask him enough questions so that Trump's position was unequivocal.

In the end, Jerry Falwell Jr. or Ann Althouse -- one or the other -- ought to be ready to disown any support for Trump.

Sebastian said...

""What do you do if you want to piss off your teachers, piss off your parents, piss off your friends, be rejected from polite society..."" Of course, that will work the other way around. All the nice, moderate, go-along, get-along white sort-of GOPers and soccer moms don't want to be rejected from polite society, and will therefore give Hill the victory.

Laslo Spatula said...

The Edgy Gay Conservative says:

You know how edgy gay conservative I am? I'm so edgy gay conservative that, in the heat of the moment, giving someone a Dirty Sanchez doesn't even occur to me.

In fact, I find the act to be an expression of self-loathing and degradation.

Being an Edgy Gay Conservative means I am not into self-loathing.

Let the transsexuals give each other all the Dirty Sanchezs they want: I am not a part of that.

Transsexuals and the Dirty Sanchez go together like chocolate and peanut butter. But that is not Reese's on their lips.



I am The Replacement Laslo.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck said...
I just like clarity, that's all, Bad Lieutenant.


No, Chuck, you just like Democrats. Whatever you may say, you are serving them with both hands.

Chuck said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
...
I'm not really sure what your point is, here, Chuck. As a lifelong Republican I'm sure you are about winning a larger percentage of the homosexual vote than Repubs have in the past, but you're not really stating an argument that Trump is hurting that cause.


I'd like it if everybody voted Republican. I'd like it, if every member of Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street and Planned Parenthood voted Republican.

I would NOT like it, if the Republican Party changed its platform and legislative agenda, to support Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street and Planned Parenthood.

richlb said...

Have we reached "Peak Milo"?

Bad Lieutenant said...

I think we've reached Peak Chuck.

Big Mike said...

@richlb, very, very unlikely.

@Bad Lieutenant, also very unlikely. But at least Chuck has dropped his mask. He's a kook who claims to be a Republican in the same way that I can claim to be a former astronaut, i.e., by lying shamelessly.

Can't resist my favorite loudspeaker announcement from my time as a Vietnam era draftee: "Would all commissioned officers and lieutenants please report to the colonel's office for a meeting ..."

Chuck said...

No, Bad Lieutenant; we've reached peak paranoia on the part of "Trumpists" (Rush Limbaugh's term) like you. Every single thread features you accusing me -- without evidence -- of being a Democrat, or a Democrat supporter.

The only evidence you can cite, that you will doubtlessly go to, is that I've criticized Trump. That's it. And that is clarity enough for me. I am the target of your attacks, simply for being a critic of Trump.

Brando said...

"""What do you do if you want to piss off your teachers, piss off your parents, piss off your friends, be rejected from polite society..."" Of course, that will work the other way around. All the nice, moderate, go-along, get-along white sort-of GOPers and soccer moms don't want to be rejected from polite society, and will therefore give Hill the victory."

If she doesn't drive them away with her own divisiveness, that is. Whether she loses this race will depend on enough people turned off that they stay home or go third party.

I don't really have anything against my parents or friends, and depending on what you consider "polite society" I don't have an axe to grind with them either. I don't mind pissing off screechy leftists, but I don't care enough about what they think to let them affect my own preferences. Marginalizing and sidelining them is the best thing for them.

Bad Lieutenant said...

The only evidence you can cite, that you will doubtlessly go to, is that I've criticized Trump. That's it. And that is clarity enough for me. I am the target of your attacks, simply for being a critic of Trump.


Actually, it's that you won't criticize Hillary Clinton in depth and with equal or harsher language. That's the tell. It's as if you were trying to stay on her good side so that she would reward you after the election.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...I'd like it if everybody voted Republican. I'd like it, if every member of Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street and Planned Parenthood voted Republican.

I would NOT like it, if the Republican Party changed its platform and legislative agenda, to support Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street and Planned Parenthood.


How does asking "Is the gay community enthused about the Trump candidacy? Why?" make either of those points, Chuck? Do you see, Chuck, why I can't understand what you're trying to say?
Chuck are you arguing that gay people ARE enthused about Trump because he has or will change the Republican Party platform in a way that gay people will like but you will not like? Is that what you mean, Chuck? If so can you be specific about the specific things Trump is changing (the things that will appeal to gay people but not to you, Chuck)?
Or Chuck are you arguing that they gay community is NOT enthused about the Trump candidacy and it's because that community thinks he won't change the Republican platform--and you think that's a good thing? Is that it, Chuck? Are you saying the gay community isn't enthused about Trump but that's ok with you because you don't want him to pander to that community by changing something about the Republican party platform?

I'm trying to understand your point here, Chuck. Your question doesn't seem to tie to your statements unless you're making some very subtle argument, Chuck, and although you're a lifelong Republican and speak the language of conservatism easily I'm afraid I'm not getting what you're really saying, here, Chuck. Can you help me out?

Chuck said...

I'm suggesting that I believe that Trump, like Obama in 2008, "is pro-gay and is being cagey about it."

Obama foreswore support for gay marriage in 2008. After being privately supportive of it, previously.

Trump is now officially in opposition to gay marriage in 2016. Or maybe not. I can't honestly tell, even at an official level. After having been privately supportive of it, previously.

I think Trump is a lot like Obama on this issue. Hillary Clinton, too.

Brando said...

"Trump is now officially in opposition to gay marriage in 2016. Or maybe not. I can't honestly tell, even at an official level. After having been privately supportive of it, previously."

It's just not an issue in this election.

mikee said...

My best friend in high school, in North Carolina in the 1970s, was a closeted homosexual who came out in a big way later, becoming a male prostitute and a tranny stripper of some local renown. I was such a naive youth that I never suspected his flamboyance in high school was just part of his sexuality.

Before I knew about his sexual orientation, he invited me to visit him next time I came back from freshman year at college. He gave me his work address, and told me to drop by any time.

And that was how wide-eyed, innocent 18 year old me made a visit to the gay male bath house where he worked, in Charlotte, NC, in 1977. It was an interesting trip home for a weekend, to say the least.

So when we're discussing the transgressive behavior of homosexuals, I think I have the credibility of long acquaintance with that sort of thing to say Milo isn't that wild or crazy a guy. He just uses his sexual preference as a weapon in public.

I've been seeing that sort of thing since way back in 1977, and it works.



Chuck said...

Brando said...
"Trump is now officially in opposition to gay marriage in 2016. Or maybe not. I can't honestly tell, even at an official level. After having been privately supportive of it, previously."

It's just not an issue in this election.

But the makeup of the United States Supreme Court is, like, the very biggest issue in this election...?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...I think Trump is a lot like Obama on this issue. Hillary Clinton, too.

Ok, Chuck, thanks--that's not really something one could get from your first question, but if that's the point you're making, Chuck, that's what we'll go with.

It's not a crazy thing to think! Trump seems to have been somewhat-to-very pro-gay in his personal life over the years (lots of gay friends, gay friendly policies, etc). Some of that might just be him acting in ways that are "good for business," but as far as I've heard no one has any serious "anti-gay" stuff of Trump from his past. That's good, right?
I might even go further and say that Trump has been MORE honest about this feelings toward gay-friendly policies than Obama was--Obama's fake "evolution" fooled no one, while Trump has largely avoided making his policy positions an issue one way or the other.
From the standpoint of possibly winning over gay voters, or appealing to younger voters (who are more pro-gay) isn't that a good thing, Chuck--isn't that an area/issue where Trump is better than someone like Cruz in terms of actually winning votes, Chuck?

I guess my real question, Chuck, is granting your premise that Trump is a lot like Clinton on the issue of gay-rights, gay-friendly policies, etc: why do you hold that against Trump, or think it's bad (either in an absolute sense or in an electoral/winning votes sense), Chuck? One would think that'd be one of the very few bright spots of a Trump Republican candidacy--at least he's not vocally anti-gay! That doesn't seem to be your attitude, though, Chuck, and I'm not clear on why that's the case.

Rusty said...

Chuck said...
Is the gay community enthused about the Trump candidacy? Why?
Because he's not Hillary? Just a guess, but like everyone else on the right side of the bell curve they believe that the Republican Lite Trump just might be better for the country than the Clinton kleptocracy.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said [responding to Brando]...But the makeup of the United States Supreme Court is, like, the very biggest issue in this election...?

Yes, Chuck, it certainly is, but you should recognize that we've all moved on! Regarding the issue of gay marriage, I mean. The Court ruled, the majority of people are happy enough with the outcome of that ruling, the question is settled, and most average people have moved on. The Court is vitally important in all manner of other aspects of our lives...but as to gay marriage, it's "just not an issue" anymore. Whether it SHOULD still be an issue (or whether the larger/meta point of why those issues are decided by the Court at all) is a different argument, but the plain facts (as shown by voter/Media discussion, etc) seem to show that it's "just not an issue" anymore, Chuck. Right?
For pro-gay rights people that's a reason to celebrate! For the Republicans it's probably not much of a reason to cry--even if they think the thing's wrongly decided having it off the table (having it no longer available as an easy weapon with which to bludgeon the Right as anti-gay, hateful, etc) is probably beneficial...especially for a party trying hard to appeal to younger voters. Right, Chuck? As a lifelong Republican I'm sure you want the Republican party to do better with younger people, and younger people are strongly pro-gay--having gay marriage be "not an issue anymore" thus helps the Republicans out, right Chuck?

Brando said...

"But the makeup of the United States Supreme Court is, like, the very biggest issue in this election...? "

It is, but for other reasons--the gay rights issue is out of the barn and no matter who ends up on the court, it isn't turning back. What matters for the Court now is gun rights, property rights, limitation of executive powers, free speech rights, criminal rights, affirmative action...a lot of which was held in the balance for a while but now could shift as the Supreme Court does (not to mention the very large number of lower court appointments that will come up). But then, I see us completely screwed on that score anyway, and not just because I don't trust Hillary or Trump to appoint good justices. It's hopeless because even with "solid" picks (like Bush's) they get swayed by popular opinion and pull off a Roberts! Even with the old makeup they couldn't put affirmative action to rest, so why would even five more GOP appointments make a difference?

I know it sounds like I have stock in Makers Mark, but seriously, lots of whiskey for the next decade. We'll all need it.

Chuck said...

Hoodlum Doodlum:

That is why this is Althouse. A strange mixture of Scott Walker, Donald Trump and Dan Savage. I frankly don't expect to get any traction on this issue, here. It should have been a fatal wedge issue for Trump in the primaries. My home base isn't here; it is at NRO or the Weekly Standard.

Still if some think that we are one, or two, SCOTUS nominations away from overturning Citizens United, why shouldn't we be one, or two, SCOTUS nominations away from overturning Obergefell?

Just asking. Neither thing is likely, of course. And it would take real, dedicated, ideological leadership to overturn Obergefell. Reading Chief Justice Roberts' dissent, it is hard to imagine how he'd not rule the same way again. But I don't think Trump would ever be into that. There are a dozen dumbfuck things on his priority list (a pointless Mexican wall, a national pro-libel lawsuit law, a counterproductive auto import tariff, etc.) above that.

Chuck said...

What matters for the Court now is gun rights, property rights, limitation of executive powers, free speech rights, criminal rights, affirmative action...

So we all have to acknowledge the intelligence of this. All true. And Dem-nominated federal judges have been vandalizing all of them. Jeff Sessions and the Senate Republicans could be trusted, to select federal judges on all of these issues.

Given that Trump himself has made a hell of a lot of wrong-headed comments on Fisher II, Kelo, the federal assault weapons ban, Citizens United, and even the libel protections dating back to New York Times v Sullivan, Trump is the weirdest person imaginable, to be at the center of federal judicial nominations.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...Still if some think that we are one, or two, SCOTUS nominations away from overturning Citizens United, why shouldn't we be one, or two, SCOTUS nominations away from overturning Obergefell?

No one thinks Obergefell will be overturned, though, Chuck--that's the point. Lots of people think CU will be overturned. Are you saying one belief is supportable but the other isn't, Chuck? People who watch the Court, Chuck, understand that once it swings left on a social issue it rarely swings back to the center or right...certainly not as far back. The lone exception might be on "gun issues," but even there it was a matter of DECADES before the Fed. Gov. went too far (tying gun rights to school zoning!) and the Court at last stepped in.
Why do people think the Court won't overturn a widely-popular left-leaning social decision, Chuck? Probably because the evidence shows they very rarely do! Why do people think the court might overturn a widely-controversial libertarian-leaning personal-rights decision, Chuck? Probably because they've seen that happen, and the left-leaning Justices' statements sure make it sound like they're itching to do so!


Now regarding your statement that "It should have been a fatal wedge issue for Trump in the primaries"--that might be true if the social conservatives still saw being anti-gay marriage as super-important. The evidence shows they don't, on top of which "this isn't a normal election!" That's a cop-out, of course, but it's also true--Trump didn't play by the normal rules and didn't assemble a normal Republican-primary voter coalition. He won in part by assembling a group that didn't really break down into the same categories earlier primary winners' groups embodied (ie it wasn't social cons. vs. libertarians, business cons. vs. social cons, etc). Again, Chuck, part of the reason gay marriage/gay friendly policies DIDN'T work as a wedge issue is because, even among Repub. primary voters..."it's just not an issue now!"

Since you're a long time Republican and want the party to thrive I again point out that this should be something you see as a positive of Trump--he has been cast as racist, sexist, and xenophobic (as was Romney, McCain, etc) but NOT as anti-gay! That's progress, of a sort for the Republican party. Isn't that something for which you can cheer, Chuck?!

Chuck said...

Since you're a long time Republican and want the party to thrive I again point out that this should be something you see as a positive of Trump--he has been cast as racist, sexist, and xenophobic (as was Romney, McCain, etc) but NOT as anti-gay! That's progress, of a sort for the Republican party. Isn't that something for which you can cheer, Chuck?!

No that is flatly incorrect. Lyin' Hillary specifically -- and laughably -- listed "homophobic" Trump supporters among the "deplorables." I guess I know my deplorables better than you.

She was lying. Of course, Democratic lying on the subject of favored grievance subgroups never gets fact-checked.

But still, that was one of my all-time favorites.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...Given that Trump himself has made a hell of a lot of wrong-headed comments on Fisher II, Kelo, the federal assault weapons ban, Citizens United, and even the libel protections dating back to New York Times v Sullivan, Trump is the weirdest person imaginable, to be at the center of federal judicial nominations.

No Chuck, not the weirdEST. He's weird as a champion of the conservative positions on those issues, sure...but he's not worse than Hillary Clinton!!!
If you're arguing that a primary voter who picked Trump because he thought Trump would be the best person to push the conservative cause w/r/t federal judges, then sure, I agree/we all agree, Trump was a weird choice.
But the primary is over, Chuck! It makes no sense to try and relitigate or reargue those...the votes are in, Trump's the candidate, Chuck. The proper question now, Chuck, is whether Trump is better for those things than Hillary.
I admit it's not a slam dunk! That's sad & scary, but that's Trump...and Trump is what we have.
So, again, the argument one has to make is that Hillary is more likely to appoint conservative-friendly judges than is Trump. I don't find that persuasive. If you argue that Trump might not nominate good judges, fine. If you argue that Trump's judges overall will be WORSE than Hillary's judges...well you're going to have to work to prove that I think.

The bottom line, Chuck, is not that Trump's judges will be better (for conservatives/libertarians) than Cruz's judges would have been, or Romney's or, etc. None of that matters now, Chuck! What matters is whether Trump's judges will be better than Hillary's judges. That's the only thing worth arguing over at this point, on that topic, Chuck.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...No that is flatly incorrect. Lyin' Hillary specifically -- and laughably -- listed "homophobic" Trump supporters among the "deplorables." I guess I know my deplorables better than you.

Oh Chuck, I'm not saying no one has called Trump supporters anti-gay. I'm sure Hillary has called Trump himself anti-gay! My point, Chuck, is that it doesn't seem to me that anti-gay, as an attribute, has really stuck to Trump despite the Left & Media's attempts.
That's change! Ol' Mitt Romney's not anti-gay, but the Media "raised questions" about Mormons, about Mitt's alleged childhood bullying, etc, and painted Mitt as anti-gay.
The Media would LOVE to paint Trump as anti-gay, Chuck, but they haven't been able to do so thus far. That's progress, and that progress is in large part due to Trump himself.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Brando said...I know it sounds like I have stock in Makers Mark, but seriously, lots of whiskey for the next decade. We'll all need it.

Maker's Mark is a brand produced by Beam Suntory, which is a division of Suntory Holdings, Limited, a Japanese company.

Now, I drink more than my share of Maker's...but if Trump wins I suppose we'll have to switch to some real American booze. I am open to suggestions.

Chuck said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Oh Chuck, I'm not saying no one has called Trump supporters anti-gay. I'm sure Hillary has called Trump himself anti-gay! My point, Chuck, is that it doesn't seem to me that anti-gay, as an attribute, has really stuck to Trump despite the Left & Media's attempts.
That's change! Ol' Mitt Romney's not anti-gay, but the Media "raised questions" about Mormons, about Mitt's alleged childhood bullying, etc, and painted Mitt as anti-gay.
The Media would LOVE to paint Trump as anti-gay, Chuck, but they haven't been able to do so thus far. That's progress, and that progress is in large part due to Trump himself.

Gosh, I don' think I can argue with any of that.

In 2012, the gay left hadn't won yet. And it was a partisan issue. Obama was no longer being coy, about his pro-gay stance. Dems for gay marriage, Reps against.

Now, they think they have won, with one 5-4 decision. Maybe they have, I can't say.

And of course now, Trump probably is pro-gay marriage as a policy, and not purely legal, matter. A lot harder to paint him as anti-gay. Still, it won't stop empty and vacuous allegations like Lyin' Hillary's.

Again, we Republicans could win some new votes, if we favored "comprehensive" (amnesty) immigration reform, "sensible" (anti-) gun legislation, and a single-payer national health care system. We'd win some new votes, and lose some long time supporters.

Brando said...

FWIW, don't think Trump is anti-gay at all--and to his credit, he's been pretty open about that. And not long ago being pro-gay rights was a dealbreaker in most GOP presidential primaries (at least where the issue came up). Trump has also shattered other assumptions (that actually supporting the Dem nominee would be a dealbreaker, or being all over the map on abortion) which leads to the question does that mean those taboos are shattered for future Republicans, too? Next primary cycle, will we see other candidates successfully go against a lot of "generally accepted" conservative positions and succeed? I'm not sure they will, simply because Trump's success mostly has to do with things about him that others cannot repeat (e.g., using free media because he's a celebrity) so we may see them revert back next time. But the term "RINO" clearly no longer has the bite it used to.

As for the judicial appointments, there's a "monkey throwing darts" chance that Trump will pick good ones--maybe he'll let McConnell give him a list of who the Senate will approve and he'll let Hugh Hewitt advise him on that. Or, maybe he'll decide screw them, he got elected no thanks to the GOP, and he wants to appeal to the Dems and get some leverage so they'll agree to fund his wall. Anything can happen and what we think about that has everything to do with how much we trust the man. We'll just have to wait and see, if he gets that chance.

But even still, getting good appointees doesn't mean what it used to. After Bush put two more on the court (what seemed an even trade for Rehnquist, and replacing squishy O'Connor with what seemed solid) it didn't help. Being in the majority just made the conservatives less likely to stick to conservative principles, and instead worry about angering what they saw as a "moderate" public, so we had the ACA defended in laughable ways.

Hence the whiskey.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...Again, we Republicans could win some new votes, if we favored "comprehensive" (amnesty) immigration reform, "sensible" (anti-) gun legislation, and a single-payer national health care system. We'd win some new votes, and lose some long time supporters.

Chuck, I feel like you're still being a little coy yourself, here, Chuck--dancing around the statement you'd like to make, as it were.

Are you asserting that Trump's seemingly pro-gay stance will cost the Republican party more votes than it will win? Do you believe that the Republican party, going forward, should continue to vocally adopt anti-gay marriage positions? (And that doing do will win move vote, on net, than it will lose?)
You're analogizing to pro-Left issues (gun control, amnesty) without explicitly saying being pro-gay marriage is the same...and in fact we're not even talking about being pro-gay marriage, really, just not being vocally anti-gay marriage!
Anyway is that what you mean, Chuck, that the Republican party should continue to be vocally anti-gay marriage now and forever, as a matter of principle? 2nd question: do you believe that Trump's refusal to do so will, on net, cost him votes, Chuck?

Chuck said...

Brando, I think the chances of Trump making excellent federal judicial nominations is great, simply because I am certain he will be handed a list, prepared by the Republican staff attorneys on the Judiciary Committee.

But it doesn't end there. You can be certain, that in the event of a Trump presidency (which sounds pretty good to me, on this issue) that Chuck Schumer will talk to Trump and say, "Hey, I think we can help you out on that wall, after all. And even better news, we can help you get Mexico to pay for it. But on that Supreme Court nomination, we have a new name for you..."

He's a deal maker. Making great deals, for America.

Chuck said...

Hoodlum:
Irrespective of party, I think Obergefell was a mistake, and an incredibly dangerous insult to the Constitution. No election will change that for me. I favor the election of people who fully and energetically share that belief.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I favor the election of people who fully and energetically share that belief.

This is objectively false.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said... No election will change that for me. I favor the election of people who fully and energetically share that belief.

Ok, Chuck. NO ONE like that is on the ballot this year. NO ONE like that will be on the ballot, for President, in 2020. I doubt very much if anyone like that will be on the ballot, for President, under a major party, again.
Does that mean you're going to refrain from voting for President this year and every year until some such person runs, Chuck?

But it doesn't end there. You can be certain, that in the event of a Trump presidency (which sounds pretty good to me, on this issue) that Chuck Schumer will talk to Trump and say, "Hey, I think we can help you out on that wall, after all. And even better news, we can help you get Mexico to pay for it. But on that Supreme Court nomination, we have a new name for you..."

Right, Chuck, that's right, but once again: the question isn't "is Trump good on this issue" or "can we trust Trump," or even "is Trump better on this than some hypothetical actual conservative." The question, Chuck, is: "is Trump better than Clinton?"
I guess you can amend that to: "is Trump better than Clinton and Johnson and Stein," but given the reality of the electoral map it's really just Donald & Hillary.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I don't mind, Chuck, if you're saying you're a single issue voter and you have to take a principled stand. That's fine, and even if I disagree on the issue (or your view of it), I salute you.

The problem, Chuck, is in trying to simultaneously argue that Republicans should do their best to win elections AND that they ought to take principled stands on single issues even when it will cost them elections.

Wasn't that the "post mortem's" conclusion--that Republicans had to either be or sell themselves as more centrist and adopt youth-friendly positions or sales tactics? The post mortem focused on immigration and clearly (judging by Trump's primary win & nationwide support anyway) that was a miss, but maybe insofar as it talked about toning down anti-gay marriage rhetoric it was correct.

Anyway it's fine to stand on principle, and it's fine to say you can't support anyone since no one running agrees with your views. It's not fine to fail to make distinctions of any kind, though (ie to say Hillary & Trump are equally bad on all issues since neither agrees with you on your particular issue)...well, I guess it is OK, Chuck, but it'd be a little silly. Most lifelong Republicans I know aren't silly so I'll assume you're not either, Chuck.

Chuck said...

Hoodlum: I don't want to bore everybody by saying it again, but "the lesser of two evils" is an argument I have a hard time answering. I have said that every time it comes up.

I think I would say, "Trump is the lesser of two evils. It may be necessary to vote for him. Despite the fact that he is an ass, and an ignoramus. And despite the fact that a Trump Administration might do even more long term damage to the Republican Party than the Trump Candidacy did."

So yeah; I might vote for the bastard. With reluctance, and even rage.

Chuck said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
I favor the election of people who fully and energetically share that belief.

This is objectively false.


You stupid bozo; how many elections have we had since Obergefell? What part is false?

Chuck said...

The problem, Chuck, is in trying to simultaneously argue that Republicans should do their best to win elections AND that they ought to take principled stands on single issues even when it will cost them elections.


It is always a tough balance.

But since about 34 Red states passed laws banning same-sex marriage, I feel convinced that it's a solid electoral winner.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Also, HooDoo, Trump might be more inclined to dance with the gal that brung him.

A Republican Party and Congress "who hates him," as a certain putative lawyer has said, might have less weight in his councils, for having done little or nothing to get him elected, much to oppose him, and rudely so in the bargain, than if they had supported the nominee wholeheartedly and respectfully, and appeared to be indispensable to him.

I boggle at how this is uncomprehended by so many. Good Lord, an infant understands tit for tat.

Brando said...

"You stupid bozo; how many elections have we had since Obergefell? What part is false?"

Chuck, no need to insult him--his comment wasn't insulting you. But I figure his point is that he thinks you favor Hillary in this election. Which I doubt, as you seem resigned to vote for Trump.

"so yeah; I might vote for the bastard. With reluctance, and even rage."

Reluctance and rage, but a vote is a vote. Trump and Hillary are counting on a lot of such votes.

I have to admit I don't care much about Ogberfell--I'm fine with gay marriage as a policy, and while we should care about the legal reasoning the Court uses (even when the result is one we like policy wise) it just doesn't rate as high as the Fisher and Kelo decisions (to say nothing of the two ACA travesties).

Bad Lieutenant said...

"What part is false?"

The part where you "favor the election of people who fully and energetically share that belief."

Since you are doing all in your power to get Hillary Clinton elected, every time you open your mouth, you are, objectively, favoring the election of someone who doesn't share that belief at all.

I keep explaining this to you, and you keep failing, or refusing, to get it. Maybe you just have IQ trouble.

Bad Lieutenant said...

His vote is one vote. His public speaking is at all times designed, consciously or otherwise, to influence others, as many others as he can reach, to vote against Trump.

If he can't be supportive, he should be silent. Two plus two is four.

And it's hard for me to accept that he is just dumb. How can you not be enraged at the Clinton Gang? But no, Hillary is Mrs. Clinton, whose policies he opposes. Trump is the asshole, the animal.

Chuck said...

A Republican Party and Congress "who hates him," as a certain putative lawyer has said, might have less weight in his councils, for having done little or nothing to get him elected, much to oppose him, and rudely so in the bargain, than if they had supported the nominee wholeheartedly and respectfully, and appeared to be indispensable to him.


No argument. None.

And that might be a reason for me to not vote for Trump.

In Michigan, our Governor Rick Snyder ran against two strong movement conservatives (Rep. Pete Hoekstra and Attorney General Mike Cox) in a 3-way primary where Hoekstra and Cox ran as strong conservatives, and Snyder ran as a third way moderate. Snyder won the split vote.

Snyder then butted heads repeatedly with conservative Republicans in the legislature.

Now, post-Flint, with the mainstream media calling (without any evidence) for Snyder's head, he is learning who his friends are.

Chuck said...

Since you are doing all in your power to get Hillary Clinton elected, every time you open your mouth, you are, objectively, favoring the election of someone who doesn't share that belief at all.


Wait! The object of "belief" was "belief that Obergefell was a dangerous insult to the Constitution"! Does Trump share that belief? I know Hillary doesn't share that belief. Which is why I'd hate a Hillary presidency.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...But since about 34 Red states passed laws banning same-sex marriage, I feel convinced that it's a solid electoral winner.

Passed, Chuck. Past tense. Past - old, discarded. Ask Professor Althouse: "love won." MoveOn.YayGayMarriage.Org or something.

Like I said it's fine to argue that the Republican party should stick to its anti-gay marriage guns...but it's not ok to pretend that's a winning position, electorally. It's not now, and it's certainly not in the future unless you can point to some mechanism by which the current young will be induced to radically change their minds on that issue. No one has posited such a mechanism!
The BEST I can do is to argue for educating young people in traditional Constitutional values (a la the Federalist Society) and to appeal on procedural grounds that such decisions shouldn't be made by the Court. Even if successful, Chuck, that line of attack would, on this issue, only convince those young people to tackle gay marriage via popular referendum in their states...and the result would be the same. Now, of course, that's the way these things SHOULD be decided, so it's 100% true that getting the pro-gay marriage result in that way is far superior to getting it the way we did...but we'd get it all the same.

So, again, it's a loser of an issue, and the fact that Trump is not worse on this issue than Clinton is doesn't make much of an argument against Trump, Chuck.

Chuck said...

So, again, it's a loser of an issue, and the fact that Trump is not worse on this issue than Clinton is doesn't make much of an argument against Trump, Chuck.


I've not made it much of an argument against Trump, now. I think it was a very good primary issue.

For me, it is not so much an electoral issue, as it is a judgment issue. That is, my judgment on others' understanding and acceptability as leaders.

You'll note the numerous times in this thread that I don't expect any sort of a "win" on this at the Althouse blog.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck,

Wait! The object of "belief" was "belief that Obergefell was a dangerous insult to the Constitution"! Does Trump share that belief? I know Hillary doesn't share that belief. Which is why I'd hate a Hillary presidency.


Remember, Trump is not a lawyer. His knowledge of this issue is very likely superficial.

However, my estimation of Trump is that if it were explained to him, he would probably tend to agree with you and me. (Conceivably, though, he could be whipsawed into thinking the other way, which is why you want to be inside the tent instead of out, to have his bloody ear!)

Hillary understands it quite well, I imagine, and will never change her mind, unless duly bribed. Even if - she's very likely emotionally committed to LGBT on a personal level, IYKWIM, AITYD.

Again - Russian roulette with a revolver, or with a 1911 in Condition Zero?

...


No argument. None.

And that might be a reason for me to not vote for Trump.



It might, instead, be a reason not to be seen as having done little or nothing to get him elected, much to oppose him, and rudely so in the bargain.

And you're so nice to Mrs. Clinton. What do you think Hillary! will give you, for kissing her ass?

Achilles said...

It is fun to watch Chuck argue about this subject. It is so out of character for him to actually stand for a principle but he wants to on this issue. This is where you can see his paradigm come out. Start at the top and read down. Grade every point he makes not as if he is holding a conservative position, but whether or not it strengthens or weakens trump if you think this is a wedge issue for trump which he says it is himself.

The pattern is clear.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Being in the majority just made the conservatives less likely to stick to conservative principles, and instead worry about angering what they saw as a "moderate" public, so we had the ACA defended in laughable ways."

The Supreme Court is walking a tightrope of legitimacy these days. They lean too far in either direction and they become an irrelevant talking shop. I'm guessing the Justices (the seven who are still sentient) themselves are relieved to have the ideological balance that currently exists.

LarsPorsena said...

The Supreme Court is walking a tightrope of legitimacy these days. They lean too far in either direction and they become an irrelevant talking shop. I'm guessing the Justices (the seven who are still sentient) themselves are relieved to have the ideological balance that currently exists.

sentient and continent you mean.

toxdoc said...

Hoodlum doodlum. Drink Heaven Hill or Sazerac brands. The are still US opened brands and most are dandy.

Kirk Parker said...

" (the seven who are still sentient) "

Surely that number is too high? Or else maybe you're counting on 'still' to be doing too much work.

damikesc said...

That just about sums it up. Milo is remarkably vapid, vain, and vacuous.

You've never actually heard him, have you? His interviews with Rubin were terrific. He provokes shock to get people to listen. And his arguments make a ton of sense.

Progressives can either stand with gays or the Muslim community who tend to really, really hate gays. You cannot be on BOTH sides. And we've seen where they tend to fall (haven't heard much about the Pulse shooting --- and have we ever found the guy's wife?). He feels gays should be armed to defend themselves in case of violence, but by and large, gays are the most protected and celebrated group out there and most "gay rights" laws aren't needed.

And most feminist theory is utter bullshit. Hearing him politely tell a feminist to fuck off when discussing "lad culture" in the UK was entertaining.


Still if some think that we are one, or two, SCOTUS nominations away from overturning Citizens United, why shouldn't we be one, or two, SCOTUS nominations away from overturning Obergefell?


Because pro-Left decisions never get overturned. Few would argue that Roe v Wade had a remotely coherent argument in its favor. But it will never be overturned. Ever.

SCOTUS had to ignore every argument advocates made in defense of Obamacare to rule in its favor. They will never, ever consider undoing it.

We've seen the game played a lot.

No one thinks Obergefell will be overturned, though, Chuck--that's the point. Lots of people think CU will be overturned. Are you saying one belief is supportable but the other isn't, Chuck? People who watch the Court, Chuck, understand that once it swings left on a social issue it rarely swings back to the center or right...certainly not as far back. The lone exception might be on "gun issues," but even there it was a matter of DECADES before the Fed. Gov. went too far (tying gun rights to school zoning!) and the Court at last stepped in.

And cities are IGNORING Heller and the Court is declining to step in and enforce it. Let's keep that in mind as well.

We KNOW what will happen to Clinton appointees. Democratic appointees always side with the Progressive side on basically every issue.

Bruce Hayden said...

To be fair to the Supreme Court, they were doing what they typically do, in regards to the 2nd Amdt. They gave us two major decisions (Heller and McDonald), then gave the lower courts several years to work out the kinks. A major split had developed among the Circuits, with the 2nd, 3rd, and somewhat 9th Circuits defining increased scrutiny to mean slightly above, but little different from rational basis, which gave jurisdictions credit for good intentions (of sorts) over any pretext of actually enforcing the right to keep and bear arms. The rest of the Circuits had essentially adopted a shifting standard of between intermediate and strict scrutiny, depending on context, arguably far closer to the intent of the Heller Court. The area was rapidly becoming ripe for being heard again, to clarify this, when Justice Scalia died. Currently, there are very, very, likely four votes either way, which m and that whichever Circuit has its case heard will be affirmed, by the split vote, but that decision will only be binding in that Circuit. Which means that until one side or the other gets a fifth vote, they would waste their time hearing the case, because no Circuit would be reversed. Which is one reason that this election is so critical - both candidates have made clear their positions - Crooked Hillary has vowed to nominate Justices who would limit (I,e, negate) Heller and McDonald, and Trump promised to nominate Justices who would strengthen those two cases.