"Without mentioning Trump by name, Obama lashed out at a 'crude populism' while defending his vision of a United States that engages, rather than withdraws, from the world stage. 'Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself'...."
I would have expected more exalted dignity and grandeur. If a big part of the problem with Trump is a perceived crudeness in his style, how do you fight that by stepping down to a cruder level yourself?
By the way, I think I'm noticing Hillary trying to talk more like Trump — or what she imagines Trump to be doing that has been working on the people it works on. I don't think that's something you should attempt on the fly.
September 20, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
116 comments:
I think I'm noticing Hillary trying to talk more like Trump — or what she imagines Trump to be doing that has been working on the people it works on. I don't think that's something you should attempt on the fly.
It fits the traditional political strategy that when you believe you are behind you need to attack your opponent, go negative. Clearly Clinton strategists believe she is behind.
You do risk the strategy backfiring and people reacting negatively instead. Well, more negatively in her case.
You could have just titled the post, "Obama's a putz". At this point, anything Obama says seems tired, predictable, and utterly irrelevant.
Blogger holdfast said...
I guess "engages" means setting pretend "Red Lines", delivering pallet loads of cash to known sponsors of terrorism, and generally presiding over the emasculation of US foreign policy. If that's "engagement", then this defense hawk says "bring on the isolationism!"
Question: If Obama really were an anti-American sleeper agent planted by a hostile power, what would he be doing differently (assuming he did not want to be so blatant as to get caught)?
Another "he who must not be named" story! You need the "unsaid things" tag.
Too bad President Obama didn't lash out against "a walking human Snapchat app of incoherence".
Obama just looks like he has class, but he really doesn't.
"Attacks" Althouse? C'mon the liberal media style book says it was only a "jab".
Never punch down, punch up.
Tacky. And looks desperate.
It's everything you say, professor Althouse. Why would anybody expect any different, from Barack Obama?
But at the same time, why would anybody not expect someone else -- apart from Obama altogether -- who had endured the kinds of attacks from Trump the he pulled in his birther days, to fight back against all things Trump as hard and as nastily as can be imagined?
If I were Obama (I'm glad I am not), I wouldn't have had much hesitation about using the occasion to slam Trump. Like Trump used his birther retraction to promote his own campaign. Because I'd feel that it was personal, and I'd hate the guy who did that to me.
Just when I think I can be gracious to this President as he prepares to leave office he shows himself to be an ass in front of the world, an elite who feels the right, even the need to diss parts of America in front of non-Americans. Not even Clinton or Carter sank this far un the moral gutter. Good riddance.
The only defenders of his rhetoric are the usual suspects, liberal haters whose only point of existence is to contrast themselves with conservatives and defenders of traditional values they look down upon and hate supremely.
Trump's populism is a crude populism.
Maybe crude populism is a good thing, and maybe it's a bad thing.
But Trump's populism is a crude populism.
trump slobbered all over obama, the first two years, in part because of his hatred for bush,
By the way, I think I'm noticing Hillary trying to talk more like Trump — or what she imagines Trump to be doing that has been working on the people it works on. I don't think that's something you should attempt on the fly.
Well if she wants to copy Rubio she should start by carrying a water bottle everywhere she goes and sipping from it continually. Don't all the smart set seem so much more so for the way the ridiculed little Marco? Who's laughing now, bitches!
Then again, the tactic of mocking Trump by trying to play the insult game didn't really work out well for Rubio either. Jeb did it even more poorly. Hillary will fail spectacularly if she goes down this road. She can barely emulate HUMAN so more advanced behavior is well off the charts for her.
"He can't use 'crude populism.' Only we Democrats can do that to our rubes. "
Trump actually has a sense of humor and obviously enjoys being with "the people" at events. That's one of the advanced human behaviors Hillary has yet to fake convincingly. Something Don shares with Bill but Hill does not.
All I can say is: there was one time people though Bush 43 was obliquely referencing Obama in a speech about Israel and appeasement. And people FREAKED out. Now Obama slams Trump regularly and people love it.
I can't remember a sitting President ever criticizing the other party's candidate. Perhaps sommeone can give me examples if I'm wrong.
Is there populism that is not crude? Is it not, by it's very definition, a movement of the common people? While our country could probably not survive long-term populism, it is nonetheless essential to have a populist upheaval from time to time. It let's a little steam off the pressure cooker, preventing an explosive revolution.
Showing up why he earned the Peace Prize.
Obama allies with kleptocrats against Americans. That ought to go over well.
Trump dominates Obama's thoughts. Electing Trump would repudiate Obama. Given the fact that Obama was a miserable failure, it is no surprise Trump is winning.
Obama actually said cites would be flooded due to global warming.
But at the same time, why would anybody not expect someone else -- apart from Obama altogether -- who had endured the kinds of attacks from Trump the he pulled in his birther days, to fight back against all things Trump as hard and as nastily as can be imagined?
Given that Blumenthal worked hard on it, was banned from working for the administration and Hillary ignored that --- you'd think he'd be annoyed at Hillary.
But, yes Chuck, everything bad is Trump's fault.
I can't remember a sitting President ever criticizing the other party's candidate. Perhaps sommeone can give me examples if I'm wrong.
Cannot off the top of my head --- but I can guarantee that if it happened, it was a Democrat who did it.
"World stage" is a bad cliche. The only thing I can envision is either a small stage with a globe on it or a very large stage with a Sgt. Pepper like grouping of world leaders. The first is comical and the second calls attention to the theatrical.
Althouse said: "I would have expect more exalted dignity and grandeur."
Why? President Touchy McThinskinned has not in his nearly eight years in office demonstrated anything like dignity or grandeur. Why on earth would he start now?
I saw the other day they intend to raise the White House fence. Does that make the White House the Big House? If those inside the wall can pass through by their own free will then it’s not much of a prison.
"I would have expect more exalted dignity and grandeur."
Who has been running this blog while you were in that eight year coma?
The Fly is resistant to many forms of persuasion.
It took me about 90 seconds to find a record of Ronald Reagan going after Mike Dukakis in 1988:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/30/us/reagan-denounces-dukakis-as-a-tax-raiser.html
So, that happened. Stuff happens.
And further, damikesc; Obama did to Blumenthal exactly what I'd expect, and what I'd have done. I'm a little surprised that Obama gave Hillary the State Department at all. But I'm not a Democrat, so I can't speak to their political calculations.
Chuck said...
"But at the same time, why would anybody not expect someone else -- apart from Obama altogether -- who had endured the kinds of attacks from Trump the he pulled in his birther days, to fight back against all things Trump as hard and as nastily as can be imagined?"
Obama sent the IRS after his political enemies. Me. Yet you give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Obama and Hillary are not good people. Trump has done nothing even close to what they have done. All Trump does is calls them out and fights against them.
Lifelong Republican Chuck can't tolerate an attack on the aristocracy. That is why he always defends Hillary and Obama and always attacks Trump. We do not want vichy republicans pretending to be in the party anymore. Chuck is probably applying for the house republican job on CNN who bashes "his" party and defends the democrats.
The question is about an outgoing president "going after" the other party's candidate to replace him.
And double that, using an official occasion to do so.
And double that again, using an official occasion representing the USA before an international audience.
Chuck said...
"It took me about 90 seconds to find a record of Ronald Reagan going after Mike Dukakis in 1988:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/30/us/reagan-denounces-dukakis-as-a-tax-raiser.html
So, that happened. Stuff happens."
hahahahaha. Lifelong republican chuck dutifully dredges up a nytimes link.
"And further, damikesc; Obama did to Blumenthal exactly what I'd expect, and what I'd have done. I'm a little surprised that Obama gave Hillary the State Department at all. But I'm not a Democrat, so I can't speak to their political calculations."
I highlighted the obvious lie. But this whole paragraph is just what you would expect from lifelong republican Chuck. Hillary obviously had nothing to do with Sid shopping the birther story. Trump is the real enemy. We must excuse Hillary's birtherism but Trump is a racist!
We are not as stupid as you are.
Darrell said...
Idiot. Dukakis was running against Reagan.You should have spent more than 90 seconds.
Since Darrell cannot alter or edit his post (you can't do that, right?) let this be a lesson to all of my many detractors; check it, before you let your hatred of me carry you away.
Wikipedia (yay!) on the United States Presidential election of 1988:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988
Obama is a low class, parsimonious, self-centered, pig headed, prevaricating, sarcastic, polecattish person far too small a man for the office. It's as if Bush erred too far on the side of decorum and wouldn't defend anything we Republicans were accused of and the country over-corrected and veered into an administration run by a man who cannot let any perceived slight pass, cannot be the bigger man, cannot allow any opportunity to uplift and encourage go by without tarnishing it with snide asides and winking nods to the Kos kids and their adolescent need for approval. He can't leave soon enough for me.
It's a good thing Obama has secret service folks around him. He must be in awe of their ability to open doors. "Man..good thing you guys can figure that out...thought I was trapped"
I hardly think labeling a liberal as a "tax and spender" rises to the level of personal attack and ridicule employed by this president, EVERY FREAKING DAY! It's a great difference in style and substance from the Great One.
But then again, I'm a very different kind of lifelong Republican than some on this blog.
Achilles, I didn't give Obama a break on anything. I didn't say one nice thing about either of him, or Hillary.
I "dredged up" a NYT link, in seconds, because that is how easy it was for me to disprove the notion that no sitting president ever criticized an opposing party's candidate. And sure, even if that notion had been true, I think Chicago Democrat Barack Obama is the sort of guy to breach protocol anyway. Chicago politics. Going all the way back to Jack Ryan.
Remember Triumph the Insult Dog? Triumph... Trump.... Hmmm....
Brent said... he shows himself to be an ass in front of the world,
--
Not really..it was just the U.N. He's looking for his next gig.
Obama's premature withdrawal from Iraq birthed the Next generation of terrorism. The Libya-ISIS Affair, etc. nurtured its development. His anti-native policies and detachment are responsible for the refugee crises, increased abortions, rape-rapes, and elevated risk to men, women, and children in first-world nations. All while advocating and defending the selective-child policy of his Church.
The walls are a call to action, specifically emigration reform. They only need to be built with immigration reform and progress of the status quo. Trump's meeting with the Mexican president may signal an end to the hidden victims of anti-native policies in Mexico and America.
That said, shades of "The State of the Union". They like a captive, preferably disarmed audience.
I didn't say one nice thing about either of him, or Hillary.
Whatever. The worst you will say about Hillary is that supposedly you won't vote for her. New evidence that Hillary began destroying emails after they were subpoenaed. That doesn't bother you a bit, does it?
tim in Vermont:
Nonsense. I have zero respect for the woman. I think it was an inexplicable mistake that she was not the subject of a federal charge in the email scandal.
I can say all of that, and yet it does not sink in, with the Trumpsters. That is on them. You. I'd say that it was a kind of pathology, but I choose not to go there, since I have encouraged Althouse to remove commenters who resort to "take your meds!"-style personal attacks.
It clearly does not matter what I might say, after "Trump is an asshole." At that point, Trumpism kicks in. Attack the attacker.
And the level of Trumpism here is, in my humble opinion, bad for this blog.
Globalists have such a different point of view. They can only see only world money flows and management of the political obstructions that are in their way.
Darrell did you pull your embarrassing fuckup of a post, trying to school me that Ronald Reagan ran for President against Dukakis in 1988?
If elected, Trump should push to make Obama UN head. Once that happens, pull the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. The Chinese and the Russians already have our secrets thanks to Hillary so what difference would it make if Obama were to reside in Moscow or Beijing?
Serious question: When has Obama ever not been crude in his rhetoric about Republicans?
From "I won." to scolding Supreme Court justices sitting in front of him at the State of the Union to Republican congressmen wanting American children to die (when they wouldn't pass his "commonsense gun control" measure), he's never been gracious in the face of disagreement.
How can this come as a surprise now?
"I would have expect more exalted dignity and grandeur. If a big part of the problem with Trump is a perceived crudeness in his style, how do you fight that by stepping down to a cruder level yourself?"
Well, you SHOULD be able to, but having 8+ years of experience with him, there's absolutely NO reason to.
The guy attacked the Supreme Court in the State of the Union. What else do you expect?
So, Reagan in a fund-raising speech to a Republican audience in Miami said Dukakis was a Democrat in favor of higher taxes and Obama went to the U.N. and said Trump is a danger to world peace and these two things are comparable?
Hagar said...
So, Reagan in a fund-raising speech to a Republican audience in Miami said Dukakis was a Democrat in favor of higher taxes and Obama went to the U.N. and said Trump is a danger to world peace and these two things are comparable?
I didn't raise the subject. I didn't make a "comparison." I didn't write the following, Darrell did:
Darrell said...
I can't remember a sitting President ever criticizing the other party's candidate. Perhaps sommeone [sic]can give me examples if I'm wrong.
And so I supplied an example. (Then, Darrell accused my of screwing up because of course it was Ronald Reagan who ran against Dukakis in 1988. He wrote. Woooooops. Now, it looks like he took down his own comment on that point.)
You guys are going to parse every punctuation mark from me, aren't you? Good. Fuck it; I can dish it out every bit as good as you've got. I am not part of the Althouse TrumpTeam.
I can't imagine Bill Clinton did not publicly criticize W. when Gore ran against Bush. I remember Gore wanted Clinton to stay out of sight then, but he didn't go underground.
Adjust your meds, Chuck! ��
"And the level of Trumpism here is, in my humble opinion, bad for this blog."
So she should silence the trumpism. What part of the aristocracy are you in Chuck?
I would have expect more exalted dignity and grandeur.
He could at least have rented those old Greek columns for old time sake.
Chuck said..
"If I were Obama (I'm glad I am not), I wouldn't have had much hesitation about using the occasion to slam Trump. Like Trump used his birther retraction to promote his own campaign. Because I'd feel that it was personal, and I'd hate the guy who did that to me."
You have the ability to move in and out of Obama's point of view, but you constantly bash trump. Obama sent the IRS after his political enemies and you bash his enemies.
You are one of them. Stop pretending it just makes you look stupid and dishonest.
Achilles said...
"And the level of Trumpism here is, in my humble opinion, bad for this blog."
So she should silence the trumpism. What part of the aristocracy are you in Chuck?
I said no such thing. Where did I say, "AA should silence the trumpism"? Ask Professor Althouse if I have ever done much of anything except to privately praise her good writing whenever I felt the need.
Fabi said...
Adjust your meds, Chuck! ��
My preferred medication is Highland Park 18. My current dosage is one bottle, each November. And you know exactly what I am talking about.
I'm thinking we're not going to see Darrell for awhile.
"And so I supplied an example. (Then, Darrell accused my of screwing up because of course it was Ronald Reagan who ran against Dukakis in 1988. He wrote. Woooooops. Now, it looks like he took down his own comment on that point.)
You guys are going to parse every punctuation mark from me, aren't you? Good. Fuck it; I can dish it out every bit as good as you've got. I am not part of the Althouse TrumpTeam."
Darell made a silly statement that no sitting president ever criticized another candidate. That is obviously not true.
The illuminating part is you instinctively found a Reagan quote out of the NYT. This in addition to your natural inclination to share Obama's point of view and total inability to actually criticize a democrat in any real way is your problem.
Here is your chance to show you are what you pretend to be. Say it:
1. Hillary should be in jail.
2. Hillary will do irreparable damage to the republic.
3. Anyone who does not try to defeat Hillary is an enemy of freedom and a bad person.
You can't because you are going to vote for her.
Original Mike said...
I'm thinking we're not going to see Darrell for awhile.
It's not such a terrible thing. No crime. No harm, no foul. But as I say, it clearly occurred because Darrell was so wound up to go after me upon the mere sight of my post, and perhaps my name. He couldn't even wait to check himself. That's the thing.
It's the same thing that has so many commenters wound up, to pronounce me a Democrat. To seek out any possible shading of a meaning that would prove me to be secretly in the employ of the left. Which really is insane, given how much I have done to declaim that status. They have really worked at it. To attack the attacker of Mr. Trump.
At that, the U.N. kind of is Obama's natural habitat. One gets the feeling he is here to transform the world, not just the U.S., and the U.S. is just the base he has to work from, since he was born here and the system is what it is.
And the level of Trumpism here is, in my humble opinion, bad for this blog
You get to speak all you want. Everybody does, pretty much. Why is that bad? You should be able to counter the pro-Trump arguments effortlessly, coming as they do from deplorable people. My problem is with the Clintons, they are detestable, which is worse than deplorable. Any deplorable example you make about Trump can easily be countered with an example of detestable conduct by the Clintons. It's that simple.
Achilles challenges Chuck: Here is your chance to show you are what you pretend to be. Say it:
1. Hillary should be in jail.
2. Hillary will do irreparable damage to the republic.
3. Anyone who does not try to defeat Hillary is an enemy of freedom and a bad person.
You can't because you are going to vote for her.
C'mon, Chuckles! Some of would be satisfied with just one out of three!
Achilles said...
...
Here is your chance to show you are what you pretend to be. Say it:
1. Hillary should be in jail.
2. Hillary will do irreparable damage to the republic.
3. Anyone who does not try to defeat Hillary is an enemy of freedom and a bad person.
You can't because you are going to vote for her.
You really are a madman if you think I have any interest in your loyalty oaths. You can save your oaths for your local Klavern of the KKK.
What I will say is that I am still pissed that Trump won the nomination. And I confess to not understanding how it happened. And I am very much interested in making sure in never happens again. Trump would be beneath my last choice as Republican nominee.
But regrettably, he's the lesser of two evils. And so without cheer, and with awful reticence, I will probably cast a Republican straight-ticket vote in Michigan. Without touching the box next to Trump's name. And my one and only pleasure in that will be going back to Trumpkins after election day and saying, "Don't blame me. I voted for your guy. No matter what kind of asshole he really is. He got my vote. Find somebody else to blame."
Hillary in jail? Your reading comprehension is so shitty.
I already agreed that I think she should have been charged. But then the Dems would just go get a good candidate, right?
Now, now, Chuck does say bad things about Democrats.
It always occurs after he vents on the evils of Trump (or others with an (R) after their name in noxious fashion.
But he DOES say bad things about Democrats. Things like she's bad too. Or what makes you think I support him?
Yep, good old, reliably, long term Republican Chuck.
Based on the power of consensus that I've learned from the climate types, I'd say the affiliation is settled.
Jesus Christ. The Ohio State football blogs are less fanatical than Althouse's current crop of commenters. If it is 100 to 1 here, I'd say that's probably a fair fight.
Ann, after the last 8 years how could you possibly have expected Obama to show any class or restraint. He has always treated Republicans as the real enemy and has never missed a chance to put them down, regardless of audience or venue. He is hardly going to change now, or in front of the UN.
Funny, after 8 years of his petty, chickenshit, partisanship I would have expected him to be MORE of a dick! The way he's been worshiped and adored by the media, entertainers and his tribe, seems to me he is showing a bit of constraint!
Those two weird symbols were smiley-wink emojis in my preview, Chuck. It was just a riff in your earlier statement about meds. I'll have to investigate Highland Park 18 -- it's almost Scotch season!
Darrell is right. His atypically inartfully phrased post was inaccurate for the word criticize. But what Reagan and all other Presidents have refrained from doing is "playing the attack dog" like Obama does constantly. Traditionally that was the VP nominee's responsibility. But the Big O just can't keep his mug off TV for long. I wish he would. I've been bored by him since the first "recovery summer" oh so long ago.
Short answer: Chuck's still not right and Darrell's not really wrong.
$175 per bottle? That's not a problem, Chuck -- I'll be more than happy to pay off if I lose.
"You really are a madman if you think I have any interest in your loyalty oaths. You can save your oaths for your local Klavern of the KKK."
People who want to defeat Hillary = KKK. Loyalty oaths. Blah blah blah.
Hillary maybe should have been charged.
You spent more than three quarters of your post hoping to say I told you so. You spend 95% of your time bashing trump. You take Hillary and Obama's point of view and cannot even condemn them when you say you are.
There are 3 types of voters this election:
1. People who are enemies of freedom.
2. People who are worthless to the cause of freedom.
3. People who vote for Trump.
Mike said...
Darrell is right. His atypically inartfully phrased post was inaccurate for the word criticize. But what Reagan and all other Presidents have refrained from doing is "playing the attack dog" like Obama does constantly. Traditionally that was the VP nominee's responsibility. But the Big O just can't keep his mug off TV for long. I wish he would. I've been bored by him since the first "recovery summer" oh so long ago.
Short answer: Chuck's still not right and Darrell's not really wrong.
Wow! So you mean that Ronald Reagan ran for a Twenty-second Amendment-defying third term in 1988? Did FDR vote for Reagan that year?
I am through with you, Achilles.
This post is for Althouse. See where your commentariat is at these days? Behold:
Achilles said...
"You really are a madman if you think I have any interest in your loyalty oaths. You can save your oaths for your local Klavern of the KKK."
People who want to defeat Hillary = KKK. Loyalty oaths. Blah blah blah.
Hillary maybe should have been charged.
You spent more than three quarters of your post hoping to say I told you so. You spend 95% of your time bashing trump. You take Hillary and Obama's point of view and cannot even condemn them when you say you are.
There are 3 types of voters this election:
1. People who are enemies of freedom.
2. People who are worthless to the cause of freedom.
3. People who vote for Trump.
(Emphasis added.)
'Course, I am in with the in crowd, as a Trump voter. Right? I am a Friend to the Cause of Freedom, with my vote. I never realized that a vote for the pumpkin-domed shitheaded golf cheat would be so fulfilling.
in my humble opinion,
I don't think your opinion is very humble at all.
MadisonMan said...
in my humble opinion,
I don't think your opinion is very humble at all.
I am just humble enough to not lecture other Althouse commenters on their devotion to basic freedoms, based on their presidential votes, or to demand that they recite loyalty oaths.
"I never realized that a vote for the pumpkin-domed shitheaded golf cheat would be so fulfilling."
I thought you guys were talking about Trump...
"I Ham no Wazzze Ti-arhed!" This phony can't do anything right. I think her brain is short circuited and she just can't think clearly at this point. Why try to over complicate this?
It clearly does not matter what I might say, after "Trump is an asshole." At that point, Trumpism kicks in. Attack the attacker.
Nevermind the serious points Achilles made that you won't say the words to, just like Trump won't say the words you want him to.
You would tear out your coprophagic tongue before you would say, "Hillary is an asshole."
The Cracker Emcee said...
"I never realized that a vote for the pumpkin-domed shitheaded golf cheat would be so fulfilling."
I thought you guys were talking about Trump...
Lol, Crack. Yes, Chuck, I also thought that was Obama you were talking about, though it would fit Bill Clinton too. Go on, call Obama names like that.
Bad Lieutenant said...
...
You would tear out your coprophagic tongue before you would say, "Hillary is an asshole."
I said I thought she should have been charged with a federal crime. I said the prospect of another Clinton presidency nearly terrified me. I said she's the worst of two evils. And that I'd never vote for her.
But here you are, picking on me again.
I am going to refuse to pay any rent for all that space I occupy in your head. It's not worth anything to me. Tear up the lease.
But just because you are Bad Lieutenant, let me add: Hillary was never a birther, a truther, or a vaxxer.
Blogger Chuck said...
But just because you are Bad Lieutenant, let me add: Hillary was never a birther, a truther, or a vaxxer.
You lie.
I said I thought she should have been charged with a federal crime. I said the prospect of another Clinton presidency nearly terrified me. I said she's the worst of two evils. And that I'd never vote for her.
So why won't you say that she's an asshole? Or that Obama is an asshole? Obama gives people the finger while pretending to scratch his head. Is that the kind of thing you find asshole? What is your standard exactly? Besides what you see in the mirror?
Well, you're definitely an asshole. Maybe you can work with that.
Here it is.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals," said Mr Bush in his speech.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement."
Mr Obama responded in a statement:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists."
But White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected Mr Obama's interpretation of the president's remarks, saying "there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to". "
There's nothing wrong with a sitting president criticizing the other party's nominee when POTUS is on the campaign trail or at a fundraiser. When he is doing his job as President, it is unacceptable.
As you can see, the tolerance for this sort of thing was very very low as recently as 2008.
Chuck seems to be wishing that Althouse had an official blog chucker-out and that he held the post. (chucker-out: "informal Brit. a person employed at a club, pub, disco, etc, to throw out drunks or troublemakers and stop those considered undesirable from entering." Synonym: bouncer).
Blogger Chuck said...
"But just because you are Bad Lieutenant, let me add: Hillary was never a birther, a truther, or a vaxxer."
This is just pure bad faith. You are an awful person.
Hillary was 1000 times more of a birther than trump was a truther or vaxxer. You immediately accept the NYT point of view on everything. You are completely disingenuous and accept stupidity in order to buttress your paradigm. You clearly respect and support Hillary. There is no reason to discuss issues with people who operate in bad faith. You are only worthy of mockery.
Obama truly is the smallest spirited man to occupy that office--ever!
I'm all for America Without Borders where we older folk can just go and settle in Mexico or Central America without any trouble about visas and buy a house and stay as long as we want and vote in their elections and get their welfare and still come back here anytime. The actual law there is that we have to have our passport in our pocket at all times, have to have a visa for a long stay, would be deported if we outstayed our visa, cannot vote in their elections, do not have access to their social services, and have to fill out a lot of paper work to buy land. So, as long as that's true for Americans in Mexico and Central America, what is the problem with applying the same restrictions to Mexicans and Central Americans in the US?
And, when you ask that question, then you see how Obama is simply spitting on Americans at the UN. When he is no longer President then we might get some truthful stories about the UN delegates listening to him and rolling their eyes in disbelief at a leader pissing in public on his people. They, after all, know what their own border laws are. They know how they work to jockey their country into a favorable position. They know how they shove Obama and hence the US around by merely tagging a position as "imperialist" or even "American."
Achilles;
Hillary Clonton never once uttered a birther rumor if any kind. Sid Blumenthal trafficked in those rumors, it appears, and he is a loathsome prick. And yes, he is a toady in the quasi-employ of Hillary. Vicarious liability for that? Mmm, okay.
But Hillary has been publicly and personally disowning the rumor(s) for years. If it was a dirty trick by her campaign, shame in whoever was involved.
But of course whatever Hillary Clinton did to advance birtherism (and there is actually no proof of her personal involvement), Trump, with his countless radio and tv appearances, his relentless trashtalk, his phony investigative team in Hawaii; was 50,000 times worse.
Oh, and Trump may still be a vaxxer. And a truther. He was, as of the Republican debates. Both things. Of all the goofy things for a supposedly important person to associate with.
One of the first and most important things we need to do, as individuals and as a nation, is become impervious to labels and aspersions.
Obama paved the way for Trump. He ran as a celebrity, governed as a celebrity, and now the country is poised to go that extra mile.
I'd be less depressed if I didn't have kids.
Chuck, you're a fucking asshole. My brain fart, which lasted less than a minute before I deleted my posts, doesn't change that one bit. No sitting President ever said that a candidate from the opposition party was a danger to mankind and unfit to hold office. And none has done it dozens of times. Bush I says he will be voting for Hillary ad that would make Reagan spin in his grave and regret every saying a word to help that putz. You seem to be more a member of the Ritmo collective than a lifelong Republican. Perhaps there is still time to get a spot in Hillary's campaign. President Trump doesn't need or want you vote Chucklehead. Your wife's will do.
...said Chuck, the Hillary supporter...
And why shouldn't he speak about the global menace named Donald Trump? The rest of the world is as concerned as much as half of the US is.
Unknown: "And why shouldn't he speak about the global menace named Donald Trump? The rest of the world is as concerned as much as half of the US is."
LOL
Yeah, the rest of the world that includes Venezuela, the latest successful leftist Peoples Paradise where there is a lack of food, water, medicine, power, etc and billions living a subsistence existence.
I'm sure they are all just freaked out over Trump....when they aren't busy starving to death, having their heads cut off by islamist future-democrat-voter immigrants, being strangled and gunned down by a cabals comprised of socialists and drug cartels in Mexico, etc.
The billions are world-wide, of course.
"I would have expected more exalted dignity and grandeur."
This statement would be excusable seven and a half years ago, when Greek columns and staring blankly up and to the left were still cause for the media getting a tingle up their collective legs.
Stands out like a sore thumb after two terms of nothing but petulant trolling. Glad to see how many others jumped on it.
Way too late to this party (misplaced the invite) but just for the record, "I would have expected more exalted dignity and grandeur" is one of the most absurd things ever posted on this blog.
she hired mark penn who worked with sid vicious, who pushed james asher, along with linda sorcher, and phil berg who filed the first string of lawsuits,
Yes, vicarious liability for Crooked Hillary for starting the birther meme. "Sid Vicious" Blumenthal has been doing this sort of thing for the Clintons since part way through Bill's Presidency, two decades ago. They have been using close associates as their surrogates for this sort of thing for at least several decades now. That is just how they operate. It gives them a bare modicum of deniability. He has, for the most part, always been paid by the Clintons, directly or indirectly, as an employee of their Presidency, their campaigns, or their foundation/slush fund. By now, he has probably made a couple million dollars working for them. In my mind, the fact that they continue to hire him in this manner, and only disavow his work when politically necessary, says that they approve of what he is doing and has done for their cause. Pretending otherwise, as Chuckles apparently does, is exalting form over substance.
"Way too late to this party (misplaced the invite) but just for the record, "I would have expected more exalted dignity and grandeur" is one of the most absurd things ever posted on this blog."
That's for sure. What the hell is Althouse expecting, some lofty rhetoric? Of course that's the lofty rhetoric that got her swooped up by Obama in the first place, and apparently now in repentance she is drawn towards the "crudeness" (as she describes it) of Trump.
Trump isn't really "crude". He uses simple sentence structure, and sometimes lets out a swear word, but he isn't exactly a Teamster.
"But Hillary has been publicly and personally disowning the rumor(s) for years. If it was a dirty trick by her campaign, shame in whoever was involved."
Hillary doesn't get away with it that easily--she was smart enough to keep it at arms' length, letting underlings and surrogates spread the birther crap, so she could keep deniability. It is right to point out that she gets no free pass on it.
But Trump's laughable claim that "he finished the investigation" as if he were somehow just trying to find out "the truth" is a blatant lie that only his most blind lickspittles could believe. It's clear from the record he was peddling that stupid conspiracy theory long after it was debunked, and only an idiot could believe he cleared Obama from suspicion.
Pretending otherwise, as Chuckles apparently does, is exalting form over substance.
That is such mendacious bullshit on your part. Such a rotten, unwarranted flipping of what I wrote.
I criticized Blumenthal and the Clintons. I brought Blumenthal's name into the discussion. I made no excuses for any of them. I didn't "pretend" one God damned thing about them, and certainly nothing favorable.
You're just chapped because I described Trump's own miserable, disgraceful history as a birther.
Don't wait for me to get on the Trump Train, chief. It's not happening. He's probably the lesser of two evils. That is the absolute best you can hope for, from me.
Not at all, Chuck! You could die. Or be struck with a paralyzing stroke. Or, just shut up. All of these would be an improvement over your current manner of participation.
Nobody ever heard of you here before you showed up and started dumping all that puppy-kicking stress on Donald Trump. No one is aware of any valuable remarks of yours on any other topics. There have been none and there will be none.
Bad Lieutenant said...
Not at all, Chuck! You could die. Or be struck with a paralyzing stroke. Or, just shut up. All of these would be an improvement over your current manner of participation.
Nobody ever heard of you here before you showed up and started dumping all that puppy-kicking stress on Donald Trump. No one is aware of any valuable remarks of yours on any other topics. There have been none and there will be none.
Professor Althouse's blog has a tag for me. Predating the candidacy of Donald Trump, by a very long time. Does she have one for you?
"Not at all, Chuck! You could die. Or be struck with a paralyzing stroke. Or, just shut up. All of these would be an improvement over your current manner of participation."
Geez--is this what this blog's comments section has become? I know you're exaggerating but hoping for the death of another commenter over what's nothing more than a difference of opinion is a bit much. It's the spirited and often thoughtful disagreement that separates this comment section from some of the more vitriolic that makes it worth coming here.
Ann Althouse said...I would have expected more exalted dignity and grandeur.
I shall echo several previous commenters and say that, unless your "would" is doing an awful lot of work here, this is a remarkably naive sentence for someone who has been paying attention to this President over the last few years to make, Professor.
I would have expected more dignity from a President than to attack current Justices while they were in the chamber during a State of The Union address, but after Pres. Obama did it once I reset my expectations for him.
Chuck said...Hillary Clonton never once uttered a birther rumor if any kind. Sid Blumenthal trafficked in those rumors, it appears, and he is a loathsome prick. And yes, he is a toady in the quasi-employ of Hillary. Vicarious liability for that? Mmm, okay.
But Hillary has been publicly and personally disowning the rumor(s) for years. If it was a dirty trick by her campaign, shame in whoever was involved.
But of course whatever Hillary Clinton did to advance birtherism (and there is actually no proof of her personal involvement),
Lifelong Republican Chuck is holding out for "actual proof" of Hillary Clinton's "personal involvement." Are you sure you don't work for the Media, Chuck? You know, the Media that says if there's no "smoking gun," no email saying "I'm Hillary Clinton and I want to engage in this corrupt practice" that there just isn't any proof of any wrongdoing?
And quasi-employed, Chuck? This guy was on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation to the tune of $10k/month, Chuck. Here's a Politico article discussing that fact. Hillary herself tried to get him a job AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT! Here's an NYTimes article that talks about that. ["Barred from State Dept employment by aides to Pres Obama"=Clinton tried to get him a GOVERMENT-PAID job but Obama's staff said no.] But yeah, yeah, quasi-employed, that's a fair characterization, yeah. Oh and Ayers was just "a guy from the neighborhood," right Chuck?
Just to add--if "vicarious liability" shouldn't attach to someone who directly worked for and with the Clintons for decades, Chuck, why should Trump have to answer for any statements or actions by current supporters of his who he doesn't pay, doesn't know, and doesn't have any control over? Why is "vicarious liability" something you guys in the Media, er, I mean, you seem to think is appropriate to apply to Trump only? As a lifelong Republican I'm sure you've seen that double standard at work countless times, so it's weird that you appear to be happy to embrace it yourself.
Chuck said...I think it was an inexplicable mistake that she was not the subject of a federal charge in the email scandal.
Did you mean "inexcusable," Chuck, instead of "inexplicable?" It's perfectly explicable; easily, even. It's not a happy explanation, of course, and the explanation/facts aren't healthy for our nation (as a democratic republic with a nonpartisan, fair government), but there's nothing mysterious about it.
Chuck said...Chuck said...
Oh, and Trump may still be a vaxxer. And a truther. He was, as of the Republican debates. Both things. Of all the goofy things for a supposedly important person to associate with.
Howard Dean made some very public truther statements, Chuck, and the Dem. party later made him their leader.
Jill Stein is pretty up front about being a "vaxxer," although of course it's all about "just asking questions," etc.
Just a data point or two, you know, for "a supposedly important person."
Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Donald Trump.
That is the lowest bar in the history of "supposedly important people."
YYYYYEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!
Hoodlum; I'll stick with "inexplicable." And I'll respect your own word choice. If part of your explanation is that Comey was bribed/threatened/coerced into submission to the Clintons, I have a hard time with that. But you are welcome to your own opinion. I'm serious about that. I'm not being rhetorical.
Now, as to your own ridiculous rhetoric; yes, Sid Blumenthal was a quasi-employ of Hillary Clinton. If you are an employee of the Clinton Foundation, you are not formally an employee of Hillary, but you are (in my view) a quasi-employee of Hillary. I don't have a clue as to why you'd fight me on that, unless you are so obsessed with flyspecking everything I write because I had the nerve to criticize Trump.
Finally; I don't ever remember trying to pin any liability on Trump, for idiotic things done or said by his surrogates. Trump does and says so much idiotic stuff on his own, there's no need. (I did criticize Corey Lewandowski, a lot, but that was never much of a vicarious issue for Trump. Trump said his own stupid shit about all of that.)
Chuck, my man Chuck, come on. Quasi? The guy got checks, checks presumably signed by a Clinton. He's worked for the Clintons for decades. Quasi? That's silly, man. That makes you look silly. He worked for her.
There's no smoking gun proving he shopped the birther story around because Hillary told him to. You can hold to that, fall back to that position, and no one can prove otherwise. Isn't that good enough? Why muddy things up with "quasi," Chuck? It makes your own position look so very weak.
Look, I get the rules are different w/the Clintons. Someone on twitter said it well: with the Clinton the evidentiary rules are similar to what they are under sharia law--you gotta have several unrelated eyewitnesses, etc, or it's just not true. Fine, ok, stick with that--no one can prove Hillary Clinton asked her loyal aide and long-time employee Sid Blumenthal to spread birther rumors about candidate Obama. I agree!
But let's drop the "quasi," ok?
Post a Comment