November 30, 2016

Trump protesters take Trump bait.

"Protesters burned the United States flag outside of Trump International Hotel in New York City Tuesday, following President-elect Donald Trump’s suggestion that flag burners be jailed or lose their citizenship."

Isn't that why he said that — to get his haters burning flags, making themselves look bad? When I blogged Trump's tweet about flag burning, Yancey Ward commented: "And this is the explanation for his tweet about burning the American flag. Just watch what happens at every stop he makes."

ADDED: My more substantial blog post about the flag-burning tweet is actually here: "Trump flaunts disrespect for American freedom of speech."

145 comments:

eric said...

He is really making himself the icon of America and these people are the enemy.

That's how it's coming off. He says we need to love our country, love our flag, make America great again.

And they riot and burn things.

They are making it easy to choose sides.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

You know, if I was a Catholic I would have to see about being absolved for the sinfulness of the schadenfreude I am feeling.

n.n said...

How very Talibanesque.

rehajm said...

Genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum

Leigh said...

He also managed to demonstrate -- through their own reactions -- that Dems decide their positions depending on who's espousing them. Hillary, for instance, sponsored the flag protection act back in 2005. Hypocrisy at its finest.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/29/trump-tweets-his-opponents-into-a-trap-commentary.html

tim in vermont said...

The bullhorn is precious.

Bay Area Guy said...

I think this is their chant:

1, 2, 3, 4
Slavery, genocide and more
5, 6, 7, 8
America was never great

They're too pathetic too spend much time on. To me, they are the left-wing analogue of the small batch of wierdo, Neo-Nazi types, who crop up every now then.

Every time these losers surface, Staten Island and Pelham Bay in the Bronx give 2 - 3,000 more votes to the Donald in 2020.

Limited blogger said...

Trump: "hey look, your shoe's untied..."

Leftie: (looking down) "huh?"

Rick said...

Bay Area Guy said...
To me, they are the left-wing analogue of the small batch of wierdo, Neo-Nazi types, who crop up every now then.


Those Neo-Nazi types are toxic, if they become known outside their group they will be fired. The left's version work for government or NGOs, especially academia, where their nuttiness is a resume enhancer qualifying them for advancement.

Bob Ellison said...

You can buy spray-can fire extinguishers on Amazon.

That would be great video: a few lefties trying to set fire to an American flag, and a few righties spraying it down.

Yancey Ward said...

The ways in which Trump could troll his enemies in this manner is nearly infinite. I don't think I have ever seen a political leader in my lifetime so fortunate in the enemies he has made.

Matthew Sablan said...

I want the picture of Kellyanne Conway looking over Trump's shoulder as they look at a computer captioned:

"Ok, you win Donald. Reverse psychology really DOES work."

Tarrou said...

I said this about two months into his candidacy. I don't like anything about Trump, except his enemies list. I agree with almost none of his policy, I don't like his personality, and I think his hair is ridiculous. But dear Jesus on a pogo stick, is he good at pissing off and ridiculing the people I hate!

Brando said...

Screw 'em--don't take THEIR bait either.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think that flag burning, by the way, is legal speech. But, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. Let's also accept that when we say "flag burning," we specifically mean "burning the American flag," because no one cares if you burn your Green Bay Packers 2017 flag.

My main problem is: The people who think I should be able to be forced to decorate cakes with certain messages ALSO think I should not be stopped from burning the American flag. I'd like to know the difference; why does the government have a vested interest in FORCING speech/contracts in the first case, but NO interest in stopping people from literally telling their country to screw off?

I wouldn't burn a flag; I think people who burn a flag are usually making an overly broad statement. They don't hate the whole country; they have specific grievances that burning the flag fails to address. But -- how is burning a flag different enough from baking a cake that one should be answered by government force and the other not?

traditionalguy said...

At least the Trump protesters don't take the jail bait that the Hillary/Podesta/CIA child trafficking ring pushes on politicians.

damikesc said...

Few like the flag being burned. Few want it illegal, but the vast majority find it distasteful. The protestors are clowns. If he Tweeted about how much he hates self-immolation, you'd see them doing that.

It's also clear they don't think the recount will do anything. Why discuss how shitty everything is and protest if you'll win the WH anyway?

readering said...

. . . except I think this stuff does really piss him off--he takes everything personally--and that's what these short-sighted protesters are seeking to achieve.

Fernandinande said...

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced in the United States Senate at the 109th United States Congress on October 24, 2005, by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

"The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both.[1][2][3]"

traditionalguy said...

Soros's paid for Helter skelter means a crisis of chaos on streets so terrible that it drives out the police and the government so the kids can take over and kill off the middleclass.

This is only burning flags to hurt the feelings of Military Veterans and Patriots. It is just a stupid nuisance. So persuader Trump has re-directed their efforts into failure.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

It's a great feeling to live in a country blessed with a president-elect as clever as Bre'r Rabbit!

Ron Winkleheimer said...

. . . except I think this stuff does really piss him off--he takes everything personally--and that's what these short-sighted protesters are seeking to achieve.

Burning the flag pisses-off a lot of people.

Even on FNC they had a bunch of people pontificating on how flag burning was protected speech per the SC, hurumph.

Donald Trump is a billionaire entrepreneur and graduate of Wharton with extensive business holdings throughout the world.

Its just possible he heard about the SC decision. It's not exactly obscure.

So, why did he send out the tweet? Here is a hint. He didn't do it to convert George Will to his cause.

Van Wallach said...

Trump tweets, "Nothing is more un-American than puncturing your belly button with a sharpened coffee stirrer. On day one of my administration, I will make it a crime to puncture your belly button with a sharpened coffee stirrer."

January 21, 2017: Hospital ERs in blue-state college towns report a massive upsurge of cases involving belly buttons punctured by sharpened coffee stirrers.

LYNNDH said...

Would love to see these people burn an ISIS flag in say in the middle of ISIS country.
Or the Chinese flag in Beijing, or Russian flag in Moscow, or Cuban flag in Havana. The results would be a laugh riot.

bagoh20 said...

Let's hope he doesn't threaten to make farting in elevators illegal.

Sure, you can do it. It's legal, but you ain't gonna convince anyone to follow you.

bagoh20 said...

I bet that on an American university campus you are more likely to get more shit for burning an isis flag than an American one.

n.n said...

They could always set a few crosses on fire. That put the fear of Leftists in American Christians, white, black, and brown.

bagoh20:

Methane is a taxable emission in California. CO2, too.

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

Or the Rainbow flag in San Francisco. Anywhere, really.

Unknown said...

trump is a genius, but this ploy has bannon sophistication all over it. bannon is going to re-draw how the left over the next 4 years. I guarantee it

Curious George said...

I was going to praise Trump for his Jedi mind tricks, but then I saw the video. These are the same idiots that Taco Bell gets to eat their food by using "exotic" names like Doritos Locos Tacos.

Fabi said...

"Jump losers, jump!"

"How high, President-elect Trump?"

"You're catching on."

Brando said...

"Would love to see these people burn an ISIS flag in say in the middle of ISIS country.
Or the Chinese flag in Beijing, or Russian flag in Moscow, or Cuban flag in Havana. The results would be a laugh riot."

It's a testament to our country and our values that people are allowed to burn our flag and look like ungrateful douchebags. Whatever they intend by doing it they're merely demonstrating that this country is far better than they deserve.

JPS said...

Fabi, 2:10:

This reminds me of the old story about Norman Mailer (of whom I'm no fan) speaking at Berkeley in the 70s. After pissing off a good many people, he invited all the feminists in the audience to please hiss. Many did.

"Obedient little bitches," he muttered.

Curious George said...

"bagoh20 said...
Let's hope he doesn't threaten to make farting in elevators illegal."

Meh, it would only happen in Trump Tower. And rich people farts smell like vanilla ice cream.

lemondog said...

Video 5 people burn flag

Flag Burn

Any comment from New York Mayor Whoits?

hstad said...

Not a big fan of Trump! But the man knows how to bait the MSM and the Liberals/Leftists. This tweet was a prime example - a day later we find out Hillary Clinton, as Senator, co-sponsored a law banning flag burning in 2005. Reminds me of Einstein's quote which is so appropriate for Democrats/Liberals/Leftists:

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”

Drago said...

Unknown: "trump is a genius, but this ploy has bannon sophistication all over it. bannon is going to re-draw how the left over the next 4 years. I guarantee it"

Reverse "Stray Voltage" tactic.





Mike Sylwester said...

This is what happens when Scientific Progressives are allowed to become anti-Trump protesters.

SukieTawdry said...

He's a world-class troll, no doubt about that.

Lyssa said...

I do hate that he said that, because it suggests something so blatantly unconstitutional. That said, I've got to give him credit for this; it's pretty smart.

Bay Area Guy said...

Burning a rainbow flag in the Castro District in San Francisco. Not illegal, but, Heh, that would take some real cojones!

tcrosse said...

On the walls of the Rathskellar in the Wisconsin Union, above the fireplaces, were the inscriptions:(are they still there?)
"Des Lebens Sonnenschein ist Trinken, Lieben, Fröhlich sein."
and
"Deines Geistes Blitze, schick sie in die Welt hinaus."
What seems to be apt for the setting, but missing, is:
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."

AllenS said...

Well, if burning an American flag is legal speech, why wouldn't burning a cross in front of a business not be legal speech?

EDH said...

From the ACLU...April 7, 2003

RICHMOND, VA - The United States Supreme Court today ruled that KKK member Barry Black could not be convicted of a crime under Virginia's cross-burning statute because of the law's unconstitutional presumption that all cross-burning is intended to intimidate. However, the court upheld the other main provision of the law, which allows the banning of cross-burning when it can be shown that its purpose it to intimidate others.

"This is a mixed bag of a decision about a fairly narrow aspect of the law," said Kent Willis, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. "We are pleased that the court reaffirmed free speech by making it clear that cross-burning, when it is not used as a direct threat, is protected by the Constitution."

Black, who set fire to a cross on a private farm in Carroll County, had permission from the owner of the farm to use the area for a KKK rally and to ignite a cross as part of the ceremony. The ACLU of Virginia has provided legal representation to Black since the incident in 1999.

Four of the five Justices in the majority held that the presumption of intimidation in the Virginia law is unconstitutional on its face. Justices O'Connor, Stevens, Rehnquist and Breyer wrote that the burning of a cross, if used as a "statement of ideology" or a "symbol of group solidarity," is protected by the First Amendment. Justice Scalia, the fifth member of the majority, agreed that it was wrong to convict Black but not that the law's presumption of intimidation is unconstitutional on it face.

The nation's High Court sent the case back to the Virginia Supreme Court to determine whether the constitutional problems with the statute can be resolved by eliminating the statute's presumption of intimidation, and asked the court to review the convictions of two teenagers who burned a cross in Virginia Beach.

In upholding the part of the law that prohibits cross-burning with the intent to intimidate, the Court's majority held that the Virginia law is not inconsistent with R.AV v. St. Paul, a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that struck down an ordinance prohibiting cross-burning and other kinds of threatening conduct, but only when it is motivated by racial, religious or gender bias. Unlike the ordinance in R.A.V., Virginia's statute bans all cross-burning with the intent to intimidate and therefore does not discriminate against particular viewpoints.

The Court also held that the state could single out cross-burning because it is an especially "virulent form of intimidation" with a "long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence."

Bob Ellison said...

Gottbefreundgenuztenhabt Platz ineunder vielgeschpunkt.

Lyssa said...

AllenS said: "Well, if burning an American flag is legal speech, why wouldn't burning a cross in front of a business not be legal speech?"

In front of a business could be interpreted as a threat (on a person's lawn would likely be considered a threat), but it's a factual determination. You could argue that burning a flag in front of Trump tower is a threat, but that's a stretch - there doesn't seem to be any indication that that is the case, while burning of crosses at private homes has a history of being used as an intimidation technique. But it wouldn't be cut and dry - burning a cross in front of a sole proprietorship where you had a specific grievance against the owner is more likely to be threatening; burning a cross in front of a Wal-Mart almost certainly would not be.

Terry said...

There is a myth on the left that says being a communist means that you are smart.

Brando said...

"In front of a business could be interpreted as a threat (on a person's lawn would likely be considered a threat), but it's a factual determination."

"In front of a business" is the key here--you can burn either a flag or cross on your own property (provided you don't run afoul of a public burning ordinance) and if you'd like to, have at it--better that the rest of us know what you're about. I'd rather have free speech than my sensibilities free from offense.

I'd still think less of a person doing it, but free speech doesn't make you free from personal judgments.

mockturtle said...

Yep, Trump is much smarter than his detractors. This is going to be an interesting four years.

Original Mike said...

"Trump protesters take Trump bait."

Pavlov. Dinner bell.

Sebastian said...

You know, if we're gonna have a culture war, we might as well have someone ready to fight and trying to win. Mitt, W, Jeb, take note.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

I could burn a cross out of sight of anyone. A liddle tiny cross. Would that be a crime?

The Left wants to outlaw thought.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

So, who is it that DJT is manipulating? Who is it that is having their focus diverted by this stuff?


Golly, after reading this thread: I have no idea.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

who is it that DJT is manipulating

He's manipulating his opposition into providing optics that strengthen his support.

Here's another hint.

Riots and blocking traffic and "confronting" people while they try to study in the library, or have a peaceful brunch may make the sociopaths engaging in that behavior feel virtuous, but it just pisses the normals off. And then you end up with Donald Trump as president.

Fabi said...

At least you admit that you have no idea, Jelly -- that's a good place for you to start.

Chuck said...

Okay, Professor. You and the cleverest handful of your readers saw it coming. (I agreed, when I saw your post and the comments.) This is no surprise to you. Congrats.

And, it appears that perhaps Trump is successful in trolling his detractors. Or not; I'm not sure how we'd know that. I mean, it clearly got the predicted response. Did Trump intend that all along? He says a lot of stupid things that don't have the desired effect. Few of them seem to hurt him, but I doubt much calculation in any of them.

But what about the essential stupidity of Trump's pronouncement on jailing flag-burners? Or, more laughably, taking away their citizenship? Scalia dealt with it in the Johnson case of course. Is it a greater success, for Trump to say something stupid and troll the haterz, than to remain quiet on such a topic?

Has Trump won, by being pro-flag? Even when the whole fight is totally fake? Trump may get to be the "pro-flag" guy. (That's winning, for sure.) Trump also gets to be, at the same time, the "legal ignoramus" guy. The "nutjob autocrat" guy.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Apparently Donald Trump has been studying Democrat tactics carefully, but then he used to be one.

Defining your opposition by its fringe weirdos, a classic.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Or, more laughably, taking away their citizenship? Scalia dealt with it in the Johnson case of course"

-- It'll be great when Trump says: "I'll appoint a Scalia-like judge, who will protect the right to flag burning."

Thorley Winston said...

BREAKING NEWS: In response to anti-Trump protesters burning the American flag after his previous Tweet, President-elect Donald J. Trump has just issued the following statement: “Nobody should be allowed to hit themselves repeatedly in the crotch with a sledgehammer – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

Big Mike said...

Here's what was posted on Twitter:

Just burned US flag at Trump Hotel NYC. We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America! Now your turn: #FlagBurningChallenge

They say it's our turn? But what should I burn? A red flag? A Russian flag? One of the individuals who burned Old Glory? They need to be more specific. Anyway, refusing to accept a fascist America is why I voted for Trump, thank you very much.

If flag burning is speech then it's both hate speech and fighting words. Try burning a US flag off in some honky tonk bar and get your education furthered.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The results to the first question, which is more in line with the recent Senate proposal that would have granted Congress the power to decide whether flag burning is legal or illegal, finds a majority of Americans, 56%, supporting the constitutional amendment and 41% opposing such an amendment. While a majority, it does not rise to the level one would expect when discussing an amendment to the constitution, something that requires two-thirds support in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states' legislatures.

These results are essentially the same as what Gallup measured last June. However, support for a constitutional amendment was somewhat higher in the 1990s, at 62% in 1995, and 63% in 1999. In 1989 and 1990, Gallup asked two similar questions about a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, and at that time, support ranged between 65% and 71%.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/23524/Public-Support-Constitutional-Amendment-Flag-Burning.aspx

Has Trump won, by being pro-flag?

Yes

Trump also gets to be, at the same time, the "legal ignoramus" guy. The "nutjob autocrat" guy.

He was that anyway, to his opposition.

Chuck, he doesn't care what George Will or Nancy Pelosi think about him.

It's kind of like how every time a bell rings an angel gets its wings.

Every time a obnoxious lefty burns a flag, Trump's support is strengthened.

320Busdriver said...

Trump really doesn't tweet. It's more like tweak. He's got it down.

Bob Loblaw said...

The best part is you know they're patting themselves on the back for showing him.

wildswan said...

President-elect Donald J. Trump has just issued the following statement: "The only thing worse than American flag burners is flag burners who hold other flags such as the Rainbow flag, the Cuban flag or flags with Communist symbols while they burn the American flag and shout insults at the police. I hope they will not be present in Cincinnati where I will be next. "

Fabi said...

Why the sad face, Chuck? I really don't understand your perspective on this kerfuffle.

Still no email from you -- your "winnings" are boxed up and ready to ship.

eric said...

What would happen if we attended some of these flat burnings and started burning the rainbow flag?

Think that "speech" would be protected?

wildswan said...

Someone told me that Trump tweeted congratulations to the Wisconsin election board which charged Jill Stein half the money she raised for the recount. The board is sending it out as Christmas bonuses to county clerks and workers across Wisconsin. (Michigan and Pennsylvania want equal amounts or more but in Pennsylvania the lawyers have gotten in so probably there will be no money left for Michigan and Pennsylvania county bonuses.) On, Wisconsin

mockturtle said...

The illegal activists are always marching with their Mexican flags. That would be a good place to start.

eric said...

Trump may get to be the "pro-flag" guy. (That's winning, for sure.) Trump also gets to be, at the same time, the "legal ignoramus" guy. The "nutjob autocrat" guy.

Middle America cares about the first one.

George Will and Jennifer Rubin care about the second two.

Good news. The last eight years you had your guy. Sure, he wasn't pro flag, but that was balanced out by him being a constitutional genius and Arab Spring Democracy rules guy.

Lyssa said...

Bob Ellison said: I could burn a cross out of sight of anyone. A liddle tiny cross. Would that be a crime?

You could burn a great big cross, in sight of anyone, and it wouldn't be a crime, provided that you're not threatening a specific person or doing it somewhere you don't have a right to be (or creating a wildfire risk, of course).

eric said What would happen if we attended some of these flat burnings and started burning the rainbow flag?

Think that "speech" would be protected?


Yes. You might really piss some people off, but it's clearly protected speech.

eric said...

Blogger mockturtle said...
The illegal activists are always marching with their Mexican flags. That would be a good place to start.


What do you suppose would happen if I went to a flag burning and burned a Mexican flag?

MaxedOutMama said...

President Lovely Man, 2012: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

President-Elect Trump, 2016: "The American future must not belong to those who burn the American flag."

That's what this is about. It should be noted that on college campuses, burning a Koran would get you expelled. That's what this is about.

President Lovely-Man sent the FBI to tell those who wanted to burn the Koran in public that they would not be protected by the state in the exercise of their constitutional rights.

Literally EVERYONE not a college professor gets it.

eric said...

Yes. You might really piss some people off, but it's clearly protected speech.

Sorry, I wasnt clear.

I mean, you'd get your ass kicked. The police would be too busy to protect you.

Sebastian said...

The guy just can't keep a lid on it. Latest tweet from Trump: "Flag burners show their true colors. Will they burn ISIS flag and Koran next? They wouldn't dare. Cowards!"

Bill Peschel said...

Meanwhile, a Philly attorney was arrested after his friend wrote "Fuck Trump" on a grocery store in upscale Chestnut Hill.

The guy accompanied his friend and filmed the result, then left.

Best line of the story:

“If the image of an upper-middle class city attorney clad in a blazer and sipping wine while vandalizing an upscale grocery store with an anti-Trump message strikes you as perhaps the most bourgeois sight imaginable, that’s because it is,” Joe DeFelice, Chairman of the Philadelphia Republican Party said in a statement.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20161201_City_attorney_identified_in_anti-Trump_vandalism.html?mobi=true

Fabi said...

That's a "Bingo", MaxedOutMama -- please collect your grand prize at the table up front!

Sebastian said...

Does this guy ever sleep? Now he's weighing in on the OSU fiasco: " Some OSU official thinks we should feel Somali terrorist's pain. Painful statement! Terror from around Muslim world is diversity we don't need. I'll make American campuses great and safe again!"

PB said...

Burning the flag isn't that much of a statement these days. These protesters aren't very original.

DanTheMan said...

I think Trump's tweet was reinforcing the dishonesty of the media. They went nuts attacking him as ignorant of the Constitution, recent SC rulings, etc.

Then, as I strongly suspect he knew would happen, lots of folks starting posting links to the bill that Hillary proposed out outlaw flag burning.

This made it abundantly clear that the big name media outlets are clearly anti Trump, and dishonest.

Having a handful of lefties take the bait... well, that's just icing on the cake.

jacksonjay said...

Yeah, Trump is winner troll! I think it is unpresidential! Just because you can is never a good reason. Seems rather immature, don't you think? "Hey, watch this. Imma push some buttons!" Very popular with the junior high and locker room crowd, but really not becoming for the President. WWGWD? What Would George Washington Do?

I would hope that we might be able to enjoy an inauguration without chaos and bedlam, but if POTUS DJT can make his enemies look bad, What the Hell! Make America Great Again! OK! OK! Tremendous!

eric said...

Blogger jacksonjay said...
Yeah, Trump is winner troll! I think it is unpresidential! Just because you can is never a good reason. Seems rather immature, don't you think? "Hey, watch this


Maybe. Or, it could be genius. It could all be based off of the Obama administration stray voltage theory. Via Instapundit.

Chuck said...

Lol.

WWGWD.

What would George Wallace do.

Mac McConnell said...

Only a low IQ person would think Trump's tweet concerning flag burning was an indication he was ignorant of the law. FYI, Tweets don''t carry the relevance of a proposed law or call for a Constitutional Amendment.
Trump's tweets are just trolling of his enemies and the bypassing of the media's gatekeepers. I hope he continues and the media and lefties keep losing their shit.

I believe that burning the flag is protected speech, but I also know that if I ever see one being burnt someone might be going to the hospital and I might be going to jail.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

Why is this hard to figure out? DJT wasn't counting on this or that person so-called taking the bait by burning the flag.

It's cool that folks here can't see who it is that is being manipulated by this "squirrel call." If y'all could see it, it wouldn't be working.

Fabi said...

Chuck said...

Lol.

WWGWD.

What would George Wallace do.


Did you mean to leave your last comment over at Daily Kos, Chuck? Maybe you should only have one window open at a time until you get it all figured out.

Beth B said...

I dunno, Chuck... Wasn't Senator Hillary Clinton the original legal ignoramus autocrat nut-job when she co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act of 2005? The one that called for hefty fines and imprisonment for burning the American flag? I'm trying to figure out the over/under of Trump's team not knowing that little factoid after how many months of putting up with flag-burnings outside their campaign stops and before tweeting out the ultimate B'rer Rabbit troll to the cry-bullies in the streets. Bait. Hook. Irresistible!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

Fabi said...

Exactly how are we being manipulated, Jelly? I eagerly await your analysis.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

Fabi,

If y'all fall much further for DJT squirrels he'll have free reign to pack the swamp w/ more elitist insiders than ever seen. Oops, that all ready happened.

Anywho, back to what matters: what's that you say about someone burning a flag on 5th Ave in NY? Tell me how DJT swindled them. Please.

Carry on.

Big Mike said...

Why is this hard to figure out? DJT wasn't counting on this or that person so-called taking the bait by burning the flag.

He wasn't? He might not have known which specific individual (if that's what you meant by "this or that person") but he certainly knew that someone would take the bait. And he was right, as usual.

I agree with Mac. If I see someone burning a flag we're both going to the hospital -- him to get his pelvis repaired and me to get my shoe back.

NamGrunt said...

I hope he doesn't tell them not to get on a tall building and fly.

Fabi said...

You didn't come close to explaining how we were manipulated, Jelly -- didn't think you could. Restating your unsupported premise and then deflecting with a question on another tangent is avoidance. Try again.

Big Mike said...

Tell me how DJT swindled them. Please.

Oh, I see your problem, PB&J. He didn't swindle them. He is using them to make the Democrats look bad to that portion of the country which is not out on the extreme tip of the left wing. Trump is basically telling the former-Democrat-but-now-Trump voters that the party they left is actually the party that left them by becoming an extremist party with no sense of patriotism nor any love for the United States of America. With an extremist and avowed anti-Semite -- Keith Ellison -- not only the leading candidate for the chairmanship of the DNC but endorsed by the Senate Minority Leader, with neither Hillary Clinton nor current DNC chairman Donna Brazile condemning the anti-Trump vandalism and flag burning, it's very easy for Trump to pass the message that the Democrats are not only a party that doesn't care about working Americans, but also a party composed of semi-insane folks two sigma to the left of center.

Randolf said...

Rumor has it Rick Monday is coming out of retirement:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrV8QPQAhxo

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

You're right Fabi,

DJT would never manipulate you and your kind, that's just for other folks not as smart as you. But, he's really given' it to those lib flag burners. You owe him your devotion and trust, after all some lib burnt a flag.

So, back to the important squirrel, what's that you say about some dude on 5th Ave who burnt a flag?


Carry on.

tim in vermont said...

Trump is no genius, he is just the luckiest person alive, apparently. And you know what? The people whining and complaining about his cabinet? They didn't do shit for actual middle class Americans, if you define "middle class" as people who work or aspire to work for a living. They were too busy attempting to re-engineer the electorate, providing cheap H1-B programmers for billionaires, and importing cheap labor.

All of those core policies of the Democrat Party are soooo helpful to middle class Americans, black and white. My favorite lines of the night from Democrat strategists on election night was when they fretted that they were sure that the drop off in Black turnout would be more than made up by increased Hispanic turnout.

Fabi said...

More deflection and no analysis, Jelly! You're not very good at this. Feel free to try again, but your rabbit hole about 5th Avenue is not germane to your original premise.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

OK Fab,

I'll try again: You're so smart, DJT is so amazing, libs are terrible.

Let me know if I'm still missing any of the reality you know so well.

Carry on.

tim in vermont said...

I used to think he was an idiot too, and when his lucky streak comes to an end, I might think he is an idiot once again. But for now, I am reserving judgement. Plus the Dems just conceded the House for 2018 by keeping Pelosi, who has replaced Rush Limbaugh as the Republican "Majority Maker."

Fabi said...

I can tell you're frustrated by being unable to explain your premise, Jelly -- I expect you to act out in response. Better luck next time!

Sam L. said...

Mr. Trump knows just exactly the bait the left will go for when he trolls for them. Blind rage keeps them from seeing the big hook inside.

tim in vermont said...

Speaking of commies, if pictures can prove anything, it's case closed: Justin Trudeau is Castro's son.

Fidel made it clear in his opening remarks that the parents were important but not nearly as important as the baby. In some pictures Fidel had a big patch of wet saliva on his uniform because he had come over early to cuddle the baby.[Justin Trudeau]

Margaret Trudeau said she visited Castro at his hotel before the funeral to welcome him on behalf of the family.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

I hope this thread can rack up another 100 comments that are focused on how DJT outsmarted and manipulated the libs who burn flags.

Thank you Sam L.

99 more please.

mockturtle said...

Speaking of commies, if pictures can prove anything, it's case closed: Justin Trudeau is Castro's son.

Margaret Trudeau slept with just about everyone. They should get a DNA profile.

Bob Loblaw said...

Yes. You might really piss some people off, but it's clearly protected speech.

Technically, yes. In reality, the people who will be pissed off feel justified in expressing their anger violently, and the state doesn't seem to take its role very seriously.

tim in vermont said...

If y'all fall much further for DJT squirrels he'll have free reign to pack the swamp w/ more elitist insiders than ever seen. Oops, that all ready happened.

You can thank Harry Reid for changing the rules so that Obama could get through his hyper partisan nominees with a simple majority. Good times! Good times...

But what did Obama just say: ´I don´t want to sugarcoat it. There are consequences to elections.´ But keep pushing those Hillary talking points. Just to let you know, the election is over.

Big Mike said...

Yes. You might really piss some people off, but it's clearly protected speech.

It's also protected speech to walk into a biker bar and yell "Harley riders are pussies!" But is it wise?

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"It's also protected speech to walk into a biker bar and yell "Harley riders are pussies!" But is it wise?"

Well, technically, serious biker bar types (i.e. the ones you'd worry about, i.e. not WI-gov-nerds/micro-dick weekend warriors) would be the first to point out that a hell of a lot of Harley riders are pussies.

Anywho, to make the point maybe Althouse can find a pic of the gov on his scooter, if not available just check out the dweeb-hunter image she posted recently.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

OTOH, the hardcore folks can find reasons to appreciate the tiny dickers. I know of a particular Harley shop that is "associated" w/ the Angels. Sell through the front, recapture and strip on the back side, resell through the front. That's quite a business model.

Anywho, I'm anonymous here. Right?

CWJ said...

If I cared, I'd search Althouse posts for all the times Obama trolled Republicans. And those were usually sent in officially presidential circumstances. What I wonder is if she ever criticised him for it like she did with Trump yesterday? Why anyone takes tweets seriously is a mystery. It has always seemed to me that Trump's Twitter persona has been reserved for trolling his opponents.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"It has always seemed to me that Trump's Twitter persona has been reserved for trolling his opponents."

Yes, it's his opponents who are being manipulated. His supporters are too smart of manipulation.

Carry on.

chuck said...

> "It's also protected speech to walk into a biker bar and yell "Harley riders are pussies!" But is it wise?"

I knew a fellow who did something along those lines. He was an amazing sight, black and blue from head to toe, front and back. Biker women can also be pretty rough, a women who got kidney punched by one had a black and blue circle about 6" in diameter over the spot.

CWJ said...

Oh Jelly Jelly Jelly. Hasn't your mother called you up from your room for dinner yet?

Steven Wilson said...

I encourage my political enemies to indulge in all sorts of behavior that crosses the line to the point that it energizes their opponents and offends those middle of the roaders who learn of it.

By all means, scream, shout, destroy, burn flags,throw bricks though the windows of businesses. Go for it. All the while I'm thinking
of Samuel Johnson who said or words to the effect, "A wise man shows you the grounds of his beliefs, a fool the strength of them."

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"Oh Jelly Jelly Jelly. Hasn't your mother called you up from your room for dinner yet?"

I'm unable to be called anywhere because I can't get through doorways (too much chubby), so she brings chow here. However, I have a crane, Stihl 88 (w/ a 60" bar) and Richard Simmons appointment on Jan 20 at noon, so I'll be free soon.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

noon Eastern

Birkel said...

Reading the comments of PB&J should make everybody sad. The inability to develop an argument is a sad testimonial for the failure of federalized education.

I would ask PB&J to refute that point. But. Well. You know.

Come back and restate a premise, PB&J.

jaed said...

...can we get Trump to tweet that it should be illegal to study engineering, read classical literature, and develop a tough-minded attitude about microaggressions?

FullMoon said...

Fabi said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Why the sad face, Chuck? I really don't understand your perspective on this kerfuffle.

Still no email from you -- your "winnings" are boxed up and ready to ship.


Haha! Just address it to
Chuck
Lifetime Republican,
USA

iowan2 said...

There are three big news stories. Trump kept Carrier in the US. There will be a big announcement next week about Trump severing his business ties, and the flag thing.

All three came from Trump tweets. NOT the media. Trump is setting the media narrative. Trump has the media working for him, they hate it, they just can't do anything about it.

The flag burning is just more master persuader. The left is now forced against their will to defend deplorable actions/actors. People on the fence for the election, those that flipped the proverbial coin in the voting both, are now either validated, or think they made wrong decision, hate being associated with flag burners and now support Trumps agenda.

FullMoon said...

Fabi said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Why the sad face, Chuck? I really don't understand your perspective on this kerfuffle.

Still no email from you -- your "winnings" are boxed up and ready to ship.


Haha! Just address it to
Chuck
Lifetime Republican,
USA

David said...

Low risk protest by the burners. Just the kind they like. Protected by the Constitution from the government and by the New York police from everyone else.

isthmus legend said...

Trump is a master troll.

The left still hasn't figured out his game. I thought these people were educated?

Sammy Finkelman said...

The explanation is actually that there was something on Fox News about flag destruction at a college - and Donald Trump's not traking challeges to his electotal legitimacy kindly, and his urge to be politically incorrect.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-friends-did-segment-on-flag-burning-just-before-donald-trump-tweet/

Around 6:25 AM ET, Fox & Friends ran a segment on a controversy at a Massachusetts college over the decision to remove an American flag from its campus. Fox reported that Hampshire College made the decision after a campus-wide fight over the flag, during which “one flag was set on fire, and one was stolen in the wake of the President-elect Trump’s win.”

Fidel said...

Trumproll level: Galactic Overlord!

cyrus83 said...

It's hard to learn tactics when the experience has been that being loud and obnoxious gets the desired result. It had best be learned soon though, or Democrats may wake up to the uncomfortable reality in 2020 that the Midwest is no longer willing to swing their way for a while, following the path of the canary in the coal mine West Virginia.

Burning flags is totally legitimate. It is also royally politically stupid considering the voters the Democrats need to win back. Just because something can be done does not mean it is wise to do it, and so far it looks like Democrats are going to turn the Midwest as red as Texas before they learn the lesson (and it should be a 5-alarm fire at the DNC that this year Iowa was more red than Texas and Ohio was pretty comparable to Texas).

Harold said...

Matthew Sablan said...
I think that flag burning, by the way, is legal speech. But, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. Let's also accept that when we say "flag burning," we specifically mean "burning the American flag," because no one cares if you burn your Green Bay Packers 2017 flag.


Pretty much been covered, but burning a Mexican or Puerto Rican flag or a Koran on a college campus is hate speech, and will get you expelled. Burning a Bible or Book of Mormon or American flag is protected and celebrated speech. And don't forget, placing a Crucifix in a bottle of urine is avant garde art.

MaxedOutMama had it completely right.

Drago said...

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman: "I'm unable to be called anywhere because I can't get through doorways (too much chubby), so she brings chow here"

"Mom, the Meat Loaf!!!"



Drago said...

I was trying to follow the thread discussion but the restaurant where I was having dinner was blaring Fox News so loudly I couldn't hear myself think!!

Douglas said...

Here's a hypothetical for our Constitutional Law experts: At Public University X, a member of BLM burns an American flag on the quad to protest Trump's election. At the same school in the same public area, a white student burns a Mexican flag to protest illegal immigration from Mexico. Which student can the school lawfully punish, if either, and why? Which student will the school choose to punish, lawfully or not?

iowan2 said...

Is a noose, not protected speech? Back 50 years ago several of my buddies and I became quite proficient at tying the hangmans noose. I think that was still the method of execution at the time.
The PC police have stripped us of free speech rights, by use of the hecklers veto, and judges who see their position as one of infallible community elder, and ignore the constituion "for our own good". I fail to see any improvement of civility of the last fifty years because judges have taken on their new tack on social engineering.

Mike said...

The dancing monkeys of the MSM-protest-DNC-complex are going to be so tired of jitterbugging every time he commands them to, they might have to take a time out and assess their life choices.

Nah! They'll still be insufferable assholes!

Mike said...

Chuck: But what about the essential stupidity of Trump's pronouncement on jailing flag-burners? Or, more laughably, taking away their citizenship? Scalia dealt with it in the Johnson case of course. Is it a greater success, for Trump to say something stupid and troll the haterz, than to remain quiet on such a topic?

Boy you really don't get it do you? He expressed what appears to be his PERSONAL OPINION on flag burning, which aligns with how a lot of Americans feel about flag burning, regardless of what THE LAW is. It's like a fart in the wind. It doesn't matter. He's not proposing LEGISLATION, he's expressing an opinion, something the left is obsessively FOR unless it is speech they dislike or, like you, speech they don't understand.

Because of the propensity on the left (and wherever you are) for OUTRAGEOUS STUPID OVER-REACTION it truly is a "greater success" to bring these idiots (sorry but you're included for being so dense on this matter) out into the disinfecting sunlight so we can see them for what they are "than to remain quiet" on the subject. You know the current president had an even bigger problem running his mouth saying dumb things, but you didn't care then, did you?

Mike Sylwester said...

I was trying to follow the thread discussion but the restaurant where I was having
dinner was blaring Fox News so loudly I couldn't hear myself think!!


Even so, you won the thread.

Mike said...

I also love the part where Chuck overlooks Hillary WRITING A BILL TO OUTLAW flag burning as a Senator, yet freaks out to high heaven over a Trump tweet. Dance monkeys, dance!

Mike said...

Progressive California state government won't allow barbecues or cigarette smoking on beaches, but burning tons of Mexican and American flags is OK. Shouldn't the Greens be opposing the Brownshirts on this point at least?

Unknown said...

Freudian cut and paste?:

"rump flaunts disrespect for American freedom of speech."

Chuck said...

So to catch up on the varying commenter stupidities...

1. I did not vote for any Democrat, and never ever supported Mrs. Clinton. I voted a straight Republican Party ticket in Michigan.

2. I don't much care about who supported an anti-flag-burning bill. I agree with pretty much every word of Justice Scalia's personal opinion on the subject, dating to when Scalia was the swing fifth vote in Texas v Johnson.

3. Clinton's co-sponsorship of the 2005 flag protection bill (with Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah) was crafted in a way intended to narrowly skirt the Johnson case. But the bill was of course at its core a craven attempt to curry favor with low-information self-proclaimed "patriot" types. Hillary was, as I say, politically "craven." As is Trump, now. In the case of the Hillary/Senate bill in '05, it had a veneer of legal intelligence. Trump's Tweet was just overwhelmingly dumb. Without any redeeming social value, other than to troll his haterz.

4. To all of the folks griping about the unfair treatment of Trump by the lamestream media. Uh, okay. You've got some good examples. Indeed, nobody is doing a better job of Fisking the coverage of Trump, than Ann Althouse. But don't make this issue one of "unfair coverage" for Trump. Trump deserves every line of ridicule on this one. There is no defending what Trump tweeted. It's stupid. It's indefensible. It may be popular, sure. It may be effective retail politics (per the Althouse prediction/explanation, with which I'd not argue). But it is stupid.

5. And, again, it is particularly stupid in light of Justice Scalia's detailed explanation of the issue. For Trump, Scalia isn't a philosophical touchstone. For Trump, Scalia is just a name and a cocktail party talking point.

6. I am thankful, that millions of people agreed with me in voting for the ignoramus Trump, so that we have a chance to get a Scalia-like nominee for the Supreme Court. Here's hoping that another of the SCOTUS liberals is gone within four years.

Chuck said...

Scalia, as a young associate justice, did not write an opinion in Texas v Johnson. Here is Scalia, interviewed on the subject during a 2012 book tour interview:

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

Alex said...

What libs need to do is double-down on flag burning in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. That will go over really well with swing voters.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

There is no defending what Trump tweeted. It's stupid. It's indefensible. It may be popular, sure. It may be effective retail politics (per the Althouse prediction/explanation, with which I'd not argue).

Since, as I'm sure we both would agree, Trump's strengths are in retail politics, in what way is it stupid?

Trump isn't trying to win a debate on constitutional law at Haaarrrvaaard. He is seeking to accrue power so he can enact his agenda.

A cogent criticism would be that political leaders deliberately stoking passions in order to more easily by-pass checks and balances is dangerous to republic.

iowan2 said...

Have to agree with Ron. What Trump did can in no way be considered stupid. Trump is not a politician. All people agree. He will never have to defend his positions. They dont need defending. He is not a politician. Trump is free of the overwrought word smithing Pols engage in. Trumps plain speak is a feature not a bug. One by one, Trump is putting his detractors in his camp. Rush played audio of a high power union president admitting out loud that he went after Trump hard trying to elect Clinton's wife. Now he is fully supporting Trump.

Ignoring Trumps success, and calling his actions stupid, is major league disconnect.

n.n said...

The same trap was laid for anti-nativists when Trump gave a voice to victims of illegal aliens. It was never a general classification, but a note that the incidence of elective abortion, rape-rape, and other criminal activities increased disproportionately with an unassimilated and unintegrated population. Hopefully, he has also noted that anti-nativists have condoned and obfuscated the causes for immigration "reform" including refugee crises and mass emigration from second and third world nations, as well as the anthropogenic climate change, sometimes catastrophic, in our own communities.

Chuck said...

Ron; yes we agree that Trump's strength is retail politics.

Trump's flag-burning comment is stupid, as follows:
1) There is no law against flag-burning. When Trump talks about putting people in jail or taking away their citizenship, he's either not being serious or else he is talking about a radical new law.
2) Such a new law would run smack into Texas v Johnson. A case in which Justice Scalia -- that Justice Scalia whose name Trump just loves to invoke -- voted with the majority, and with which he later claimed complete satisfaction. Explaining why the Constitution forbids something which might seem attractive (it seemed attractive, even to Scalia) but which is an impermissible restriction of symbolic speech.
3) Trump gave every impression that he is completely ignorant of that case law, and of Scalia's famous position.
4) It does seem that Trump is not trying to win a debate at Harvard. I am trying to figure out why winning a debate at Harvard is a bad thing. I don't wish to lose any debates at Harvard. At least not any fairly-conducted debates at Harvard. Any unfairly-conducted debate does not interest me; be it at Harvard or anywhere else. Trump seems to be happy to lose those all of those debates without a care. That doesn't work for me. I want to win all the debates, in whatever forum. Stupid doesn't work for me. I can't defend all of the Trump stupidities. I refuse to try. Just because Trump is NotObama and NotHillary, it doesn't make Trump right. I am not going to put my own reputation on the line, defending an ignoramus like Trump. He's nothing to me. He isn't a good partisan; he isn't philosophically aligned with me. He is a creature of the Fox News Channel, trafficking in a number of ideas that I very much like and a whole lot that I hate.

And, it is personal as well. I love the art and science of political discourse. I like people who use words carefully and who mean what they say. Trump says a whole lot of stuff, for effect, and he clearly doesn't mean any of it in any permanent way. If you like Trump and trust him, it cannot possibly be based upon his being a man of his word. Because his words are a total mess. If you like Trump, it must be based on a personal feeling. My personal feeling toward Trump is loathing.