September 18, 2016
Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway holds her own in hostile territory on the Bill Maher show.
Kellyanne Conway has gone on Maher's show for 20 years and the 2 are friends, which puts Maher in a somewhat strange position. He confronts her — she's "enabling pure evil" — but he also respects her so much that he's enabling her, so by his lights, he too is "enabling pure evil." Conway smiles throughout and her statements are all clear and tough (that is, Trumpish). It's a great watch. Don't miss it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
196 comments:
You cannot be serious, Professor Althouse.
Trump's biggest problem is that his statements -- the ones that matter -- are so unclear. Just like this latest flap about taking away the guns of Hillary Clinton's security detail. (And the birther thing and etc. etc.) And of course the things that Trump is clearly "tough" about, are things that will never happen. (A border wall, etc.)
Trump took a good conservative argument, one that smart conservative gun rights proponents have used before, about the general hypocrisy over guns for self-protection, and Trump butchered it, with a stupid -- and unclear -- comment about seeing what happens to Hillary.
Trump is THE WORST -- certainly the most unclear -- public speaker in modern presidential campaign history.
It does not matter, Chuck. The other option is Clinton, Inc.
Oh dear, Chuck. You think Hillary is "clearer" than Trump? Perhaps it is because you cannot spot parsing, lawyer speak and weasel words when presented with the same.
Regarding the whole disarming HRC's bodyguards thing - Trump had an attempt on his life in the very recent past. A rather inept attemp, but a very sincere one. The Feds let the wannabe assassin off with 2 years. I gues GOP lives don't matter.
Hillary "clearer" than Trump?
Your polygraph machine is not working. Send it back.
Hillary is more factual?
I don't think so, Bill.
Oh my. Bill threw softballs and they got hit back. At the end it wasn't that he would invite her, it was acceptance of Trump.
This and Fallon the other day are watershed moments. Hillary is not inevitable. No one can dig deep and find enthusiastic support for her within themselves.
What happens when everyone from the FBI to State, from top to bottom of the whole political arena realizes that they don't have to be afraid of Hillary because she is going to lose?
This Kellyanne Conway clip is Staying On Message for Dummies.
She nailed it.
"You cannot be serious, Professor Althouse."
About what?
Did you even watch the video? I'm praising the performance of a woman on hostile territory.
JAORE what I think is that somewhere, on some show, Trump saw or heard somebody talk about the hypocrisy (long a part of the general gun rights debate) that left-wing politicians, lefty celebrities, and other assorted gun rights opponents all have armed security details and bodyguards, public or private as the case may be.
It's not the best and not the most important argument in the gun rights debate but it is certainly out there. I know it; I know what Trump was trying to communicate. It was a valid observation, and a minor argument that is vaguely useful to the cause of private self-defense gun rights.
What was completely stupid -- and vintage Trump stupidity and opacity -- was his own line (no doubt unscripted and a nightmare for Trump's handlers) was the line about "Let's see what happens to Hillary."
And for the commenter above; Hillary Clinton was never stupid enough to weigh in on the guy who tried to attack Trump. That is where she is a better candidate. A candidate I will never vote for, but a better candidate nonetheless.
The body guards without guns meme is one that has been circulating amongst pro-2nd Amendment civil rights groups for quite some time. The greatest advocates for disarming the populace seem to be those who have and can afford personal security teams. The comment about doing without those paid security teams is a swipe at the elites who live in gated communities with layers of expensive security that the rest of us cannot afford. The police can't protect us ad have no legal duty to do so. Our only defense is to be properly armed. All the police can do after an violent incident is to take witness statements and assist the CSI team. We're on our own.
The anti-civil rights groups seeking to prevent the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights need to forego their paid security teams to be consistent in their beliefs.
I usually like Bill Maher for his independence and his humor, despite my disagreements with him, but he's let his hatred for Trump blind him and make him into a DNC lackey, peddling their lies and talking points. Which is sad to see.
Who did not realize Trump was simple pointing out Hillary needs the very guns she wants to take away from the average US citizen. I am tired of globalists braying for no boarders and guns for us while surrounded by their security crews behind their bunker walls.
Professor, what I am challenging very simply is the notion that "Trumpish" language is clear and tough.
It isn't clear, when it counts. And it is only "tough" in the sense that he routinely acts tough on trivial and unimportant things, or things that he will never, ever come close to accomplishing. A Mexican wall, a 35% import tax on Mexican-built Ford cars. Etc., etc.
The whole country would become happy again after a few months of watching Kellyanne as Trump's Press Secretary. That was the most charming and intelligent delivery that I've seen since The Professor's last Bloggingheads.
Trump ios the "Fuck You" candidate, so fuck you, Chuck. Say "Hi" to PB&J, too.
Thanks for the Kellyanne post Althouse. She knows how to turn those undecided, and Maher plays right into her with his usual lefty bullshit. Of course he is more interested in getting applause from the lefty audience than turning voters.
Chuck, you are such a bore.
Anne said...
Who did not realize Trump was simple pointing out Hillary needs the very guns she wants to take away from the average US citizen...
You've just made the point that I already accepted. You said it in a mildly effective way. A way that Trump utterly failed to do, because he is so prone to unclear, opaque, veiled-threat sorts of language.
You didn't make a crack about "See what happens to Hillary."
"Kellyanne Conway has gone on Maher's show for 20 years and the 2 are friends"
It's okay to use numerals for the "20 years" but not "the 2 are friends."
I'm actually surprised to see that...
Chuck:
Any luck finding that One True Scotsman?
Darrell said...
Trump ios the "Fuck You" candidate, so fuck you, Chuck.
I get that. He better not be saying "Fuck you" to more than 270 electoral votes.
"Professor, what I am challenging very simply is the notion that "Trumpish" language is clear and tough. It isn't clear, when it counts. And it is only "tough" in the sense that he routinely acts tough on trivial and unimportant things, or things that he will never, ever come close to accomplishing. A Mexican wall, a 35% import tax on Mexican-built Ford cars. Etc., etc."
Well, sure, one could go into adumbrations about how what sounds clear isn't really clear because it's simple and in real life following the simple thing would become complex and how what seems tough isn't necessarily truly tough and often superficial toughness hides a slithering mass of fear and shame and on and on and on. I can do that too, but not all at once and not in every blog post. I need to use words and cannot run down a rathole of qualifications and musing and neither can a political candidate.
"It's okay to use numerals for the "20 years" but not "the 2 are friends." I'm actually surprised to see that..."
And yet it's the rule I've followed on my blog for 12 years. You've never noticed? It's a stylistic quirk I adopted for myself long ago. Start noticing!
Talking heads.
Yannow I'll just pass, A-house. I see a media slob and a PR slob. I've pretty much made up my mind on Trump based on what he's said and done, vs what Cankles has said and done.
And depending on where Ya stop - you'll get better and more informed commentary from the blogosphere and social media.
If you search the blog for, say, the word "two," spelled out, you'll find many examples inside quotes. I don't think you'll find too many in my words. I try to remember to use the numeral every time. I'm not as devoted to 1 for "one," but I do that a lot too.
That really is a good job on a hostile show.
Chuck, Trump has communicated "something" to an awful lot of people. You may not like his style, or way of doing it, but a lot of people do, and he is getting across to a lot of people.
Well - if I were a late night TV viewer, Maher's show would be the last one I would watch. Pretty viciously hard left. Conway stayed charming and on message, regardless of the baiting he was doing.
I think that his comment about the carpet is a window into how leftists like him think. The Chinese wouldn't think twice about walking out, or turning their plane around in a similar situation. It is a question of respect. They knew what they should do for Obama and the carpet, and did it anyway. They intentionally disrespected him before the world, and everyone knew it. It is not that much different from what they are doing throughout the seas around them with all their neighbors, pushing their boundaries. Obama, being at heart a beta male, and not temperamentally suited to the job he has, backed down, or, maybe didn't even try to assert himself. And, when a country disrespects our President, they disrespect our country. China showed that they could get away with it, and won that round.
The dark little secret that Maher wasn't going to mention was that Crooked Hillary would probably have turned the plane around just as quickly as Trump would have. Maybe faster. She has always been sensitive to slights. Too sensitive in my view.
Looks like, after the other apprentices failed, Trump found the right person for the job.
The miserably obtuse never Trumper raises his head and brays his stupidities once again.
Trump is well on his way to victory and one of the immensely pleasing ancillary benefits will be watching the emotional collapse of the lunatic Left and the cucked Right.
So, Chuck. Fuck you. Now, and especially in November.
"Obama, being at heart a beta male, and not temperamentally suited to the job he has, backed down, or, maybe didn't even try to assert himself." The personal slight must have hurt, but the humiliation served the larger purpose of denigrating and weakening the U.S., which has been the primary purpose of O's foreign policy. So he didn't turn around.
"Obama, being at heart a beta male"
Actually he is more Gamma.
Chuck, Trump has communicated "something" to an awful lot of people. You may not like his style, or way of doing it, but a lot of people do, and he is getting across to a lot of people.
Honestly, I get that. It is distressing to me, but I don't expect anybody to care about me. What you need to get is that "a lot of people" will not win back the White House from Democrats.
Isn't this the perfect time to roll out the old (and much-disputed) Adlai Stevenson quote from one of his presidential campaigns in the 1950's; When a woman at a campaign stop told Senator Stevenson that he had "the votes of every thinking person," Stevenson is rumored to have said, "Madam, that's not enough; we need a majority!"
You can say that Trump has the votes of every true-blooded American. I can say that Trump has the votes of very few intelligent Americans. It doesn't matter; what he needs are the votes of a majority. Trumpisms that excite his 35% of core supporters and offend the 65% who see him as doubtful is not a good electoral strategy.
@Ann - interesting quirk. Any rationale behind it? I tend to alternate, mostly using words when the number can be represented by one word, and numerals otherwise, but try to mix it up a bit. But am open to changing.
Somewhat reminds me of the debate where to put punctuation, when you have quotes. In the last firm I worked for, my Bo's was militant about punctuation being inside the quotes, because that is what the Blue Book requires (and he was on law review way back in law school). My view was that if quoting something means that you are copying something, and if you are copying part of a sentence, you aren't copying it's punctuation. So we would routinely go through this thing every time we would work on a document together of him moving the punctuation inside the quotes, and I would move them back out.
I couldn't make it all the way through. Maher is too much of a moron on the matter; the responses to him aren't witty enough and more talking pointish.
"And yet it's the rule I've followed on my blog for 12 years. You've never noticed? It's a stylistic quirk I adopted for myself long ago. Start noticing!"
I haven't, but it jumped out there. I'm not sure why you flout convention but it's your blog.
As far as me noticing:
"Jolene is a composite of 2 individuals"
Happy?
The comment about doing without those paid security teams is a swipe at the elites who live in gated communities with layers of expensive security that the rest of us cannot afford
Michael. Trying to explain something obvious to Chuck is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.
Elegant or not, everyone with an IQ over room temperature knows what Trump meant.
And Kellyanne Conway is one cool customer. Staying on message and being civil about it under pressure. Trump chose well.
She did fine, but I would have preferred if she had turned the questions back on Clinton more - not just pointing out (twice) that the polls are turning around.
"Donald Trump telling lies? Are you serious, Bill? Are you actually comparing Trump's 'Uh, I guess so' about the Iraq War with Hillary Clinton's _solid year_ of lying about her emails, straight-out, over and over, shifting ground over and over as new facts came out showing that her last set of statements were lies? 'We had permission.' 'We turned over all our emails, except a few about my daughter's wedding.' 'We were careful to follow all the rules for classified information.' 'We were fully cooperative with the investigation.' 'We never destroyed any information.' My gosh - studio audience! You're all liberal, right? How many of _you_ don't trust a single word that Hillary Clinton says?"
There are a lot of bitter Bernie Sanders supporters out there - use that.
And Maher agreed with Clinton's statement about "deplorables". Turn it around: "Were they deplorable when they were reliable Democratic votes? Did you despise them then? Did you assume then that their worries about losing their jobs were racism? Or their perception of Islamic terrorism?
And what about the ones who still support Clinton, out there in the Midwest. Do you really despise them too, Bill? Because you don't understand them, they see a lot of things differently from you, and that means they must be evil, deplorable?"
The American rule for quoting is quote it so that it makes sense, and then move the punctuation inside the last quote mark. The Brits omit the last step.
Bill Maher succeeds in proving that he is an elitist asshole. He is the perfect exemplar of the attitude that Trump supporters hate.
I'm still trying to understand how such a racist, hateful, nazi as is Trump, got invited onto the Regis Philbin and David Letterman shows so many times. Did they also enable pure evil? Regis Philbin? Host to pure evil? Really
Dust Bunny Queen said...
The comment about doing without those paid security teams is a swipe at the elites who live in gated communities with layers of expensive security that the rest of us cannot afford
Michael. Trying to explain something obvious to Chuck is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.
Elegant or not, everyone with an IQ over room temperature knows what Trump meant.
I am going to repeat myself, for idiots like you who didn't get it the first time I wrote it. Trump might well have made the argument -- well-known in gun rights debates -- that left-wing politicians and celebrities are hypocrites when they want to reduce the access to self-defense weapons, even as their own private security details are heavily-armed.
The argument works better, of course, it the celebrity context, than in the public official context. It is pretty easy, to call out the hypocrisy of a Barbra Streisand, a Rosie O'Donnell, or a Michael Moore. Especially when, after an anti-gun rant, one of their own armed bodyguards runs afoul of local gun laws.
The argument works a lot less well, in the context of public officials, in which they are protected (for the public good, ostensibly, at least as much as for personal protection) by law enforcement personnel with agency-issued weapons.
I'm sympathetic, if you want to blow off that last part, and say that it is all the same. But that isn't even Trump's problem. Trump's problem is the last bit he added, off-script, in the standard opaque TrumpTrashTalk fashion. It's that part about 'let's see what happens to Hillary if her bodyguards don't have guns.'
That's just stupid. It's incendiary without purpose, without need, and isn't much of a good pro-gun rights argument.
And fuck you, with your personal attack on me, for a point that I already explained an you ignored.
Maher is quite good at asking smarmy, clever questions based on a half truths. His questions are framed in a way that requires the person being interviewed to first expose Maher's half truth, which often takes an unacceptable amount of time. That allows Maher to claim victory and move on.
It is a nasty, dishonest form of questioning designed to avoid productive, truthful discourse.
What a fruitful source of error every half-truth is. - Lautreamont
Tommy Duncan said...
Maher is quite good at asking smarmy, clever questions based on a half truths. His questions are framed in a way that requires the person being interviewed to first expose Maher's half truth, which often takes an unacceptable amount of time. That allows Maher to claim victory and move on.
It is a nasty, dishonest form of questioning designed to avoid productive, truthful discourse.
I agree; but it's a tv show. A show that depends on little more, and nothing less, than ratings. Like "The Apprentice." And "The Celebrity Apprentice."
And most of the time, when it comes to serious things, Bill Maher has to stretch just as far as you say. His enemies/opponents don't give him enough valid material to work with.
But Trump is different. Trump actually sued Bill Maher, just as Maher pointed out. Maybe it was just a publicity stunt on Trump's part. If I were Bill Maher, I would not hide my contempt of Trump (he doesn't) and I would hold a grudge. I would want to call attention to the fact that I was victorious in Trump's ridiculous, bogus lawsuit against me every time Trump's name came up.
http://www.lawlawlandblog.com/2013/04/bill-maher-prevails-over-donald-trump-lawsuit-by-sitting-and-waiting-for-the-donald-to-figure-out-to-drop-it-himself.html
Trump, for his part, acts like the lawsuit and the controversy never happened. Which is simply bizarre. But such is Trump.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-hbos-bill-maher-very-respectful-to-me/article/2570459
The argument works a lot less well, in the context of public officials, in which they are protected (for the public good, ostensibly, at least as much as for personal protection) by law enforcement personnel with agency-issued weapons.
No. The argument, that Hillary et al, should be giving up their security and armed guards works exceptionally well in the context of public officials. The reason? They are the ones who have the power to disarm the rest of us. Not Babs Streisand, Matt Damon etc etc etc. Those are just not so smart actors who got lucky. Why should we listen to them anyway?
The politicians who have the power are the ones we need to give up the security that they want to deny the rest of us.
Do you think that people do not see the hypocrisy of the Al Gores, the Clintons, the Streisands and all the others who want to tell the little people to huddle in their cold unheated houses, to cut back on fuel and to live without any ability to protect themselves, while THEY have multiple mansions as large as some shopping malls, who jet around the world to tell us that using fuel is evil, who have armed security at all times? Do you think that we are unaware of the dichotomy between the favored elites and the rest of us who they think should eat shit and die?
No. Until they grant us the same privileges that they want to retain for themselves, the argument of disarming the political and the connect works very very well.
Trump, as always, is saying what WE are thinking. Sorry he isn't saying on an Adlai Stevenson level for you. However, if you recall. Stevenson lost. Big Time :-)
Chuck, you come across as more the idiot than those you accuse.
You've missed the core point of the implicit argument Trump was making, even if he was mimicking something he heard. And your distinctions between star and politician/public figure entirely misses the point. That public officials have personal body guards that carry weapons, is a tacit admission that weapons can have a positive and beneficial purpose. So why do public officials claim that only they have the right to those benefits? Once again, the elite claim they alone are entitled to benefits but not the little guy.
So, Chuck, are you going to do your job on Election Day, or are you going to ignore all those Hillary pins and posters and people handing out cigarettes and guys you saw an hour ago voting under different names?
BTW Chuck,
"and I would hold a grudge. I would want to call attention to the fact that I was victorious"
These are the words of a very small person.
And if you didn't understand Trump it's because you didn't want to understand Trump.
The reason Drumpf is surging is that his opposition takes what he says as serious, then goes through an academic exercise to refute it. This is meat and potatoes of the flim flambulist. Look at Chuck, the poor little schoolboy boy scout. Look, it's simple. Trump has excited the deplorables, especially the deplorables who normally don't vote. Now that he has walked back the wall and muslim ban and reach out to suburban republican women by kissing afro-americans, he needs to lead the knuckle-draggers to the voting booth, hence the "see what happens" tail wagging the dog. Donald doesn't believe the horseshit he shovels, he just believes that it is the fodder that friend and foe alike will swallow to close the deal in his favor.
Using numerals for numbers in writing is elegant. I was taught to use words (twelve, twenty, a hundred), but the computerish side of me likes the notion of just sticking a 1 or 2 in there once or twice.
Numerals in the middle of alphabetic text probably do jerk most readers around some, but in the modern era of texting, that jerking may be going away.
Quayle: God damn it, you people are stupid! I already conceded that there is some (minimal) utility to the "hypocrisy" argument against celebrities in particular, in the gun debate. I already said, that if you don't accept the public/private security detail distinction, that's okay too.
What the fuck are you all not getting in my writing?
No, the part where Trump crossed the line of civil debate is when he suggested in that fuckhead-from-Queens swaggering kind of faketoughguy way, "Let's see what happens to her."
And when you see it all in context, the "let's see what happens to her" part isn't really the worst of Trump's sloppiness. He's gone back to his pre-Conway language about Hillary wanting to destroy the Second Amendment. Which isn't true and has never been true. He could easily have said the same thing, in an accurate way. That she disagrees with the Heller and McDonald decisions and would like to see the federal courts reverse those decisions.
Chuck:
Where is that One True Scotsman hiding?
Bad Lieutenant said...
So, Chuck, are you going to do your job on Election Day, or are you going to ignore all those Hillary pins and posters and people handing out cigarettes and guys you saw an hour ago voting under different names?
You know nothing about what I have done, or will do, as a Republican National Lawyers Association election day supervisor of poll watchers in Detroit. You know nothing of the real and important electoral issues to Michigan Republicans if you are hung up on that Hannity-level crap. You are some random fuck head on the internet, talking shit. And making unusually nasty and baseless personal attacks on me.
Hillary doesn't want destroy the private right to self-defense? Sure thing, Chuck. Same as those Brits who outlawed self-defense didn't want to do it.
Miracles.
You're a Hillary troll, Chuck.
What the fuck are you all not getting in my writing?
We get it. What the fuck part of we disagree with you are you not getting? It isn't your writing, it is your ideas and your premises. Trump is communicating in a different way than you approve of.
"let's see what happens to her" Is equivalent to let her walk a mile in our shoes. Could he have phrased it in more elegant, politically correct language? Sure. Should he have? Possibly.
Hillary DOES want to destroy the 2nd Amendment to start with. Just look at her statements regarding guns and support for restrictive gun laws. If she gets the chance to appoint like minded Supreme Court Justices it will happen. I'm sure the 1st and many others are on her kill list as well.
So...yeah. Let us see do what would happen if Hillary and the rest had to give up their insulated privileged lives and live like the rest of the peons. (This does not mean that I 'literally' want her to be assassinated) They would go kicking and screaming if they had to live like they want the rest of us to live.
"...real and important electoral issues to Michigan Republicans..."
Yeah! Like making sure Hillary Clinton is elected.
Birkel, what is wrong with you? I just got finished writing what is true; that Hillary Clinton disagrees with Heller and McDonald and would like to see them overturned. Via 12 consecutive years of Democrat nominees to the federal court, it would seem.
And I corrected what is untrue, and what a real Hillary supporter would hammer you and Trump with; that Hillary wants to somehow repeal the Second Amendment.
Actually, the amendment Hillary wants to amend is the First Amendment! She's said so! And the reason is to effectively overrule, via amendment, the Citizens United decision! That same Citizens United decision that Trump, like Hillary, criticized! And that is a kind of a crime against the Constitution and some of our most basic and essential constitutional rights. I'm no Hillary supporter.
Repeal? Nobody wrote repeal, you fucking idiot. They want the "living, breathing" Constitution to be reinterpreted so the Second Amendment is a toothless artifact. They want a positive law interpretation to replace the natural law intention of the Second Amendment.
You're a God damned disgrace.
Chuck, please... That Hillary would greatly curtail the 2nd Amendment is beyond question. What modern Democrat has provided any positive reinforcement of the right to bear arms, on a national level, not a local democrat state rep in southern Pa. Hillary would simply appoint enough Supreme Court justices to heavily restrict gun ownership and simply shrug and say that it wasn't her idea, but gosh darn it all those liberal law firms kept appealing earlier court decisions, and gee whiz, who knew the 2nd amendment was really a state right to have militias, not an individual right, like the other 9.
"let's see what happens to her" Is equivalent to let her walk a mile in our shoes. Could he have phrased it in more elegant, politically correct language? Sure. Should he have? Possibly
Now you're talking. He was sloppy. He said something that lots of hostile journalists and -- much worse -- some voters will equate with a death-wish or even a suggestion that she will be assassinated. He could have made a careful point about left-wing hypocrisy on gun rights and access. He failed. He would have done better, by having a good Republican speechwriter prepare the remark for him to read. He didn't, and blew it by trusting his own weird unscripted instincts. A chance to take a very powerful issue against Hillry (defense of the Heller decision) and screwed it all up.
Todd, are you reading at all? Are you thinking about what I've written, before your knee-jerk reaction?
You are writing to someone who agrees with Heller and McDonald. I understand clearly the legislative and common-law threats to both decisions. They are real threats. A good Republican could articulate those threats in a way that would appeal to gun owners and believers in gun rights, without scaring millions of people with intemperate language.
Read my posts which precede yours, and upon some better reflection on your part you might understand how much I am ahead of you in defending gun rights.
...hostile journalists...
Because letting the enemy determine the terrain of the fight is a brilliant tactic, said Presidents McCain and Romney.
I love her. I want to marry her and leave her all my money.
You cannot be serious, Professor Althouse. Trump's biggest problem is that his statements -- the ones that matter -- are so unclear[ … blah … blah … more blah] … stupid … butchered it … Trump is THE WORST -- certainly the most unclear -- public speaker in modern presidential campaign history.
Translation: Trump made a “good conservative argument,” indeed it would be difficult to claim the contrary seeing as how the same argument has been used by just about every pro-2nd Amendment debater out there, but Chuck doesn’t like the way Trump did it. There’s always something, right?
What Chuck wants is for Trump to use a patchwork of politically correct lawyer terms and phrases, pseudo-legalese, simplified of course for an ignorant public. That’s what Ted Cruz, a fellow lawyer and Chuck’s favorite losing candidate, would do – right? Notice, readers, that Chuck offers no script of his own to illustrate to us how that should be done; I’m curious, aren’t you? Show us, Chuck.
Personally I experience a kind of schadenfreud watching Tapper (and Chuck Todd over at MSNBC) slowly destroying their reputations for fairness and objectivity.
As much as I wish it were not so, Tapper and Todd have nothing to worry about. They’ve been doing this their entire career. The audience they cater to doesn’t use accuracy or objectivity as a measurement of “journalistic” value. As long as they spew the latest PC claptrap about events and individuals they’ll be fine.
BTW, most of the “lies” cited by Maher are easily refuted. Ann Coulter does a serviceable job on some in the interview video at the URL below:
http://tinyurl.com/jp8bmmx
14:50 immigration and Trump
16:30 McCain dustup
20:20 the Khans at the DNC
For a lengthy point by point refutation of the many lies about Trump there’s none better than Stefan Molyneux if you have the time:
http://tinyurl.com/zy8tw8b
He said something that lots of hostile journalists and -- much worse -- some voters will equate with a death-wish or even a suggestion that she will be assassinated. He could have made a careful point about left-wing hypocrisy on gun rights and access. He failed.
Chuck still doesn't get it. The hostile journalists are going to be hostile even if Trump got on his knees and well...you get the picture. It doesn't matter what he says or how he says it, they will never ever give him even a small positive report.
Maybe some voters will make that equation....no taxpayer paid for personal army = assassination. SO? You think they already aren't thinking?
Trump could pontificate and bore the crap out of us with all sorts of lawyerly twisty, high falutin', multi syllabic language, like Cruz did.....or.....he could speak, inelegantly to his base and to potential voters (Democrats and Independents) who also do not wish to have a Queen Hillary taking away the right to bear arms. Some people are single issue voters and often that issue crosses party lines. The 2nd Amendment is one of those non negotiable issues.
He didn't fail. He succeeded with the people that count. He just didn't do the mealy mouth thing that you want him to do.
No, the part where Trump crossed the line of civil debate is when he suggested in that fuckhead-from-Queens swaggering kind of faketoughguy way, "Let's see what happens to her."
That the part of Chuck's talking points where he pretends like he has never before, ever, heard a New Yorker talk, and doesn't have any idea what they sound like or how they speak. His pretend persona has refined sensibilities so delicate that he only hears a brute bully, and feels gravely threatened. On wonders how such a flower could ever accept a ticket to Yankee stadium. He'd be absolutely certain based on what he heard around him that the opposing team and at some games even the Yankee picher himself will surely be dead broke the game reaches the 6th inning.
LOL looks like Grackle and I are reading each other's minds.
"The argument works a lot less well, in the context of public officials, in which they are protected (for the public good, ostensibly, at least as much as for personal protection) by law enforcement personnel with agency-issued weapons."
Chuck I'm a law abiding net taxpayer citizen. My life is more deserving of protection than that of the unindicted grifter, criminal and traitor. I should be getting the armed security detail, not her. Is that too difficult for you to understand? Funny how most people can spot Trump focusing on Hillary's hypocrisy but somehow you can't see the forest for the trees.
grackle:
Proposed speech for Donald Trump ~
Ladies and gentlemen -- and I do mean ladies here because ladies, the daily threat you feel is all too real -- your rights to own a gun for self-defense are at issue in this campaign, and under threat from Democrats.
In the last 15 years, with a majority of the United States Supreme Court nominated by Republican administrations, we have seen at least two important court decisions, affirming the rights of people in Chicago and Washington, D.C. to own a firearm and keep it in their home for their essential protection. We need to expand those rights, not restrict them as Democrats at every level of city, state and national governments are proposing.
Hillary Clinton has taken a lead role in attacking those rights. She has criticized those important decisions. Poor people in Chicago, and Washington, would be stripped of their rights to keep and bear arms as promised by the Constitution, if she nominates judges, and a Democrat Senate confirms those judges, who would reverse our important case law.
And isn't it ironic, with Mrs. Clinton and her celebrity friends who are protected by armed guards at their red carpet film festivals and Democrat Party fundraisers? They would like to deny you that same protection.
Thank you and may God bless the United States and our constitutional freedoms.
Written in six minutes.
Chuck:
President McCain always appreciated your careful parsing.
cubanbob said...
...
Chuck I'm a law abiding net taxpayer citizen. My life is more deserving of protection than that of the unindicted grifter, criminal and traitor.
So you can't see how it is, at any level, we have a public interest in protecting the President of the United States, the members of Congress, federal judges, and indeed elected officials and civic leaders from violence, perhaps inflicted as revenge for difficult official acts and decisions?
Because I already agreed about the hypocrisy in the "celebrity security detail" context. And in fact, I already conceded that there might even be a conceptual difference between an armed security detail guarding Senator Jeff Sessions (who favors gun rights) and Senator Barbara Boxer (who doesn't), but any rational person would have to agree that they are both Senators. Only the level of personal hypocrisy with Sen. Boxer separates them.
You just want me to fall into the rabid mouth-frothing hatred of Hillary Clinton in which it's fun to joke about somebody shooting her without armed bodyguards. Which I am not doing.
I AGREE WITH DEFENDING HELLER AND McDONALD!!! How many fucking times do I have to say that? Donald Trump won't have much of a chance to defend gun rights, however, if he loses in a landslide and is remodeling golf course clubhouses in Southern California in 2017, instead of occupying the White House.
Fucking stop it, Chuck, you fraud. You support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. We get it. You want the scraps in the slop trough that Democrats leave for you.
And the Second Amendment matters not at all to you.
Chuck
"Ladies and gentlemen -- and I do mean ladies here....................."
Thank you for your effort. What you say is correct however..... TLDR. Seriously, you want to bore the pants off of everyone? This is the type of pandering, long winded, typical political speech that basically takes 100 words to convey 10. People are tired of it.
That speech might be good if you are standing in front of a Rotary Club, Chamber of Commerce event attended by others who are also long winded blowhards and who never express an idea that is politically incorrect or which may harm their own personal financial empires. Those guys are trapped by the venue and the creamed chicken lunch they have to face and have to listen to the canned speech.
The media isn't going to let Trump take more than 25 seconds to speak so he has to be direct, inelegant and to the point.
President McCain always appreciated your careful parsing.
"President" McCain might have had more enthusiastic support if he hadn't had his fingerprints all over the BCRA.
But in the end it was President Obama because of the 124% African-American turnout. A probably-unbeatable phenomenon.
That's what makes this election so particularly shitty. That it was so winnable for Republicans. Might still be; but only if Hillary turns into a worse candidate than even her harshest opponents could have imagined. Which will make it all the more regrettable that Trump was the nominee.
No, Chuck, you fucking dumb ass. Your bull shit moral preening cannot connect to people on an emotional level. Policy doesn't drive voters at the margins. It drives politically motivated people like you who support Hillary Clinton.
"@Ann - interesting quirk. Any rationale behind it? I tend to alternate, mostly using words when the number can be represented by one word, and numerals otherwise, but try to mix it up a bit. But am open to changing. "
It fits with an overaall effort to keep things short... an idea of how to be blogging.
The whole time I'm writing anything here, part of my mind is saying make it as sort and punchy as you csn.
That may be part of what I have been admiring in Donald Trump.
Bruce Dern appeared on the Bill Maher show, Bruce's father was Adlai Stevenson's law partner and Adlai was Bruce's godfather. On the show, Bruce said that he was friends with Adlai in his later years. Bruce said that in those years Adlai was depressed and dispirited because he felt his life had been a waste. Adlai told Bruce that he had come to the conclusion that Eisenhower was a better president than he would have been and that his campaigns for the presidency were pointless.......Interesting show. The Dems of that era believed that Stevenson was a great mind, and that Eisenhower was an amiable doofus who played too much golf and let his nefarious staff run the country. We have the testimony of Stevenson himself that such was not his appraisal of the facts.........Dems are of the opinion that intelligence can only be expressed in the way that they express their intelligence. Eisenhower, for example, read Zane Gray novels and did not make witty remarks. Ergo Stevenson was much more intelligent than Eisenhower......, Something similar seems to be going on nowadays. Trump is bright in the way real estate developers are bright. He's hyperbolic, flashy, and always moving to closing. Hillary has never burdened us with any witty sayings, but she's bright in the way academics and lawyers are bright. Her words are measured and parsed. Both have me trouble with the truth, but imo her lies are far more calculated.......In any event, there's no reason to believe that Trump is dumber than Hillary.
Chuck,
I'm basically a lurker, commenting little, usually because I work and most threads have played out by the time I get here. But please, you say you support Heller etc., but work actively against the only candidate to agree with you. I am pretty much a single issue voter on the candidates position on the 2nd Amendment. I think you are smart enough to realize that one Clinton Supreme Court would screw gun owners. If you can't see that, there is nothing more I can say.
Maher: "Oh, I'm getting nervous, but it's not because Trump is good it's because people are stupid." [Audience cheers, of course.]
More undecideds will be persuaded by Conway's charm Maher's elitist disdain.
".... people are stupid." [Audience cheers, of course.]"
Because his audience knows, just KNOWS they are not people.
Well said, William at 11:52.
Trump is bright in the way real estate developers are bright. He's hyperbolic, flashy, and always moving to closing.
Makes me think of Alec Baldwin in Glenngarry Glen Ross
A=Always
B=Be
C=Closing
Best scene in the movie.
Todd Galle said...
Chuck,
I'm basically a lurker, commenting little, usually because I work and most threads have played out by the time I get here. But please, you say you support Heller etc., but work actively against the only candidate to agree with you. I am pretty much a single issue voter on the candidates position on the 2nd Amendment. I think you are smart enough to realize that one Clinton Supreme Court would screw gun owners. If you can't see that, there is nothing more I can say.
Todd, why do you think I don't already get that? What makes you think I am "actively working against" Trump? What makes you think that, after repeating about a half-dozen times on this comments page, that I am in favor of defending the Heller and McDonald decisions, I am a slacker on gun rights?
If you are saying that gun rights supporters are now stuck with Trump, and that he is the best choice between two shitty candidates, and the lesser of evils, I won't argue that. I have never argued that. You cannot find a single word written by me in which I have expressed any support for Mrs. Clinton.
Professor Althouse and I might well agree that we don't see just one Associate Justice resulting in an immediate reversal of Heller, but that's another discussion. I feel your pain. And I don't just fear one Hillary nomination to the Supreme Court, I fear the upshot of three such appointments, and 250 other federal judiciary nominations.
Chuck:
People tend to think the logical conclusions are likeliest. You support Hillary Clinton, concern troll.
William, I also think Eisenhower was a great president and a good political general, a bit like Powell but much, much better,
Chuck's tone is one reason I quit commenting for a time and am limiting my comments to short statements.
That woman does a very good job with Maher, who is a jerk but has a big audience.
I think she has been a good influence on Trump, possibly because she has been successful in her own field. I suspect a guy like Trump is much more impressed with people who are also successful and not by stealing from the taxpayer,
Chuck's granddad in 1940:
I don't support Hitler. I just don't like the aggressive policies of the United States toward Germany.
Further, we need to quit agitating - in such insensitive language - the Japanese Empire. Yes, they raped Nanking, but we must be more circumspect.
You know nothing about what I have done, or will do
And you don't say what you have done or what you will do. I've asked you fifty times and you keep hedging. Makes one think the obvious, which really doesn't need to be written out one more time, does it?
You could just answer the question. Let me phrase it another way. Will you give Trump the same level of support in your role as blabbity blah as you did Romney and McCain and presumably Bush, Dole, etcetera?
As for nasty, you have forfeited all rights by offering physical violence to posters on this blog. I repeat my invitation for you to come to New York and get some.
As for you howling about how you are constantly misunderstood, do you think that ever happens to Trump? You think he is ever prejudged and consciously misinterpreted for ill purposes? It's really literally funny how you offer yourself as a speech writer, and can't get your message across.
"Ann Althouse said...
"@Ann - interesting quirk. Any rationale behind it? I tend to alternate, mostly using words when the number can be represented by one word, and numerals otherwise, but try to mix it up a bit. But am open to changing. "
It fits with an overaall effort to keep things short... an idea of how to be blogging."
It doesn't accomplish what you think it does. you save a few characters but it slows the reading.
"one could go into adumbrations about how what sounds clear isn't really clear"
Shoot. Just love me a high falootin' word like dat.
I don't watch Maher..has he put together and walked through a similar list of Hil's lies?
Does he prefer impure evil over pure evil?
What ever happened to the charge Assange of wikileaks fame made that BM gave 1 million dollars to Hillary? That sure disappeared from the radar screens quick, didn't it kids? BM denied it but I have yet seen anyone dig up the other William Maher in Hollywood california who donated a million dollars to Hillary. I doubt we will hear another thing about this till after the election when BM can fess up "Yeah sure, I did give money to Hillary, but I had to stop Trump!"
Chuck laughably asserted: What makes you think I am "actively working against" Trump?
LOL! Chuck, that is your raison d'être. Whom are you trying to kid??
@Ann - Thanks. At times, I think, and write, more like a lawyer than a blogger, so missed that.
"Bad Lieutenant's" never-ending harangue against me continues...
You could just answer the question. Let me phrase it another way. Will you give Trump the same level of support in your role as blabbity blah as you did Romney and McCain and presumably Bush, Dole, etcetera?
I may not do it at all this year. If Trump is as ham-fisted as he has been in the recent past, whining about "rigged elections," I may decline to serve this year. I am a volunteer, after all.
If I do serve, it will be for the important election of Republicans up and down the Michigan ballot, and not one iota for any personal feelings, pro or con, related to Trump.
I'm just not sure yet, how much personal embarrassment I am willing to endure, with even a tangential relation to the Trump campaign. (And I will never have to have any formal connection with the Trump campaign; it is only with the Michigan Republican Party.)
I think the work we have done in Detroit, Pontiac, Flint and some of the other all-Democrat communities in Southeast Michigan (and they are actually few in number, at least on the scale of Detroit's one-party establishment) is important. It is widely misunderstood. There are loads of false allegations of voter "intimidation." Our work may be essential, in developing on-the-ground election day assessments in the ongoing legal challenge to the straight-ticket voting ban that Republicans passed in Michigan.
So there was never, ever any issue about my personal support of "Romney" or "McCain" in past elections. I may or may not participate this time. If I do, my personal view of Trump is bound to be irrelevant. If I don't, it will absolutely be because I have gotten so personally disgusted with Trump.
Did you even watch the video? I'm praising the performance of a woman on hostile territory.
The contrast in political skills between Kellyanne Conway and Hillary Clinton must be painful for a hardcore Democrat to watch.
mockturtle said...
Chuck laughably asserted: What makes you think I am "actively working against" Trump?
LOL! Chuck, that is your raison d'être. Whom are you trying to kid??
So describe my "active work against Trump." All of it. In detail. Leave out the part about my criticizing Trump personally, on this blog. That needs no summary. I know all of it better than you do. Skip that, and move on to my "active work against Trump."
Chuck spouted: "What makes you think I am "actively working against" Trump?"
Funniest line of the entire post.
Chuck,
The democratic appointees to the Supreme Court all seem to vote together. Another liberal would seem to suggest numerous 5-4 decisions against what I consider basic rights. Goodbye Heller, let's revisit Citizens United. They're not 'settled law' like Rowe Vs Wade which is sacrosanct. Only conservative decisions come back time after time and are always contentious.
Chuck can opine for hours about how he knows what Donald Trump meant and should have said.
But somehow none of us can fathom the depths that are Chuck.
Chuck is legion.
Todd, I do understand the point you are trying to make. You do realize that Trump went through the primary process criticizing Citizens United just as many of the Democrats have; you get that, right?
You don't need to spend any effort convincing me that Heller, McDonald and Citizens United were correctly decided. I am with you on all of them. You do need to talk to Trump and a great many Trump supporters about Citizens United. (Jeb Bush, too! Let's not forget that error!)
I already agreed with you; the one argument I have no answer for, is the "lesser of two evils" argument. Trump is the lesser of two evils, although far less for me than others who might have no connection to the Republican Party. (I think a Trump Administration would do real damage to the Party, almost as much as a Hillary would damage the federal judiciary.)
In the election between Chuck and Trump, Chuck is voting for Chuck.
In the election between Hillary and Trump, Chuck is voting for not-Trump.
The only remaining question is whether Chuck prefers Chuck over Clinton
Birke said: Chuck is legion.
Luke 8:30 "And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him." Maybe that's his problem. ;-)
Chuck mysteriously added: So describe my "active work against Trump." All of it. In detail. Leave out the part about my criticizing Trump personally, on this blog.
So...blogging is not an activity???
"I'm just not sure yet, how much personal embarrassment I am willing to endure"
Now THAT is funny!!
mockturtle said...
Chuck mysteriously added: So describe my "active work against Trump." All of it. In detail. Leave out the part about my criticizing Trump personally, on this blog.
So...blogging is not an activity???
Not much of an activity. And not much work. What Althouse does, is work. Finding source material, editing her choices, creating original posts, maintaining a BlogSpot site, making it attractive and readable. That's activity, and work. (And she does it rather beautifully.)
My simply commenting on Trump's personal stupidity and reckless pronouncements, and reciting his publicly-known dubious past isn't much.
And I already set those terms, and nobody will have anything else to say.
I have something else to say:
Chuck is a Hillary Clinton supporting concern troll.
Re: Chuck.
When you get up in the morning and the first person you meet is a fool, he's probably a fool.
At the end of the day, if every person you meet is a fool, guess what? You're the fool.
Chuck.
Trump can criticize any Court decision as part of politics. He has a list of suggested court appointees, all fine for the most part in my book. Who would Hillary appoint... Neither of us knows, and she's not saying. But I do know that the present Republican hold on the current nominee is only due to the election. Garland would be appointed in a New York second by a Republican Senate just so they aren't derided by the press and labeled as being outside the pale. Clarence Thomas, not so much.
Humperdink:
?
If every commenter on this blog thought I was a fool, it would not bother me in the least. I think it is boring, to make an argument to a willing audience. What I find exciting and stimulating is making the argument to an audience who wants, in every fiber of their being, to reject the argument. To win that argument, and make it hurt.
That's what makes you sharp; making your case to an unwilling audience. You know that they will fact-check everything you say; they will attack you personally and you'll need to moderate your replies; only the best arguments will survive the scrutiny.
I'm not trying to win friends, or build anything, or produce page-hits, or sell t-shirts. I want to win arguments and later be able to say, when I am shown to have been right, "Told ya."
Don't feed the trolls.
Chuck:
By your own metric, having won not a single argument, you are just killing time as a Hillary supporting troll.
Chuck responded: "I want to win arguments and later be able to say, when I am shown to have been right, 'Told ya.' "
Given any thought that you might be wrong in the present?
Todd; yeah, right I know all of that.
Are you comfortable with the way that Trump criticized Citizens United and the way that he criticized Justice Scalia after the Fisher II arguments?
If your answer is, "Yes, I am. I wish that Trump walked all of those comments back, or better yet that he had never been so stupid as to utter them in the first instance. Still, I feel the need to vote for him to prevent the destruction that a Hillary would wreak upon federal judicial appointments..." then, to that I say yours is a hard answer to beat.
Have I now summed up a view that you adhere to?
How many more lies must you tell as you prostrate yourself to the altar of Hillary, Chuck?
Humperdink:
My position right now seems impregnable. I am not predicting Trump will lose. I am saying that he's a bad candidate, going up against someone who may be a worse candidate.
I don't think that Trump will win; the odds are overwhelmingly against him. His negatives are extraordinary. If and when he does lose, I want to kill off his memory along with his candidacy. If he wins (?!) I will want a Republican congress to make sure he doesn't screw things up too badly.
The federal judiciary keeps coming up in these comments today, and in the event of a Trump win I'd expect that the staff and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would go to Trump with a list of judges he can choose from. That would be a good thing. Not to any credit of Trump, of course, but just as something he couldn't completely fuck up.
In the event of a Clinton win, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee would have a monumental task of fighting all the worst nominees that they can. And awful situation, but critical to the nation's future. A bad, lonely fight for those Senate Republicans.
MadAsHell, Thank you, you are correct. I am going to log off and go to see our daughter at her new house. I would only add, that the way things are going, the only Amendment I might consider adjusting would be the 3rd. As long as the soldier brought his own ammunition supply. Might be handy to have around, and I've paid for several male teenagers, so a soldier's appetite should not be burdensome, we buy in bulk.
Don't feed the trolls.
There ya go! I know better. Just had a careless moment of hilarious incredulity.
As a liar supporting a liar, Chuck has an impregnable position.
QED
Blogger Hagar said...
It does not matter, Chuck. The other option is Clinton, Inc.
Blogger JAORE said...
Oh dear, Chuck. You think Hillary is "clearer" than Trump? Perhaps it is because you cannot spot parsing, lawyer speak and weasel words when presented with the same.
Keep on keeping on with you assessments of the Great American Carny Barker, Chuck. Somehow, every Trump supporter is obligated to defend poor, abused Donnie. Why is it so difficult to get anyone to look at Donald Trump pragmatically, without looking for the comparison to Hillary? Here is how I evaluate the candidates. Hillary is bad, bad, bad - a terrible congenital liar. On the other hand, T-rump is bad, bad, bad and a terrible pathological liar.
Have you heard the not-so-funny joke about Country Class America's choice between a Democratic liberal and a Republican liberal? Neither have I! All we hear now is the crap that the campaigns are spewing that will mean nothing after the election but we have millions hanging on every lie from these self-loving idiots. Perhaps things could be shaken up a bit if Gary Johnson were allowed into the debates but the Ruling Class will have none of that nonsense.
And Althouse, your Trump lean has become obvious. Two posts in a row, today.
And gadfly casts his lot with the collectivist Clinton.
I do appreciate the obligatory Gary Johnson reference. Nobody is fooled.
Well, she's a smart woman and what were the points she thought were worth making?
1. When someone assembles one of those litanies of Trump's alleged "lies" they like to chant, answer first that they are cherry picking. Which is true. Then answer one point- they'll cut you off before you get further.
2. When discussing Hillary point out that she is not proposing a vision of America but she is screeching "Run!!! run!!! Donald Trump is coming!!!" Also true - remember that question various people kept asking "Unknown"?, 'why do you support Hillary?' A question that was never answered.
3. Bring up the polls - this surprised me. If you want to reach the suburban voter, bring up Trump's rise in the polls. Why does Kellyanne do that? Of course, if you do bring up polls then people like Maher start talking about how stupid American voters are. I heard the same thing on Chicago radio yesterday. Or perhaps a rise in polls means 'take this seriously' to a lot of people who are just now tuning in.
Chuck: That's just stupid. It's incendiary without purpose, without need, and isn't much of a good pro-gun rights argument.
Chuck, this is exactly why people laugh at the "lifelong Republican". You jump on every ginned-up Democratic/MSM bullshit concern-troll maneuver in the cuckiest way imaginable, taking your marching orders from them on how the trivial bullshit or risible porkie they've pulled out of their butts today is the most! important! issue! in! the! world!
Every fucking one. Every fucking time.
Still a lot of squid ink, Chuck, but at least you're trying. You are BTW missing a chance to inform an attentive audience what exactly it is you do do, which might be interesting, but that's up to you. Making yourself understood is not your long suit.
You're welcome to quit. If you're going to do the job, do the job. Whatever that is.
Trump, for his part, acts like the lawsuit and the controversy never happened. Which is simply bizarre. But such is Trump.
Republicans rely on the voting public having memories and attention spans at least as short as their own are. Actual knowledge and facts generally work against them. I suspect this is what Trump-supporting Republicans LOVE about Trump. If he said or did something and it backfired, or caused a problem, and there's no way around it or to back out of it, just deny it ever happened. Or pretend it never happened.
Trump is the pomocons' truly first post-truth candidate. Reality and truth is what we want it to be. Otherwise there is no American dream. Denying reality, even the reality of your own indefensible actions, is the first order of business. American conservatives simply cannot reconcile reality with inspiration in any other way. Deny that the limitation ever existed. Your character is whatever you pretend it to be. Your psyche is just a tool you shape to smash anyone who doesn't comply with what you want.
They are the ones who have the power to disarm the rest of us. Not Babs Streisand, Matt Damon etc etc etc.
Oh for chrissake. No one - and I mean NO ONE gives a fuck if hicks in the hills of rural South Calibamistan have nothing better to do than to pick out a collection of guns that surpasses the number of teeth remaining in their easily rattled heads. Gun homicide violence is generally an urban problem anyway, and urban and suburban voters know this and vote accordingly. Gun suicides, OTOH, just might be more of a rural problem, but we don't care about that. It's a phenomenon that best exemplifies just how self-defeating the gun nut lobby is. In a tragically hilarious/ironic way.
Like the Darwin Award that was presented to the dude that used a bullet to fill his car's fuse box, and shot his testicles out. The problem solves itself.
Actual knowledge and facts, like Obama and congressional democrats blowing up health care insurance markets in hopes of instituting single payer, centralized government insurance that is guaranteed to be costly, inefficient and deadly, are not misunderstood by conservatives, "Rhythm and Balls".
Birkel is just immoral enough to consider a decrease in the uninsurance rate by nearly 40% to be a "factually" wrong thing to do.
R&B, how can we take you seriously on "facts" when you spread bubbe meisses about bullets and testicles? Ammunition doesn't behave like that without a chamber to contain the pressure.
"Rhythm and Balls" is credulous enough to believe that bull shit statistic without considering the 30-45% rate increases year over year.
Is that pathetic?
Sorry, Lt. I wasn't aware that it was retracted. That's what happens - a lie can go halfway around the world before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on. As conservative/Trumpian Americans who probably take seriously the idea of a two-thousand mile wall that Mexico will pay for, you should know this. Either way, I"m pretty sure that the major point about the staggering gun suicide rate (and hopefully accident rate!) is still true, and therefore definitely worth celebrating. So look on the bright side! I thank gun nuts for doing their part to make America safer.
"Rhythm and Balls" is credulous enough to believe that bull shit statistic without considering the 30-45% rate increases year over year.
Is that pathetic?
Are your rates going up? I'm glad for that. It's the least that can be done, given how much you approve of screwing over those who lack any insurance at all. The rates are just increasing to match your own level of overuse. Oh well, at least now you might learn to appreciate what you so willingly wish to see so many others deprived of! It's all good. Use it less, and then the rates will go down again. Now you know how it feels!
Shorter Birkel: Care about ME! Not people who have even less than ME! It's all about ME! ME ME ME ME ME ME ME! FUCK THOSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN HAVE WHAT I'VE GOT! I'M THE IMPORTANT ONE HERE!
Yes, Birkel. We can see. Now pay up, BITCH! Ha hah aha ahahah aha hahaha. I love it when bullies cry. Birkel the Crybully. Taking others' lunch money and then whining to the teacher when he's taxed for it. Too funny. I rejoice with much schadenfreude at your moral imbecility.
You're not even close, "Rhythm and Balls." I do not live in Illinois so my rates are not going up 45%.
It is poor people who are hurt first by government. Swing and a miss for you.
But I do enjoy seeing you in your true state. You are filled with envy and hate. Sad.
Does seem agitated doesn't he. Unlike Ann, you won't make a bitch move when I tell you that it's not a good look, R&B.
But I do enjoy seeing you in your true state. You are filled with envy and hate. Sad.
Am I? Tell me again your true feelings about the uninsured? Or do you have yet to come out of your anti-working class hatred closet and admit them?
It's ok. We know how you feel. The only accomplishment you're capable of feeling is when people with even less than you experience misfortune. Again, I'm sure there's something you're losing out on, as a wanna-be "poor person." Or just some dipshit who appointed himself their spokesperson.
So whom else do you like to speak for? Or are you actually poor, yourself? (I realize you consider this in itself a "trick question," as you have too much false pride to give an honest answer and clarify what your actual stake is, if any. But that's to be expected. If it weren't for the bearing of false witness, there would be no right-wing in America. It's easier to invent issues when you don't have any actual stake in them, and the American right-wing has quite a political imagination).
Geez, Birkel - where did you go? I thought a real man like you would stand up for your insistence that we prioritize the price of health care over preventing people from dying by not having it. Don't you have the courage of your convictions? Or are you too much a politician to get honest and let everyone know what your gripe against the uninsured is all about?
Do let the comments section know, Birkel. Remember, you don't "own" the country after all. And you can't pretend that you did and just decided to "lease" it to the special interests.
It's interesting to think what Trump will do when he claims such independence from special interest and then his great slave, Birkel, gets all confused and speaks up for the downtrodden insurance industry executives.
Sorry, I was doing the backstroke in my pool of doubloons with Scrooge McDuck.
Let's have you expose the Great things government has solved, ever. Name them.
Well, the GI bill solved the problem of us not having a middle class. But we all know that you hate the middle class, right?
SSI brought down the problem of seniors in poverty. But I guess you hate the idea of seniors not being in poverty.
Medicare solved the problem of uninsurance in the elderly population. But you prefer your elderly Americans to be uninsured, I take it. Why not? You're a fan of uninsurance in general, it seems.
The Union solved the problem of a breakaway treachery trying to found an empire of slavery to compete with the labors of free people. But I guess you think slavery is under-rated.
The Voting Rights Act helped solve the problem of racist state governments restricting the franchise on account of race. But I guess you're a fan of that.
The TVA developed energy in Appalachia, so you've got to hate that.
The Manhattan Project made us an unrivaled power that could end global fascism and gain all the glory and prosperity of the world for decades. So don't forget to hate that.
Or our role in WWII. Lots a rich isolationist business shits of the sort you prefer to be running the government now were also against that. Alf Landon, for one.
We also had a revolutionary government end the yoke of British colonialism. Guess that's got to go.
Can you introduce me to the dog who relieved himself and filled your skull with all that feces?
Can you name as many privatization schemes that improved what they replace? Granted, you're already wrong in your premise - but I can't argue with someone who refuses to admit that he just thinks lacking a resource (insurance) is better than having it. I guess Our Dear Leader Adam Smith wrote commandments about how only the rich should have things, and these commandments can't be broken.
Give up when you're behind. You're getting even further behind each time, already.
Birkel - if you hate the government so much, why don't you just go ahead and write them a letter explaining how badly you'd like to overthrow them. (Despite the fact that your Master, Trump, would obviously be using the government if he were to go through with his "wall"). Address your proposal to:
U.S. Secret Service
Office of Government and Public Affairs
245 Murray Ln,
Washington, DC 20223
202-406-5708
I encourage you to share with them your feelings on overthrowing the U.S. government, and how important you feel it is to rally others to your cause.
You managed to cite zero legitimate examples, beyond military matters. Try again?
I will not. Are you going to take Medicare and Social Security away from the seniors who obviously prefer it to the tender mercies of whichever other monstrosity you'd like to leave them to? Tell them that things were better when they lived in mass poverty and untreated illness?
I didn't think so.
Who the fuck do you think you are? Ted Cruz?
Things didn't go so well for him. Massive loser. Got his ass kicked by this guy named "Trump," who now wants to engage in this massive government undertaking on the southern border. And BTW, it's not going to involve "the military."
Have you gotten started on that letter to D.C. on your proposal yet? What are you waiting for? Time's a wasting. The private sector is being massively hindered, HINDERED - I tell ya - in providing the things that market failures keep it from doing - by the government, somehow. And everyone knows how much you supposedly care about all those unreached potential consumers.
Seriously, what do you do for a living and what's your income? You can't be someone who actually exercises the responsibility entailed by any position higher than middle manager or any amount to invest worth more than $10k.
Let us know what your deal really is. Or did you just graduate from Dungeons and Dragons and onto redefining the orcs as "government?"
I agree that government has a legitimate role. It's just that government has a way of expanding itself far beyond the realm of its effectiveness. And each branch has its own power domain which it guards with the resolve and ferocity of a mother bear with her cubs.
Don't worry mockturtle. You're a rational person. Birkel just lacks the capacity to think clearly and has been made some politician's lapdog.
None of what I'm saying would apply to you or any of the legitimate and cogent points or criticisms that I could see you raising. "Birkel" is another story altogether. I would never insult any non-lefty by insinuating that he speaks for all of them. He barely even speaks for himself.
Sad. Really sad.
You seem angry, somehow. Perhaps government can solve that.
If you want to cry, it's ok. I can bring you tissues.
It's not like I'd deny you that sort of basic care, or anything.
Until the Death Panels.
There's a medical remedy for your paranoid schizophrenia, as well.
Go on. Make use of it. Show us what the free market has done for your drastically obvious health care needs.
"I'm not trying to win friends, or build anything, or produce page-hits, or sell t-shirts. I want to win arguments and later be able to say, when I am shown to have been right, "Told ya."
You'll get your chance on election night Chuck. Hang in there, you're one of the few sane commenters here.
Hi, Inga!
Unknown Inga: "Hang in there, (Chuck) you're one of the few sane commenters here."
Insanity apparently is believing:
The Second Amendment means what it says;
Arming and training militant Islamists is a mistake;
A $19 trillion national debt is excessive;
Unfettered immigration across our southern border is unwise;
Continuous growth of the GDP of less than 1% is not indicative of a healthy economy;
Hillary's obsession with avoiding transparency does not justify her illegal conduct;
A "charitable trust" ought to give more than 6% of its intake to charity;
Democrat race-baiting is intended to obscure meaningful policy discourse;
Trump's campaign BS does not outweigh Hillary's 25-year history of betraying the public trust; etc.,etc.
Chuck is not sane. Like you, he is a demented rumpswab.
Chuck,
Yes, I suppose it's ok to have a little security for the president (though I greatly prefer Teddy Roosevelt's and Harry Truman's approach.)
But Senators? Why? They're as expendable as any other citizen, or so I would think. We have a whole hundred of them at any given time, what's give or take one or two?
And apparently at least one Senator agrees with me--I cherish the memory of standing around in the lobby of the Arlington National Cemetery visitor center, in September 2006, and realizing that standing just a few yards away was Sen. Orrin Hatch--who was with a couple other people, neither of whom could be remotely mistaken for any kind of security personnel. My admiration for the Senator took a bit of an upswing that day.
What strikes me is that, like many anti-Trumpists, Bill Maher refuses to put the same critical spotlight on Hillary Clinton.
A few weeks ago, while at a non-Political social event, I got sucked into an argument with an anti-Trumper who trotted out the "Trump Lies" trope. I brought up a specific Hillary lie that was related to policy and his response was, "This isn't about Clinton." I reminded him that the vote was between Trump and Clinton and repeated the story of Hillary's lie, to which he responded "I didn't know that."
I made more points and asked more questions. It soon became apparent that this guy knew absolutely nothing about Hillary Clinton.
I've met other people like this and am left wondering if some people just enjoy hating at a visceral level.
The "Trump lied" trope is necessary because Crooked Hillary and her husband have been lying to the American public on an industrial level for a quarter century now. They need to equivalence Bill's sex disclaimers and her statements about cattle futures, billing records, Madison Federal, Whitewater Land Co, the White House travel office, hundreds of illegally acquired FBI files on Republicans, sniper fire, Benghazi, the video, her email server, classified documents, pay-to-play with the Clinton Foundation and State Dept favors, her health, etc, with something, anything, to lessen the reality of their duplicity. What we see time and again is Trump using humor to make a point, whether it be hyperbole, sarcasm, irony, parody, etc, taken completely literally and out of context, treated as if it were a lie. Crooked Hillary may have lied repeatedly about her email server, but Trump using hyperbole, or whatever, is apparently supposed to be a far worse assault on the truth. But it isn't working, because the left has been at this too long. Remember "Bush lied, people died" about WMD in Iraq? He didn't, and f course, but that wasn't the point.
Trump's biggest problem is that his statements -- the ones that matter -- are so unclear. Just like this latest flap about taking away the guns of Hillary Clinton's security detail. (And the birther thing and etc. etc.)
What's unclear about it?
If you think Americans should not have guns for self-defense, then you should eschew the ARMED GUARDS you have protecting you. Take away their guns before demanding everybody else give up theirs.
It's been a regular comment for years when gun-grabbers who hire armed security details demand more strict gun control laws.
Trump had attempts on his life during the campaign. Hillary has had her horrible health.
Chuck, the press is about soundbites. They won't let conservatives do nuance. So you make the comment and then make the nuance later. But the comment is what draws the attention.
Chuck’s hypothetical Hillary attack:
Ladies and gentlemen --
Bland, conventional opening. Kiwanis Club meeting? Book club luncheon? Chamber of Commerce, perhaps? You are speaking at a Trump rally, not a Lions Club meeting.
and I do mean ladies here because ladies, the daily threat you feel is all too real -- your rights to own a gun for self-defense are at issue in this campaign, and under threat from Democrats.
Why introduce a competing argument? Why mention anything at all to do with the concept of rightwing feminism and the idea of women’s right to bear arms? This campaign is NOT about gender – if it is about gender, Hillary WINS. Speak of Hillary gender-neutrally, as a person, not as a female.
In the last 15 years, … [blah, blah … blah … more blah] …. at every level of city, state and national governments are proposing.
Let’s not talk about Hillary and her personal hypocrisy. Instead let’s muddy the waters with other arguments(never developed in this script) about the SCOTUS, cities wracked by violence and disorder because of perpetual Democrat regimes and how the Democrat Party is always trying to restrict 2nd Amendment rights.
All true but which complicate and obscure what should be kept simple and elegant: Hillary has guns protecting her. Take away the guns and what would happen?
What do we Trump rally attendees get after waiting in line for hours? Nap time.
Hillary Clinton has taken a lead role … [Z,Z,Z – snore – Z,Z,Z] … reverse our important case law.
More competing concepts; more nap time.
And isn't it ironic, with Mrs. Clinton and her celebrity friends who are protected by armed guards at their red carpet film festivals and Democrat Party fundraisers? They would like to deny you that same protection.
Finally, we get around to attacking Clinton more directly instead of wandering around in the weeds of the many pro-2nd Amendment arguments and other side issues. Not, however, without the unnecessary interjections of “ironic,” “film festivals” and “fundraisers,” which I am guessing are a couple of Chuck’s personal pet peeve examples of anti-gun hypocrisy.
Speaking tip: Curb the impulse to say, “Such and such is ironic.” Describe that which is ironic in simple, vivid, real-life terms, as opposed to “lecturing” or “telling” and they will see the irony on their own.
Thank you and may God bless the United States and our constitutional freedoms.
Amen
Chuck lives in his lawyer bubble so he likes to argue as if he was presenting a closing argument to a jury, replete with numerous examples, evidence, arguments, etc.
I much prefer Trump’s method, which is poetic as opposed to Chuck’s discursive technique.
Trump’s mode of speech is blunt, brawling, raucous poetry. Trump is Charles Bukowski. Chuck is a lawyer.
so grackle you prefer Trump saying that "Hillary wants to do away with the Second Amendment," which is a lie, and musing about what might happen to her without her armed bodyguards, which forces the Trump campaign onto the defensive for three days?
"Hillary wants to do away with the Second Amendment" is a perfectly adequate summary of Hillary's position on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
Kirk; no it isn't, and by saying so you walk right into a scathing reply from a guy like Tim Kaine who can make the case that it is untrue.
And in fact it is untrue, and the 4-judge minority in Heller -- not to mention a law prof like Ann Althouse -- would credibly say, "No, it is not that simple."
You, like so many on this blog seem to prefer the simplistic and inaccurate argument. The soundbite. Perhaps because you are stupid (I think not), but rather because you think Trump voters and potential Trump voters are stupid. Because why else wouldn't the correct argument be required?
Do away with // gut <-- Dem fave
Do away with // neuter
//etc
Big deal, Chuck. Humans understand what he said.
As for the defensive about the bodyguards comment, says who? The push back just allows the campaign to restate the argument in different ways including with the effete language you prefer. Speaking of which, Chuck, as anti-gay as you are, you sure do talk faggy. Hmm...
I'm not anti-gay. I am pro-constitution.
Justice Roberts, in his Obergefell dissent:
"If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
I confess that I am not as pro-gay as Donald J. Trump and his family of Manhattanites. Most Americans are not as pro-gay as the Trumps.
@Chuck: '"Do you believe that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?" ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Democrat Hillary Clinton on Sunday's "This Week."
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation," Clinton said.'
"IF it is a constitutional right, then ...?" Spin that, Chuck. Then imagine Trump saying: If equal protection is a constitutional right, then ...." "If emanations from [various] penumbras are constitutional rights, then ...."
Makes you want to dookie your progressive drawers, doesn't it?
Chuck now reveals that, in addition to his other rhetorical shortcomings, he has no idea what the word 'summary' means.
Oh fuck you hombre.
Here's one for you. I am imagining Donald Trump saying that the First Amendment is subject to reasonable regulations. So we can keep "donors" from rigging the system. And that Citizens United is a questionable decision.
But wait; Trump actually hired David Bossie out of the Citizens United leadership. So maybe Trump has changed and he now supports Citizens United v. FEC. Or just maybe Trump habitually just says whatever bullshit pops into his head.
For the record; because you seem like such an ignorant little turd with your "progressive" taunts, I opposed the BCRA from the start (Mitch McConnell was the great leader of the opposition) and I loved the result in Citizens United v FEC.
Kirk, it is a lie! The Democrats do not want to "do away with the Second Amendment." You'd know that, if you read all the decisions in Heller.
I like the Heller majority decision. Written by Scalia, naturally. The same Associate Justice who was disparaged by Trump after the Fisher II arguments. I am just better-read, better-informed, smarter more careful than Donald Trump.
Neither did those British or Australians wish to take away guns for self-defense.
Am I right, Chuckle headed Chuck?
" I am just better-read, better-informed, smarter more careful than Donald Trump.
You write gooder English sentences too.
Birkel you are naturally one of those commenters too ignorant and too determined to brand me (ridiculously) as a progressive. All for the one and only reason that I am a critic of Trump.
I am pro-gun rights. Pro-Citizens United. Pro-textualist. Pro-originalist. Pro-small government.
Trump, for all of his bluster on gun rights, was in favor of the federal assault weapons ban as late as 2000.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/27/donald-trump-in-2000-i-support-the-ban-on-assault-weapons/
Well since you wrote it on the internet, I can be sure it is true.
This is a low trust environment, Chuck. Nobody here believes you.
You support Hillary Clinton in word and deed.
Go fuck yourself, you asshole. I don't support her. I won't vote for her. I don't want to see her win.
Meanwhile, my support for Senator Cruz is a matter of open record on this blog.
As Cruz is not a candidate in the presidential election, I am left with but one option. And that option is not Hillary.
Yes you do, Chuck. You're not fooling anybody.
They hell they don't!
It's true that some Democrats don't want to do away with the right to keep and bear arms (Harry Reid used to be among them, and John Dingell, and some others).
But it's also true, very sadly true, that plenty of Democrats want to do away with the right--and for the most part, they are willing to leave the text of the 2nd Amendment in place, because they realize the almost-impossible task of getting rid of it via the amendment process, and are almost as happy to gut it via judicial means whereby it is most redefined out of existence in practical terms. DiFi is the perfect example of this, but there are others and Hillary is definitely among their number.
I stand by my summary, and say that if you aren't a troll or moby, then at best you're a useful idiot on this issue.
Blogger Chuck said... "Oh fuck you hombre. [Trump. Trump. Trump.]"
Well played, Chuck. A scintillating rebuttal in the face of Hillary's iffyness on the right to bear arms.
"For the record; because you seem like such an ignorant little turd with your "progressive" taunts..."
"Taunts?" Seriously, you pompous ass? You are here promoting the election of Hillary Clinton to continue the reign of the most progressive president in our history. Nobody gives a shit what you say about your motives or your past politics.
Oh, I get it. "Look at me folks. I'm here promoting, albeit indirectly, a progressive candidate, with progressive objectives, who is supported by progressives. But verily, I am a lifelong Republican and conservative." I'm walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, but....
Whaddaya mean, fuck me? Fuck you!
You're welcome to your summary and your opinion, Kirk. It's just wrong; it's a lazy, shorthand oversimplification that leaves you open to criticism from our opponents on gun rights.
You want to press this, it seems, so show us the text of any constitutional amendments that have gotten broad support from the Obama White House or Democrats in Congress. That's the simple way to figure out if anybody wants to actually do something to the Second Amendment.
Do that, or else shut up and leave me alone.
Best Chuck response available:
"I'm not a Hillary supporter. I'm just a butt hurt sore loser who would rather watch Hillary be elected than watch the Republican apple cart be upset. And fuck everybody who disagrees with my whiny, petulant dickishness."
But Occam don't believe that bull shit.
Constitutional Amendments? That's your standard of proof, Chuck?
You are a dimwitted simpleton if you believe that is necessary in the age of Pens, Phones and a Living Constitution.
But you don't believe that. You just support Hillary Clinton for president.
btw; it is precisely my point and has been all along, that Democrats DON'T propose to do anything to the Second Amendment. They just want to reverse Heller and McDonald, both of which involve major Second Amendment impacts, without touching the text of the Amendment.
They do not want to "do away with the Second Amendment."
"...if you believe that is necessary in the age of Pens, Phones and a Living Constitution.
"
This. Look, just for one tiny example, at the recent trial balloon from the ATF regarding redefining smokeless powder ingredients as high explosives, which would have basically ended the domestic production of small-arms ammo.
They do not want to "do away with the Second Amendment," said the Hillary supporter.
"without touching the text of the Amendment."
You f'n idiot, that IS the point: they will happily leave the text there as an empty shell that offers no practical protection of any kind to the rights of ordinary citizens. Yes, yes, anyone with half an ounce of sense will call that "doing away with". That statement is NOT incompatible with the possible postscript "while keeping a bit of pretense to the contrary."
Kirk, then you agree that there is a better argument. You just made it. It is my argument. Trump should be talking about the reversal of Heller and McDonald, instead of wading into an inaccuracy like "doing away with the Second Amendment."
Do you prefer that Trump lie, just to appeal to voters too dumb to understand the details, instead of making an intelligent, accurate case?
I think it is hilarious, how you and I agree about the nature and validity of the gun rights side of the argument, but you insist on going with the simpleton (and wrong) argument instead of the accurate argument.
You are like those liberals who don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and don't care. It's all in the service of the argument, no matter how wrong.
Presidents McCain and Romney agree that the unemotional appeal to pure reason through the careful parsing of language is a better approach.
Keep fighting the good fight, Chuck, the Hillary supporter.
Birkel said...
Presidents McCain and Romney agree that the unemotional appeal to pure reason through the careful parsing of language is a better approach.
Trump, the spiritual leader of the post-truth generation.
Trump, the spiritual leader of the post-truth generation, said the Clinton supporter.
Every statement you make gets that addendum. You're like a fortune cookie. But instead of "in bed" one must add "said the Clinton supporter" because it makes the statement true.
Chuck,
Go away, or I shall taunt you again.
As a one-line, high-level summary, it is NOT wrong.
Kirk; I've lost interest in trying to convince you of a good, smart, intelligent pro-gun rights argument that you'd rightly and naturally find agreeable.
Instead, I'll just remind you again that your favorite orange-haired, fat-assed, golf-cheat presidential candidate was the one and only person in the Republican field this year who once favored the federal assault weapons ban.
Take that out into the field this fall with your hunting pals and fellow gun rights enthusiasts.
...said Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.
Chuck,
I don't know who you are, or where you are from.
All I know is that (a) you're AGAINST Trump more than you're FOR anything, and (b) you keep trying to convince us that a complicated, detailed, technical argument is the way to win a rhetorical fight. (The fact that you don't--or won't--recognize it's a rhetorical fight is Yet Another Strike against you.)
I don't expect any of the following to make the slightest impression on you, this is for the lurkers who might not be sure which side of our argument is better:
The stuff you are talking about is stuff we talk about all the time, inside the circle of gun-rights advocacy.
I'm not just an NRA member, I have some of their training certifications.
I'm not just a 2nd Amendment Foundation member, I'm a life member.
I know (in the sense of having personally met with, in real life) most of the significant players in the WA State open-carry and gun-rights movements.
I know who Alan Gura is, who Clayton Cramer is (and what part he played in discrediting Michael Bellisiles and getting him fired from Emory University, do you know this?) I know who Dave Hardy is, and have read his book about Waco. (I've never meet Cramer or Hardy in person, but I correspond with them frequently.) I know who Gary Mauser and Gary Kleck are, and have read their stuff, and Jeffrey Snyder are, too; do you?
On the personal level, I've trained quite a few people to shoot, helped a number to buy their first firearm and to get their WA state concealed pistol license; and have worked with my local range to develop pistol-training and pistol-range-qualification standards, and to present training opportunities for real-life defensive pistol skills.
These are some of my bona fides in the overall gun-rights movement. What are yours?
And the people I work and associate in this arena with talk about the detailed, technical stuff all the time. But what we do NOT do is think that the detailed arguments about minor issues are the way to present the issue to the general public. "Billionaire Out-of-State Michael Bloomberg wants to take away your gun rights" gets the sort of attention that a great, technically-detailed paper from Cato does not.
You're talking to me like I was a Democrat, and a gun rights opponent. I am a lawyer, and a gun owner and hunter. Oh, and a Republican. A Party volunteer.
I don't think my personal credentials, or yours, mean anything in this debate. We both apparently agree, on the importance of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Your technical expertise with guns doesn't work with me, because I don't challenge anything about that. You can save that for somebody who opposes gun rights.
My gripe is that Trump continually emphasizes a lie -- that Democrats want to do away with the Second Amendment -- while you seem to be comfortable with that lie, in the interest of fighting the good fight for gun rights.
I don't like stupid/false arguments. And again, because I feel as though I hit a nerve with this; your support for Trump's proclaiming that Democrats want to do away with the Second Amendment is as legally stupid and as phony and as false as a gun-grabber who thinks that you should not have an "automatic" weapon.
"I don't like stupid/false arguments"
That's your whole stock in trade here.
Chuck: you can't seriously think you're going to elevate the discourse up to your exacting standards. I'd rather talk about arguments that matter (i.e., will influence significant support affecting the outcome). Selectively going rigorous-rational in this context is silly. There are always huge gaps between the campaign and what's actually possible+good.
'Most people make decisions based on feelings, emotions, bias, previous behavior patterns, etc, and then, after-the-fact, they use their intelligence to rationalize the decision, and the higher the person’s IQ, the more sophisticated—but ultimately misleading and deceptive—argument they would make for why they made the decision.
And then there are people like me who are unusually rational.'
- Lion on an NYT article
"...your favorite orange-haired, fat-assed, golf-cheat presidential candidate...
"I don't like stupid/false arguments."
Compare and contrast the statements that Hillary supporter Chuck has made.
"I don't support her. I won't vote for her. I don't want to see her win."
--Chuck, this thread
"More than anything, I hope that this is the election that wipes out...Trump..."
--Chuck, last thread
Chuck, I guess you don't do criminal law. But I guess if you did, you would think it very clever to defend a rapist thusly:
she's lying through her teeth, because she claims that he raped her, and his semen was only found in her anus and mouth.
For people who are equally gobsmacked as any person of honesty and sense would be, the law in its majesty says that sodomy and buggery are separate crimes from rape, rape being vaginal penetration.
Then Chuck says aha! I have defeated you! You said anus when you meant rectum! Lying liar lies!
That's where you're at, Chuck. I don't know if it works in your line of business, but it works nowhere else.
"I don't like stupid/false arguments."
Then quit making them.
What is "pure evil" if you don't believe in anything eternally transcendent and everything is relative?
Post a Comment