Hey @realDonaldTrump I oppose civil asset forfeiture too! Why don't you try to destroy my career you fascist, loofa-faced, shit-gibbon!Toto, I've got a feeling we're not subject to Rule 19 anymore.
February 9, 2017
"Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career."
Said Trump, and another state senator, Daylin Leach, promptly responded:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
106 comments:
Challenge likely accepted.
S*it-Gibbon? Should I be embarrassed that I don't know what this reference is? Do I dare google it?
45 has found him a feisty opponent. I can't wait to see the cage match. Twitters at dawn.
Originality in invective. It's a rarity.
This is not the same State Senator threatened by Trump. That guy - a Repiblican from Texas - put out a much more adult statement.
One thing Trump's loose mouth has brought us: you can now call the President of the United States anything you want.
I wonder if this will persist into subsequent Presidencies.
That's racist! Oh, wait. New white president. Never mind.
Daylin Leach is just repeating an insult directed at him, previously.
OMG. When you look up"orange faced shit gibbon," you will find that the only definition in every source is "Donald Trump."
"...you fascist, loofa-faced, shit-gibbon!"
What happens when someone from Pennsylvania attempts Authentic Western Gibberish.
I am Laslo.
Ha ha you type g into google and it auto completes "gibbon."
"Said Trump, about Pennsylvania state senator Daylin Leach"
According to the linked article, Trump didn't say that about Leach. He said it about the Texas state senator.
Leach just jumped in with his colorful insult.
"Shit-gibbon" has an entry in Urban Dictionary that pre-dates Leach's use of the term. (It's still Trump-related.)
It is:
Shitgibbon
General insult....moron, idiot, Donald Trump in particular. (Origin: Scotland)
We voted to remain, you incomprehensible shitgibbon!
by TooBloodyRight June 24, 2016
"According to the linked article, Trump didn't say that about Leach. He said it about the Texas state senator."
Thank you. Will fix.
I assume he means gibbons are prone to regurgitation. Not sure. I've seen other primates do it at the zoo.
Curious George, Google's auto-complete is user+browser-specific.
Ann Althouse said...
"Shit-gibbon" has an entry in Urban Dictionary that pre-dates Leach's use of the term. (It's still Trump-related.)
It is:
Shitgibbon
General insult....moron, idiot, Donald Trump in particular. (Origin: Scotland)
We voted to remain, you incomprehensible shitgibbon!
by TooBloodyRight June 24, 2016
2/9/17, 7:50 AM
-----------
Ann going the extra mile. Nice.
Leach jumped into the fray like a drunk redneck into an alligator bayou...
I hope Trump gets a better understanding of this issue. I doubt that he really understood it when he made that comment.
When they go low, we go hig,,,,uh, oh, f-it. WE go lower!
Good chance the eminent domain lovin so called President will embrace civil asset forfeiture when it is explained to him.
"you can now call the President of the United States anything you want." Any GOP president. But that has been true for some time.
Trump is on the wrong side on flag burning and might well be on civil asset forfeiture too.
You can't have to insult him to change his mind however, when the issue comes up.
What is fascist about destroying careers? The left loves to destroy peoples' careers and livelihoods.
Trump *face palm*
Apparently Gibbons mean The Less Educated monkeys, and so what they like to fling monkey poo. It's what they do.
What we seem to have then is classic projection, accusing DJT of what the critics do.
So far, I think President Trump's position on asset forfeiture is the only big disagreement I have with him.
It is unAmerican and repugnant. It should be illegal at the federal level and should be illegal at the state level.
I am sort of OK with seizing the money etc when arresting someone. But if they are not charged, they get it back. Right away. If they are charged and not convicted, they get it back. Right away.
"Sort of OK" because I still think it is wrong to seize it but may be justified as not wanting evidence to disappear.
What we need to do is legalize marijuan at the federal and state level. The experience in California over the past 15 years or so and in CO and WA more recently, has shown that recreational use is just not a big problem.
John Henry
“Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career,” Trump replied, according to Politico.
That's a quote? Sounds more like hearsay.
Let's not skip over the substance here. I'd bet to fight the cartels in Texas, asset forfeiture in the drug war is probably a lot more substantial than in Pennsylvania. I'd imagine law enforcement is at a disadvantage.
Didn't the liberals in Austin have Rick Perry arrested on bullshit? And isn't the name of the game in today's political arena to destroy your opponents career?
The grandstanding one-ups-man-ship among liberals is amazing.
Trump has ushered in a new area through his Twitter insults. Funny how all those who are 'better than him' seem more than willing to follow his lead.
Pacing and leading?
@NamelessStateSen Can anybody come after you or just the POTUS? What's your address, tough guy?
So far, I think President Trump's position on asset forfeiture is the only big disagreement I have with him.
I have to think there is a back story. The point about Mexican drug cartels may well be part of it.
The champion of civil asset forfeiture was Loretta Lynch in New York State as US Attorney.
Civil asset forfeiture is an abuse by the government. Unless the government tries and convicts the owner of the property the property should not be seized and sold. Freezing the property until the trial and conviction is one thing. Seizing and selling without a conviction is just legalized theft.
I thought it was bad when President Obama joked about having the IRS go after political opponents. Everyone laughed, though; "it's just a joke, lighten up Hoodlum, stop blowing things out of proportion in a racist, hateful way." Okay.
I think it's bad for President Trump to joke about going after a political opponent, even though "destroying his career" in this case could mean just using legitimate influence to target or pressure the politician in question (and not to illegitimately use the power of the IRS, etc). What am I supposed to say to people who now say "this is evidence of fascism, be outraged!" Hey guys, it's just a joke, right?
Trump would be a better President if he could govern himself better (w/r/t expected/traditional manners), but I guess that would detract from his "Trump-ness" so maybe it's a bad idea for him politically.
Michael K: I have to think there is a back story [to civil asset forfeiture]. The point about Mexican drug cartels may well be part of it.
The champion of civil asset forfeiture was Loretta Lynch in New York State as US Attorney.
Could be that there's more to the civil forfeiture stuff in Texas (I'm not up on it), but there's no doubt it's a pit of abuse and corruption elsewhere. So good for the Senator(s) - let's bring it out and fight about it.
Reading of American history will show even more uncivilized behavior. Fist fights broke out on the Senate floor, lots of name calling, shootings. We're just going through a phase and will probably swing back to 'civilized' eventually.
Step 1: craft an insult at some hated figure of the other side that has capacity to go viral
Step 2: profit
I'm not a political candidate but can see the quickest ladder to success. Nothing is now "beyond the pale" when used towards Enemy Number One.
Anyone want to run for office? I can be your consultant.
"Reading of American history will show even more uncivilized behavior. Fist fights broke out on the Senate floor, lots of name calling, shootings. We're just going through a phase and will probably swing back to 'civilized' eventually."
The high point was Sumner getting caned nearly to death by a congressman. We haven't gotten there yet.
Talking about loofah faces
Has Dana Milbank checked Daylin Leach's spelling?
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a many splendored thing. Many an investigation into a vice business waits a few years so the culprits can accumulate more loot. Then they bust them.
The abuse is in the area of cash being carried somewhere by innocent businesses.The cops steal it and pretend there was "Money Laundering" going on, because they get most of it. As a result they even catch Speakers of the US House of Representatives in their web.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a fancy name for theft.
A government lawyer who knows who signs his checks sez: But ordinary civil forfeiture is not a punishment, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in his majority opinion today. He said the Federal forfeiture statutes the Government uses in drug cases, "while perhaps having certain punitive aspects, serve important nonpunitive goals," like encouraging property owners to make sure their property is not used for illegal purposes.
What a fucking doofus. That's a lot more worser than any gibbon stuff.
Here's a statement from Konni Burton, the Republican state senator who was possibly the target of Trump's threat (the sheriff in the call with Trump didn't give a specific name, so there's no way to be sure.)
"I have never met with Sheriff Eavenson, nor even heard of him before yesterday. However, I take exception to his comments on asset forfeiture reform.
"While I certainly want law enforcement to have the tools necessary to combat large criminal enterprises, we must be vigilant to safeguard the rights of everyday citizens from potential abuse. Do not be mistaken or misled: this is not strictly a law enforcement issue; this is a property rights issue.
Property rights are one of the foundational rights in any free society and the taking of property by government is no small matter.
"Requiring the government to secure a criminal conviction before permanently taking property from citizens is simply commonsense. We would not stand for anything less when it comes to our personal liberty or freedom; why should we allow our property to be taken so easily?
"We should not diminish the constitutional protections guaranteed for all in the 4th and 5th Amendments to more easily punish criminals. On the contrary, we should defend these protections more fiercely than ever so they are strong for future generations.
"I will not be discouraged nor deterred. The moment for reform of our system of asset forfeiture has arrived. Please join me in this effort."
Daylin Leach is my state senator. He is total asshole leftist IMO and epitomizes the political divide in this country. He recently hosted a "Resistance" night at a local school and over 700 people showed up to be prepped on how to resist Trump. Keep in mind this Resistance meeting was in one of the most prosperous counties in the country: ranks #66 in the country and #2 in the state according to household income.
It's funny how congressmen are just noting the illegal activities of the federal government must be hitting close to home for this guy
Trump threatening to ruin someone using his power of the Presidency, are you people proud you voted for this man?
Trump threatening to ruin someone using his power of the Presidency, are you people proud you voted for this man?
I want to know the backstory of this but yes, I am proud to have voted for him.
Are you proud you voted for the influence peddler whose son-in-law's hedge fund just collapsed due to the loss of corrupt influence ?
First, he stood his ground against JournoLists. Then he stood his ground against judicial activists. Finally, he stood his ground against social justice adventurists, environmentalists, and other political interests. A reform of the legal economy is inevitable.
"Trump threatening to ruin someone using his power of the Presidency, are you people proud you voted for this man?"
I wouldn't use the word "proud". But you didn't give a lot of people much choice.
My pride in Neil Gorsuch is waning as we speak. He is a flaming liberal pretending that he is unique strict constructionist. But he is only strict when he can overrule a Conservative outcome and please the left.
It is always bad to so crassly say things in public that have always understood to be said in private. Don't think Bush and Obama didn't like wise wish to defeat their political enemies.
"Trump threatening to ruin someone using his power of the Presidency, are you people proud you voted for this man?"
Yes, Will Robinson.
Haha; more Gorsuch-wailing from the Trumpkins.
Gorsuch was a brilliant pick and a "home run" when he was Trump's choice. But a few words of (richly deserved) criticism wherein Gorsuch called it "dispiriting" and "disappointing" to hear Trump trash federal judges, and that's all over.
AND NOW, WITHIN THE HOUR, WE'VE GOT A NEW TRUMP OUTRAGE. Trump calls Senator Richard Blumenthal a liar for having reported Gorsuch's words.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-idUSKBN15O1K4?il=0
But Blumenthal is going to be questioning Judge Gorsuch, under oath, in the very near future. We know what Gorsuch is going to say. Blumenthal knows; the Gorsuch handler chosen by the White House (Ron Bonjean) knows. Senator Kelly Ayotte knows.
This is such vintage Trump. He gets challenged by somebody, and immediately goes on an attack and not just an attack but a personal -- basically purely personal -- attack. Trumpkins like Steve Bannon probably think it is a winning formula. You start to make the story about Blumenthal's military record, and you give the Trump base something else to talk about.
All the while, Trump lies in a way that is so bewilderingly bald, that it almost defies belief.
>>The cops steal it and pretend there was "Money Laundering" going on,
Not usually. They test the cash and find some drug residue on it, thus it is contraband.
Left unmentioned, of course, is that much (90% is one estimate) of the cash in circulation has some drug residue on it when you get down to tiny fractions of a micro gram.
I'm a former street cop, and I agree that much of civil forfeiture is theft by the police.
"Gorsuch was a brilliant pick and a "home run" when he was Trump's choice. But a few words of (richly deserved) criticism wherein Gorsuch called it "dispiriting" and "disappointing" to hear Trump trash federal judges, and that's all over."
Chuck, I'm not one to see everything Trump does as political brilliance like Althouse does, but you might want to look at this in terms of practical political implications. On the surface, Trump looks like a foolish idiot, but it doesn't really matter--he doesn't face the voters for a while, and right now his prime interest is getting his nominee cleared (facing a filibuster from Dems, and McConnell having to nuke the filibuster).
So now look at this--Gorsuch speaks to Blumenthal and Sasse and disapproves of what Trump is doing, demonstrating independence and showing that he won't be a rubber stamp for the Trump administration. This makes him look better in the public's eye, particularly the public that the Dems will have to listen to. Trump continuing to bloviate over Gorsuch makes Gorsuch look even better to them! His confirmation became slightly easier, with both playing their parts well.
Maybe Trump bungled into this move, maybe it was orchestrated, but either way it helps his nominee get through.
Chuck said...Haha; more Gorsuch-wailing from the Trumpkins.
Chuck, my friend, take a deep breath. "Trumpkins" is argumentative. Trump nominated Gorsuch and there is an excellent chance Gorsuch will be a Supreme Court Justice. You like Gorsuch. I like Gorsuch. What's the problem? Gorsuch gave an opinion on Trump's tweeting and the Dems and Media want to blow that up into a big deal. It's not a big deal. Why would you want to help them make it a big deal, Chuck?
Trump has a thin skin--possibly thinner than Obama's which would be an impressive feat (my suspicion is that Obama was able to govern himself better so took the same offense but didn't lash out publicly like Trump does). Many Trump supporters have very thin skins/react as though they're being personally attacked when Trump is insulted, etc. Some of that is understandable--these are mostly decent people who've been denigrated as hateful, ugly racists for years now, etc--and some of it is an unhealthy fixation on Trump as the Big Man (again, much like Obama supporters).
This is all pretty well understood, Chuck. I get that you feel like you have to tweak Trump supporters constantly as a response to them insulting and attacking you over your insufficient support of Trump...but at what point do you become indistinguishable from some Dem or Media Trump foe, latching on to any and all "news" to use as an attack, however silly, against Trump?
I'll ask it again: why would you want to make this dumb story over what Gorsuch said to a Dem. Senator a big deal? Don't do the Media's work for them, Chuck.
I'm pretty sure shitgibbon is racist. You wouldn't use that with Obama, and live to talk about as a politician.
>>I'm pretty sure shitgibbon is racist
Some shitgibbons are more equal than others.
Brando, let's be clear. Trump, we know, has let his cabinet nominees testify in their confirmation hearings as they see fit, according to their consciences, and not in accordance with Trump campaign claims.
It worked. So far, anyway, with no letup in sight. They are, one after another, going to Capitol Hill and disagreeing with Trump on all sorts of policy issues. And it is working. I don't think that any of the nominees are lying; I think that they all have disagreements with the worst and most extreme of the Trump Twitter outrages. And that overall policy will reflect their views, and not the extremist Trump statements.
I think that Gorsuch will be much the same. I expect Gorsuch to publicly disown Trump's worst insults concerning the federal judiciary. I expect Gorsuch to testify like any mainstream Republican court nominee (Alito, Roberts, etc.) and not like a "Trump judge," whatever that might be.
I don't buy this business about Trump strategizing Gorsuch's way through the Senate by promoting criticism of himself. When the hell has Trump ever countenanced any criticism of himself? And why now call Senator Blumenthal a liar?
The easy explanation is the simple and direct one: Gorsuch really is disappointed and dispirited by Trump's trashtalk; he really did say those things, and he means it, without any prompting; and Trump really is hacked off by this new controversy, and Trump's response is the usual one -- attack Senator Blumenthal personally, via Twitter.
It's not strategy; it's pure reactivity.
"Gorsuch speaks to Blumenthal and Sasse and disapproves of what Trump is doing, demonstrating independence and showing that he won't be a rubber stamp for the Trump administration. "
This is naivete, if what is reported is correct.
There are no friends or personal judgement involved here. It is a pure place, with no relevant matters other than pure political calculation. Whomever approves or opposes anything in Washington does for reasons of power, or of personal gain either narrowly or more broadly considered.
Everything else, including any matters of ethics, duty, or aesthetics, are pretexts and camouflage. Within those circles it is a pure conflict, free of such distractions. The only reason it is not carried out, in public, in complete frankness is the naivete of the public.
No, buwaya-unlike the Ds, the Rs often fail to replace a perfectly compliant judge. They often are independent, which is somewhat OK, and sometimes even "grow in office" or in other words defect. Or, we never really knew them. Ds play the game so much better. Who was the last D justice, or even judge, that disappointed them?
@Brando, first of all I don't think that Althouse regards Trump as brilliant as much as she's expressing respect for an individual who is wildly underrated by the denizens (other than herself and Meade) of her Madison-based bubble. He does seem to be thinking three moves ahead at times, maybe four. Fortunately his opponents are so predictable that thinking three moves ahead is relatively straightforward. Dumbocrats back in Dubya's day insisted that President Bush was an ignorant dolt manipulated by genius Karl Rove. But Rove has scarcely demonstrated much in the way of tactical political brilliance in the elections of 2008 and thereafter, has he? That isn't stopping Dumbocrats from trying the same gambit with Trump, putting Bannon in the role of the new Rove. Isn't working anymore.
Second, I agree with you that a lot of Trump's alleged "bungles" do seem to work out, don't they?
Hoodlum; I think that Gorsuch's (honest) criticism of Trump helps him get confirmed.
As for the rest, I am not here to help. I'm not part of Team Trump. I don't want to build anything with him. The sooner he is dead, or out of office, the better. In the meantime, as a "blunt instrument"*, Trump is a useful idiot. I wanted to see Jeff Sessions and Betsy DeVos get confirmed. I want to see Gorsuch get confirmed. There are some policy things, and a great many judicial nominations, for which Trump can be useful. Gorsuch is one of them.
I do not understand Donal Trump's lying, about Senator Blumenthal's reporting, what Judge Gorsuch said, or how Trump's lie of today helps get Gorsuch confirmed. Trump has made this story all the bigger.
Hoodlum, one more thing; I am no more of a "Democrat," than Senator Kelly Ayotte or Senator Ben Sasse.
"Hoodlum; I think that Gorsuch's (honest) criticism of Trump helps him get confirmed."
But this will not actually sway any of these people. They have no capacity for personal judgement or sentiment outside of their power game. You need to see past the human skin and realize that they are game-playing machines. They very rarely permit themselves humanity.
"Gorsuch speaks to Blumenthal and Sasse and disapproves of what Trump is doing, demonstrating independence and showing that he won't be a rubber stamp for the Trump administration. "
This is naivete, if what is reported is correct.
There are no friends or personal judgement involved here. It is a pure place, with no relevant matters other than pure political calculation. Whomever approves or opposes anything in Washington does for reasons of power, or of personal gain either narrowly or more broadly considered.
Everything else, including any matters of ethics, duty, or aesthetics, are pretexts and camouflage. Within those circles it is a pure conflict, free of such distractions. The only reason it is not carried out, in public, in complete frankness is the naivete of the public.
"The easy explanation is the simple and direct one: Gorsuch really is disappointed and dispirited by Trump's trashtalk; he really did say those things, and he means it, without any prompting; and Trump really is hacked off by this new controversy, and Trump's response is the usual one -- attack Senator Blumenthal personally, via Twitter."
That may be, but the result is the same. This gave Gorsuch an opportunity to score points in his own favor, Trump gives it additional play (wittingly or otherwise) with his complaint.
Mind you, I think Gorsuch is making it to the court no matter what, but a slightly smoother ride doesn't hurt. Trump's antics are a mere distraction.
"Second, I agree with you that a lot of Trump's alleged "bungles" do seem to work out, don't they?"
If they help the conservative cause, he can bungle away. Notice right now the talk about Gorsuch is "ooh, he's got a problem with Trump and Trump is freaking out" rather than "have you noticed Gorsuch will do [insert rightwing policy that should horrify the Dems]". I think the word "popinjay" comes to mind.
buwaya;
Whether or not Blumenthal's vote will be changed from "No" to "Aye" on the Gorsuch nomination is not critical for me. I do think it helps. Last night, Blumenthal said much the same for himself.
I just like it. I like someone like Gorsuch, taking Trump down for his stupid remarks.
btw, Rush Limbaugh is tied up in knots over this story. He has devoted an hour to it. He is alternating sentences between saying things that I agree with, and things that are demonstrably untrue.
buwaya said...
This is naivete, if what is reported is correct.
There are no friends or personal judgement involved here. It is a pure place, with no relevant matters other than pure political calculation. Whomever approves or opposes anything in Washington does for reasons of power, or of personal gain either narrowly or more broadly considered.
This argument is similar to the homo economicus debacle, it ignores the fundamental irrationality of humans.
So now look at this--Gorsuch speaks to Blumenthal and Sasse and disapproves of what Trump is doing, demonstrating independence and showing that he won't be a rubber stamp for the Trump administration. This makes him look better in the public's eye, particularly the public that the Dems will have to listen to. Trump continuing to bloviate over Gorsuch makes Gorsuch look even better to them! His confirmation became slightly easier, with both playing their parts well.
Exactly this. Gorsuch showing independence of thought is nothing but a positive for his nomination. Trump complaining about it is even better.
Whether it is true or not, I like to think that Trump may be playing the "long con".
Dust Bunny Queen:
Okay, so it is good for Judge Gorsuch to criticize Trump, on grounds of basic civility and rational common sense. Got it.
So how is it good, for Trump to whine that Blumenthal was lying about the original story?
I don't think it is any brilliant strategery by Trump. I think it is Trump's basic sociopathy.
but at what point do you become indistinguishable from some Dem or Media Trump foe, latching on to any and all "news" to use as an attack, however silly, against Trump?
About three months ago....
So how is it good, for Trump to whine that Blumenthal was lying about the original story?
I didn't say it was "good" in a right thing to do sense. However, it may be effective in switching some people on the fence to appreciate and like Goresuch more and speed up or at least make his nomination process quicker and less contentious.
That would be good.
Whether Trump planned this or not the effect may be good. Or....as my husband's grandmother says....sometimes even a blind hog stumbles on an acorn.
This is fake news. The originator has conceded that they have no idea what Trump said nor any context.
Confirmation bias plays another hand.
Dust Buuny Queen:
Again, if it is a mark of Judge Gorsuch's independence, and if it is calculated good sense (in the eyes of Senate Dems) to criticize Trump, then why would Trump claim that Blumenthal got it wrong?
I don't get it. Either it is clever (in which case Trump shuts up about it) or it really was taken by Trump as a terrible affront, and Trump wants to fight it. (In which case, I suspect, Trump is going to lose the argument, and badly.)
Especially, when Gorsuch will be under oath very soon, to be asked about this matter?
"I don't get it. Either it is clever (in which case Trump shuts up about it) or it really was taken by Trump as a terrible affront, and Trump wants to fight it. (In which case, I suspect, Trump is going to lose the argument, and badly.)"
Chuck, think about this though--if Trump had actually reacted with "I understand that's Judge Gorsach's opinion--I disagree with it but that's fine, it is important that we have checks and balances in our system. In fact, the Judge may have a point and I will consider my words more carefully in the future"--not only would the media freak out, but everyone, you and I included, would wonder what the hell was going on. The jig would be up!
Joe;
Please be specific. What do you mean, "[t]he originator has conceded that they have no idea what Trump said nor any context..."?
Blumenthal confirmed it, numerous times. White House staffers and assignees were in the room and confirmed it. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NM) confirmed it.
Chuck. You DON'T get it. Let me try to 'spain it.
Think of all these supposedly smart legislators as really still being on the level of junior high nitwits.
If Gorsuch isn't sucking up to Trump who is the outsider (new brash kid in school) but who has some power, then those kids who don't like Trump will have more respect/liking for Gorsuch.
When Trump whines about it...the kids who hate Trump and don't want him to sit at their lunch table are now really pretty happy about this because...they hate Trump. So it makes Gorsuch even more popular. They might even elect Gorsuch to be part of their clubhouse or let join them at their lunch table because....they hate Trump and Gorsuch stood up to him....or so they think.
Now, whether any of this is true is immaterial. Gorsuch may actually be disheartened by Trump (I think that he probably IS given what I've read about his character) or he may be playing the role so he can be part of the gang (pass the nomination process).
Trump may actually be outraged and is flailing around calling names....OR....he is playing the game, pretending, to get everyone on Gorsuch's side and Trump gets what he wanted in the first place.
Did you go to a private school? or were home schooled? Human nature doesn't change much from the junior high state to the professional adult state. We are just able to hide it better but the motivations and emotions really don't change much.
Brando said...
...
Chuck, think about this though--if Trump had actually reacted with "I understand that's Judge Gorsach's opinion--I disagree with it but that's fine, it is important that we have checks and balances in our system. In fact, the Judge may have a point and I will consider my words more carefully in the future"--not only would the media freak out, but everyone, you and I included, would wonder what the hell was going on. The jig would be up!
No, Brando. Respectfully, my friend, I suggest to you that if Trump had let it go, it would have been just like the testimony of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Mike Mattis and John Kelly, where they publicly disagreed with Trump on a number of serious policy issues.
True Trumdom:
...
...Now, whether any of this is true is immaterial.
...
"This argument is similar to the homo economicus debacle, it ignores the fundamental irrationality of humans."
Not of humans, of politicians. Politicians at this level are a distilled substance.
"No, Brando. Respectfully, my friend, I suggest to you that if Trump had let it go, it would have been just like the testimony of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Mike Mattis and John Kelly, where they publicly disagreed with Trump on a number of serious policy issues."
Not so sure a about that--those nominees were differing from earlier statements he made during the campaign, where Gorsuch was talking about a current contentious lawsuit. Seems a bit more heightened, don't you think? Trump's silence would seem out of character.
Not that I think he's playing "3 dimensional chess" (the thing Andrew Sullivan always credited to Obama for whatever looked to mere mortals like goofups), and it's quite likely Trump simply cannot stop himself from lashing out. But the result is sort of harmless at this point.
We don't have to like the guy, but it's the ultimate score that matters. A 49 year old conservative on the court (and one who is in fact independent of the president, another plus) is far more valuable than Trump's rep.
buwaya said...
Not of humans, of politicians. Politicians at this level are a distilled substance.
What is this magical 'distilled substance'? Pure evil? Pure BS? Pure nonsense?
"Whether or not Blumenthal's vote will be changed from "No" to "Aye" on the Gorsuch nomination is not critical for me."
But that vote is all that matters in these things. Everything else is irrelevant. Or worse, distraction or camouflage.
No justifications, no regrets, no displays of emotion, no words, nothing at all matters.
"What is this magical 'distilled substance'? Pure evil? Pure BS? Pure nonsense?'
Pure self-interest.
Right now, Sean Spicer is getting raked over the coals on this story. Spicer is trying to sell the press on the notion that Gorsuch's "disheartening" and "demoralizing" comment was not specifically a response to a Trump comment.
That's just not true.
And Gorsuch is going to get asked about it, under oath.
"What is this magical 'distilled substance'? Pure evil? Pure BS? Pure nonsense?"
See, if we turned this into the hillbilly blog that everyone in the other thread was talking about, we could even share distilling techniques. I have a cop living next door so I'd need to keep it on the QT.
Brando; again(!) I am willing to listen, if someone wants to say that a little pivot by Gorsuch to "reasonable/independent/critical of Trump" is smart for the confirmation process.
But then why does Trump now take a position that Gorsuch didn't really criticize him?
But then why does Trump now take a position that Gorsuch didn't really criticize him?
So that the Dems will be more interested in defending Gorsuch and be even more favorably disposed to Gorsuch because ....they hate Trump and want to prove Trump wrong by stressing even MORE that Gorsuch is an independent thinker.
Geez Chuck. You really don't understand this stuff. I sure hope you don't go shopping for used cars on your own.
"But then why does Trump now take a position that Gorsuch didn't really criticize him?"
Why does Trump do it? He does it because he instinctively has to push back on criticism even if it means stating that 2+2=5, because that's his natural mode. Or (the 3-dimensional chess Althouse theory) he wants to draw more attention to what Gorsuch said. In a way, it doesn't matter what Trump said about Gorsuch (whether he said "Gorsuch is wrong, maybe I'm sorry I nominated him!" or "Gorsuch said something nice about me, Blumenthal's a liar!") only that it gets Gorsuch's words out more. Either way, isn't it the same result? It helps the nominee, with no real cost to Trump.
The next 4-8 years are going to have a lot of this, the best way through it is to just watch the scoreboard and forget about the play on the field.
And Chuck, I do appreciate where you're coming from. I'm not a fan of the guy myself. But for cosnervatives the bottom line is still the bottom line. We don't have to beclown ourselves defending the indefensible but we can take some satisfaction in getting what we want out of it all.
Good God; what you all are saying is that the President's words don't matter. Not even on the most discrete true-or-false factual occurrences. Not even when the upshot of a Presidential lie displays a kind of sociopathic behavior on the part of the President.
If I were Senator Blumenthal, I'd ask Judge Gorsuch, under oath, "Is it true, as I reported to the press, that you used the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" in relation to President Trump's comments about federal judges? Is it true, as I have said, that we engaged on that subject particularly, and that I indicated to you that I would like you to use stronger language of condemnation and to do it more publicly? And finally is it also true that I asked you if I could speak publicly about that portion of our conversation, and you replied that I could?"
"Good God; what you all are saying is that the President's words don't matter. Not even on the most discrete true-or-false factual occurrences. Not even when the upshot of a Presidential lie displays a kind of sociopathic behavior on the part of the President."
They don't matter any more, it's not like he has any credibility. Once you have that baked into the cake, it's just a matter of ignoring his words. Think of it like a performance artist, nonsensing away, with no effect.
At first I was worried that the wrong thing said by him could cause an international incident. But now that his rep is well established, foreign leaders know better than to give his words any weight.
buwaya said...
Pure self-interest.
And thus we return to the imperfectibility of humans. Even if they wanted to act purely out of self-interest their emotions, the complexity of the problem and their lack of discipline would prevent such a possibility.
Why do I feel we've already had this convo?
After the election, wasn't it suggested that Trump's voters ignored what he literally said, while the haters take everything literally?
It hasn't changed.
More concerned about results. Flowery Jaw-jaw always happens, doesn't mean something concrete will come of it.
Cokie Roberts, night if the long faces-"They didn't listen to us."
" their lack of discipline would prevent such a possibility."
The sort of person who gets to this level has a degree of self-discipline beyond most of us. Sometimes it breaks, usually resulting in a politician's self-destruction.
buwaya said...
The sort of person who gets to this level has a degree of self-discipline beyond most of us.
This sounds like some distilled BS to me. Are you familiar with the politicians in this country?
So if indeed it is clever strategy, for Team Trump to feature Judge Gorsuch throwing a few bones to Democrats in the Senate with criticism of Trump, why not just go full-on with that strategy? Why not do a press release for Judge Gorsuch where he does what Blumenthal wants, and makes it a full-throated condemnation of the Trump remarks? Democrats would love that.
So why not do that, if indeed this is a matter of Team Trump strategy in which the President's ego doesn't figure?
Chuck said...Hoodlum, one more thing; I am no more of a "Democrat," than Senator Kelly Ayotte or Senator Ben Sasse.
I understand your prickliness on this subject, Chuck, but I assure you I was not accusing you of being a Democrat. I merely asked at what point your continual attacks in Dem-like ways using Dem-like arguments makes you indistinguishable from an actual Dem/member of the Media. You aren't, of course: you're a life-long Republican who personally voted for Trump. That beats me--I've given only fleeting support to the Republican party (although I usually vote R) and I didn't personally vote for Trump. I acknowledge your superior Repub. purity, without question.
Chuck said...Hoodlum; I think that Gorsuch's (honest) criticism of Trump helps him get confirmed.
A little later:
I do not understand Donal Trump's lying, about Senator Blumenthal's reporting, what Judge Gorsuch said, or how Trump's lie of today helps get Gorsuch confirmed. Trump has made this story all the bigger.
I'm not saying these two assertions are incompatible, but they do seem to have a bit of tension, yeah?
It seems cleaner to say either 1.) that Trump is dumb for making this a bigger story but it will probably help Gorsuch in the end or 2.) Trump is dumb for making this a bigger story and Trump doing that will hurt Gorsuch's chances for confirmation.
Chuck said...f I were Senator Blumenthal, I'd ask Judge Gorsuch, under oath, "Is it true,...
To which Gorsuch says "it is, Senator." And...what? Then what happens, Chuck? The Media has already gone all-in with the Trump Is A Liar stories. This would be proof--is that it?
Look, Politifact rated as True President Obama's assertions that we could keep our doctors if we liked our doctors and we would all save $2.5k/family, what, 5 or 6 times? That first one later became Lie of the Year later, somehow, but I think most people had figured it out by then. I'm not saying "but but but Obama," I am just pointing out that the recent history of the nation has featured some pretty bold-faced lying by our most senior Executive and the heavens did not fall.
Half the country thought GWBush was a liar--criminally so for many. Half the country thought BarryO was a liar--brazenly so. Most of the country thinks Trump is a liar now--snarky CNN chyrons have helped make sure that number is as high as possible.
It's not good of course, but it seems a bit silly to act as though it's some new, unprecedented thing. No?
Blumenthal was interviewed on NPR this morning and said something to the effect that he was concerned that Trump might have litmus tests for his Court nominees (pro-life, pro-2A, something else I forget). I laughed--Hilldozer Clin$on explicitly ran on "appointing judges who will overturn Citizens United." But yeah, Dem. Senators are real "concerned" over litmus tests. Just reeeeeal concerned.
buwaya said...
The sort of person who gets to this level has a degree of self-discipline beyond most of us.
You make politicians sound like a mutant breed of supervillains.
When the Law Schools of America send us our future politicians, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, may be good people.
It only makes common sense. They're not sending us bright people. These are people who failed to make a successful career as a lawyer.
What's in the Iran deal?
Were we lied to to sell it?
Chuck,
Your high level of activity on this site makes me wonder if you have a real life. Maybe you are retired and this is what keeps you energized. That's fine.
What I don't understand is your anti-Trump obsession. It verges on the delusional. Sometimes your emotions are way over the top. WAY OVER!
I reluctantly voted for Trump. He is a loudmouth jerk, but not an Alinskyite like Obama and Hillary. I want him to be successful as my POTUS. Do you want him to fail?
I oppose civil forfeiture in the absence of a conviction, too. Seems like a perfectly rational, supportable position.
Is it reasonable to conclude that government's bully pulpits have been relocated to the school yard or a barely-scraping-by comedy club on open mic night?
Leach represents Main Line suburban Philadelphia. I grew up there. Its elected officials, not so long ago, were sober, press-wary, moderately conservative Republicans. Now we see the likes of Daylin Leach.
Instead of Trump said....
Shouldn't it read Trump joked....?
Seems misleading otherwise.
Post a Comment