Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President. Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019
I'm seeing Trump getting trashed — "Twitter Lampoons Trump for Apparent Trail of Tears Joke Aimed at Elizabeth Warren" (Mediaite).
"The joke here is that the Trail of Tears was a genocide. Get it? Get it?"I'll just say 4 things:
1. Trump only wrote (yelled) "TRAIL." He didn't say "Trail of Tears." His haters are zeroing in on the Trail of Tears and insisting that's what he meant to refer to and that's what he thought was funny to say. It seems to me that "trail" is a more general term and a term that relates to Native Americans. It's that more general meaning that makes the specification "of Tears" understandable. It's as if these anti-Trumpsters have never heard of the Great Trail or the Natchez Trace.
2. If Trump's opponents really do feel empathy toward those who suffered in the Trail of Tears, why are they bringing it up to score political points? They're taking something weighty and somber and throwing it around gleefully, because they think they got Trump. Is that a smirk I see on their face?
3. Trump got his opponents to repeat his tweet. They are making it viral, because they think they are hurting him, but they are spotlighting Elizabeth Warren's worst problem and helping to insure that when we think about Elizabeth Warren, we think about her problematic use of the claim that she's Native American.
4. The Trump antagonists are giving us another example of the harshness of the left's demands. Whatever you say may be presented in the worst possible light. It seems that if anything can be portrayed as racist/sexist/homophobic, it will be, and you can be ruined in an instant in the America they have created and want to control. It's scary.
Posts
221 comments:
1 – 200 of 221 Newer› Newest»Anything you say may be presented in the worst possible light. It seems that if anything can be portrayed as racist/sexist/homophobic, it will be, and you can be ruined in an instant in the American they have created and want to control. It's scary.
And they are never going to change as long as those tactics work on people like you as they did in the Kavanaugh and Covington attacks. Notice how no one on the Left has paid a price for their bad acts in those cases? Until they do, the Left will never stop.
Having a great grandfather who guided settlers on the Oregon Trail (in the late 1840s) and who later drove cattle up the Chisholm Trail in the late 1860s, I'm sorta surprised that Ms. Althouse didn't mention those. And if I lived in Alaska (and I never have) I could mention the Chilkoot Trail.
I laughed at Trump's self-reference. This guy's rubber and his opponents are glue.
Pochahontas remains in heap big trouble. Still stumbling over her DNA-infused presidential roll-out.
Warren will not be the nominee, so who cares?
Opponents make blanket statements.
The Indians in South America walk in single file, at least the one I saw did.
- the problem with empiricism
As has been observed here before, the guy has a natural and remarkable sense of humor, and he deploys it so effectively.
Also, to clarify:
1. It is despicable that Senator Paleface lied about her ethnic heritage to get unearned professional advancement at the Universities where she taught.
2. It is not despicable to tease her about this, particularly when she publicizes her DNA tests showing a 1/1024 Cherokee heritage.
My first thought was maybe Trump was "always kind of partial to Roy Rogers actually."
Happy TRAILS...
Some trails are happy ones,
Others are blue.
It's the way you ride the trail that counts,
Here's a happy one for you.
Happy trails to you,
Until we meet again.
Happy trails to you,
Keep smiling until then.
Who cares about the clouds when we're together?
Just sing a song, and bring the sunny weather.
Happy trails to you,
Until we meet again.
Warren is the kangaroo the cartoon, a kangaroo hiding in a crowd on a city street corner, with a boomerang flying by: somehow he felt the boomerang was meant for him.
Kliban or Far Side cartoon, probably.
"Having a great grandfather who guided settlers on the Oregon Trail (in the late 1840s) and who later drove cattle up the Chisholm Trail in the late 1860s, I'm sorta surprised that Ms. Althouse didn't mention those. And if I lived in Alaska (and I never have) I could mention the Chilkoot Trail."
I was looking for trails created by Native Americans, not white settlers.
The Oregon Trail was not an Indian trail.
Ooh, how novel! Portraying Trump as wanting to kill the super Noble and Innocent Actual Native Americans, unlike those icky Badwhites who arrived from European states between the 1600's and now. Dial racism up to 11, because that is literally the only strategy for beating Trump, good job Team Political Consultants.
Elizabeth Warren could probably have won the Presidency in any year between 1992 and 2016, if she had run. She's certainly a better speaker than Hillary Clinton and is less obviously corrupt. Even though literally any other human clears this bar equally well. The problem is that in 2020, just sounding like a populist will no longer be sufficient. Joe Biden, who makes a career of sounding and acting like a classless creepy blue-collar uncle, would still fail. If Donald Trump didn't make trade and employment such obviously high priorities, he would have failed hilariously despite his obvious and long identification with the working class, right down to a New York accent most elites find absolutely grating. Donald Trump has to point out only two things to make Warren look like the worthless poser she is.
1) She did literally nothing to actually help the Cherokee or the working class until she ran for President.
2) The CFPB would accurately be called the Department of Shakedowns to Left Wing Activists. Once that department's follies are exhaustively exposed, her leadership there will look awful to anyone who isn't a fellow hardcore leftist.
And then he's going to keep figuratively scalping her with comments that guarantee the continuing and -baffling- references to her Pureblooded Tribal Ancestry.
Not that any of this will matter, because Kamala Harris will literally scalp Warren if that's what it takes to win the Presidency. Two queens in a hive, only one will thrive. Half a dozen queens? Time for popcorn.
"The Chisholm Trail was a trail used in the post-Civil War era to drive cattle overland from ranches in Texas to Kansas railheads" — says Wikipedia.
Not an Indian trail.
It's scary.
Yet you fell for both the lie that Kavanaugh spells the end of Roe v. Wade and then the obviously made up tales of Christine Blasey Ford. As Gahrie wrote upthread, the tactics are effective with many people, and no one pays a price. If you don’t like the scariness, then apply more cruel neutrality and a more healthy dose of skepticism, and don’t renew your New York Times and Washington Post subscriptions.
how "the Yankees TRAIL the Red Sox" go from music to my ears to mocking genocide?
Link
Ah, here
http://www.armoton.com/farside/larson027.html
According to the Trump Haters, Trump is a dolt. A dolt wouldn't know about the Trail of Tears.
Thank God he didn't write "CAMP".
"Not an Indian trail."
Neither is the campaign trail, as far as I know.
"Yet you fell for both the lie that Kavanaugh spells the end of Roe v. Wade"
False.
Wow. That's a big one Big Mike. You could not be more wrong there. Please quote me the sentence I wrote that most made you feel that I had said that so I can demonstrate why you are wrong.
Or just withdraw your careless remark and apologize.
Dave Begley, of course, is right- how could someone as ignorant as Trump is supposed to be even know about the Trail of Tears?
Whatever you say may be presented in the worst possible light. It seems that if anything can be portrayed as racist/sexist/homophobic, it will be, and you can be ruined in an instant in the American they have created and want to control.
Yet Trump persists.
Blogger Paco Wové said...
"Not an Indian trail."
Neither is the campaign trail, as far as I know.
It is a trail of tears, though. For some.
"Neither is the campaign trail, as far as I know."
Trump's humor was double meaning. One meaning was the campaign trail. What was the OTHER meaning? His detractors say the Trail of Tears. I say it's at least arguably the trails Native Americans used on their own in their own endeavors.
I am hoping for some mega libel damage awards for the Covington teens.
The trail of tears was a great tragedy. However almost everything that everyone “knows” how about it is wrong. It was a very complicated time, and must much injustice was done, but do some reading before you remark, any of you, on what the trail of tears means. I might recommend Robert Remini’s biography of Jackson as a place to start .
That said, as someone with an advanced case if “ Trump Dissapointment Syndrome” I find his tweets about Granny Warren very amusing. Howie Carr has been all over this too, both in the paper and on his radio show..
Granny’s foibles, coupled with Ed Markey’s political alignment with AOC suggests that we in MA have two of the most ridiculous members of the US Congress. If only we could get AOC and
Ilhan Omar to move here....
And yes I know that Granny and Mr. Frosty are in the Senate and Omar and AOC are in the House.
"It seems to me that "trail" is a more general term and a term that relates to Native Americans."
It's a term that "relates" to a lot of things. I don't recall "Native Americans" having some sort of proprietary claim to it.
It is scary, and its application, and the fear, extends into all quarters of normal life. Its not just politicians at risk. Indeed, a politician like Trump can flout the social controls, but the average bourgeois with career and responsibilities cannot. The sources are the schools, and into those it has come top-down, from the high ground of your elite universities.
The telling case was that of Brendan Eich. Not even the Mormons, who have one of the more powerful "mediating institutions" left in your culture, could protect one of their most accomplished people.
This above all will be the death of you.
Well, when your great-great-great Grandfather is known for participating in the Trail of Tears....it is what it is....https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/cruel-irony-in-elizabeth-warrens-cherokee-saga/
"Yet you fell for both the lie that Kavanaugh spells the end of Roe v. Wade"
False.
Perhaps. But then why are you willing to believe CBF's lies? Why did you say that Kavanaugh was too perfect? Why did you wait until months after Kavanaugh's confirmation to say you would have confirmed him? Why did you criticize Sandmann and never criticize Phillips?
I'm betting that you'll believe the lies told about whoever Trump picks to replace RBG when she finally resigns.
Trail Ridge Road, in Rocky Mountain National Park, is named after Trail Ridge, which in turn is named after a trail used by the Ute and Arapaho to cross the Front Range to the headwaters of the Colorado River. The trail itself was apparently called the "Dog Trail" by the Ute.
At Roy Rogers restaurants, they would say "Happy Trails" when you got your food.
I don't think the Indians traveled long distances in the East, and in the West some just followed the buffalo, who didn't seem to need landmarks.
I didn't know until recently that we once had buffalo here in (now) forested central NC.
More noises from the Trailer Park.
"I was looking for trails created by Native Americans, not white settlers."
Rt.14 is an old indian trail
"how could someone as ignorant as Trump is supposed to be even know about the Trail of Tears?"
The only knowledge Trump possesses — is the knowledge of evil!
Gahrie said...
Why didn't you leap to the same conclusions I did?
(paraphrasing)
I think it is funny. The left has no sense of humor, that makes them dangerous.
Here in Warren's political territory we don't seem to have trails with Indian names, but very town has a road, pond, swamp, or rock formation named after Metacomet.
"The joke here is that the Trail of Tears was a genocide. Get it? Get it?"
And Granny Warren wasn't on it.
You've called staunch Schlump opponents as "haters." That sounds mean. How about that they intensely dislike him, and want to see him tarred and feathered, and sent to a turkey processing plant?
Its not noise from the "trailer park".
Such "noise" got F1000 clients of the Linux Foundation to force Linus Torvalds to sideline himself from the very vital institution that he founded, which maintains so much vital IT infrastructure. Think of the $Trillions in transactions going through devices running variants of Linux.
You assume these people are weak and silly. They aren't, they are extremely powerful.
The Good "chuck": "I think it is funny. The left has no sense of humor, that makes them dangerous."
The left and their LLR allies.
Trumpit: "You've called staunch Schlump opponents as "haters." That sounds mean. How about"
That strikes me as a grossly unfair comparison to haters in general.
It's time to stop any and all concessions to the Leftists' demands. It's clear they are not just deranged but tyrannical. No more apologies. No more backtracking. Why continue to empower these bullies?
I think “Happy Trails to you,” and that Trump is evoking a cowboys and Indians image.
Anything you say may be presented in the worst possible light. It seems that if anything can be portrayed as racist/sexist/homophobic, it will be, and you can be ruined in an instant in the American they have created and want to control. It's scary.
And when you’re a Democrat, they let you do it. You can say anything. Grab 'em by the pussy.
The word "trail" evokes the settling of the American West in a non-specific way (CF Roy Rogers' theme song). This is familiar territory to any Boomer. To millennials, however, there are many fewer referents, so they Google up Trail of Tears. The Western has departed, leaving us in Westworld.
Ann said: "...they are spotlighting Elizabeth Warren's worst problem and helping to insure that when we think about Elizabeth Warren..."
As a diligent student I have to ask if you meant to write "ensure"?
That sounds mean. How about that they intensely dislike him, and want to see him tarred and feathered, and sent to a turkey processing plant?
"That sounds mean..."
At long last, Trumpit, have no sympathy at all for your fellow turkeys?
Throw Trump in a briar patch and make a tar baby out of Fauxchohantas.
The Campaign Trail will be Fauxcho's Trail of Tears.
My interpretation when I saw the tweet was that Trail means to lag behind as in “Michigan trails Wisconsin by 10 points at the half.”
I doubt Trump ever learned or remembered the Trail of Tears. If he did, the tears are Warren’s anyway.
How is the term “campaign trail” not triggering to these SJW morons? Campaign is a war term and trail must refer to Trail of Tears so they are way behind in their term policing.
And Warren, like Trump, knows people don’t give a shit about the Indians. They lost the wars and there aren’t many of them left. They were a proud people who tried to conquer each other and then were eventually conquered by the settlers.
Wikipenia:Texas ranchers using the Chisholm Trail started on the route from either the Rio Grande or San Antonio, joined the Chisholm Trail at the Red River of the South at the border between Texas and Oklahoma, and continued to the railhead of the Kansas Pacific Railway in Abilene, Kansas, where the cattle would be sold and shipped eastward. The trail is named for Jesse Chisholm, a half-Cherokee trader from Tennessee, who originally created the trail as a means to transport his goods from one trading post to another.
Gahrie said...
Why didn't you leap to the same conclusions I did?
Actually, I used reason and logic to judge the claims of CBF, and I used my senses to judge the claims of Phillips.
But let's assume I did "leap" to my conclusions. Who was proven right in their positions, and who was proven wrong?
Trump really loves this stuff. Twitter and social media and how it affects his enemies. not opponents, but enemies. As the Professor pointed out above, the tweet ridicules Warren, and reminds us of her major flaw. And the left can't help themselves.
The man is a Jedi Master level troll. It isn't work to him, it's entertainment. I can imagine him laughing as the leftist talking heads explode, again.
Meh, who cares what Trump tweets? He should keep making references to native Americans and Warren, he should continue to blabber and all he wants. Warren is one he won’t intimidate. And no one (who counts) cares a rip about the overblown allegations that Warren used her Native American ancestry ( or family stories thereof) to get ahead, which she didn’t. All the derogatory comments about NA ancestry directed toward Warren by the rightosphere will only help Warren.
(Meh, who cares what Trump tweets?)
To be clear I’m not criticizing Althouse for making this into a blogpost!
And no one (who counts) cares a rip about the overblown allegations that Warren used her Native American ancestry ( or family stories thereof) to get ahead,
Yeah that was somebody else who told the Texas Bar and Harvard that she was an Indian.
All the derogatory comments about NA ancestry directed toward Warren by the rightosphere will only help Warren.
The most unreflective comment ever published here since Trump announced his candidacy.
It's been claimed one of Warren's actual ancestors was involved in the Trail of Tears round-up. Another was reported to be a "white man" who shot an Indian.
Three Percent of Elizabeth Warren’s DNA from Ancestor Who Rounded Up Cherokees for ‘Trail of Tears’
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) great-great-great grandfather Jonathan Crawford was a member of the Tennessee Militia that rounded up Cherokees living there at the time for the Trail of Tears journey to Oklahoma in the 1830s.
* Generation 5 (1/32 or 3.125 percent ancestry), Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandfather
According to findagrave.com, Jonathan Houston Crawford was born in Tennessee in 1795, married Neoma “Oma” C. Sarah Smith in Bledsoe County, Tennessee in 1819, and died in Jackson County, Tennessee. They had 8 children, including Preston J. born about 1824, and William J. Crawford born about 1838, who married Mary Longworth in Oklahoma in 1894.
The evidence establishing Crawford as a member of the Tennessee Militia in 1835 and 1836 is also well documented, as Breitbart News first reported in 2012:
Jonathan Crawford, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford’s husband and apparently Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandfather, served in the East Tennessee Mounted Infantry Volunteer Militia commanded by Brigadier General R. G. Dunlap from late 1835 to late 1836. While under Dunlap’s command he was a member of Major William Lauderdale’s Battalion, and Captain Richard E. Waterhouse’s Company.
These were the troops responsible for removing Cherokee families from homes they had lived in for generations in the three states that the Cherokee Nations had considered their homelands for centuries: Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
While these involuntary home removals were not characterized by widespread violence, the newly displaced Cherokee mothers, fathers, and children found an oppressive and sometimes brutal welcome when they finally arrived at the hastily constructed containment areas. An estimated 4,000 Cherokees were warehoused in Ross’s Landing stockades for months awaiting supplies and additional armed guards the Federal Government believed necessary to relocate them on foot to Oklahoma.
* Generation 3 (1/8 or 12.5 percent ancestry), Elizabeth Warren’s great-grandfather
John Houston Crawford: born 26 Mar 1858 in Laclede County, Missouri; died 23 Jan 1924 in Hughes County, Oklahoma, was the child of Preston H. Crawford and Edith May Marsh. He married Paulina Ann Bowen.
A 1907 newspaper article described John H. Crawford as a “white man” who shot at an Indian.
"The Indian put spurs to his horse and escaped, but the white man was a good shot and the bullet from his Winchester passed through the body of Yaholar... inflicting a wound that might be fatal."
No-one on these comment sections, not even, probably, any lurking readers, can do anything about this.
It takes a Trump, or rather it would take an organized platoon of Trump-like billionaires, to push back and overcome the madness. Trump alone can do little. Even most billionaires cringe before it.
You can "guerrilla" this in your samizdat, but that, like Althouse, is a tiny niche. That is in the end futile. Larger institutional forces backed by enormous wealth have to crush it, in an organized effort.
Or a political-social revolution. Or a disastrous war.
Big Mike and Gahrie are very disappointed that their favorite ‘girl’ blogger doesn’t automatically think the way they do. Why doesn’t she? Oh my! How confusing for them.
Yeah that was somebody else who told the Texas Bar and Harvard that she was an Indian.
And it was that notorious "rightoshpere" fish wrap called the Washington Post that exposed her lies to the Texas Bar Association.
4. The Trump antagonists are giving us another example of the harshness of the left's demands. Whatever you say may be presented in the worst possible light. It seems that if anything can be portrayed as racist/sexist/homophobic, it will be, and you can be ruined in an instant in the American they have created and want to control. It's scary.
This is Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome at work.
It is the presumption that all Trump criticism is generated by and for an ideological left.
So this is the alternative thesis that Althouse ignored or never even considered... That Trump's Tweet was not bad because of identity politics that we must promote; Trump's Tweet was bad because it was stupid and tone-deaf. From his reminding us explicitly about, "sometimes referred to me as Pocahontas," to his capitalization of TRAIL.
We've been scolded by the Scott Adams wing of Trump apologists that no Trump Tweet is accidental, and that even misspellings and unnecessary capitalizations are intended.
Of course, Scott Adams can say whatever he wants about that, because we never learn the truth. Neither Trump, nor his press secretary, nor anyone on his communications staff ever explains what was a mistake or what was intended. Since Scott Adams gives Trump credit for intent, let's do the same here. Trump intended "TRAIL" to signify "Indian Trail." In fact, I have little doubt that in fact Trump intended that in the same way that President Bone Spurs intended "Pocahontas" to stick.
Personally, I don't think Trump ever thought about the Trail of Tears begun under the Jackson Administration in 1831 or so and continuing for another 15-20 years, because I don't think that Trump has the requisite elementary understanding of American history to have thought of that connection. Nor would his base. I'd like to step into a working class bar in Long Island City, New York, or Youngstown, Ohio or Warren, Michigan and ask the Trump supporters about the Trail of Tears. I don't think that they could tell me when it occurred, where it occurred, which presidential administrations were involved and which native tribes were involved.
I think a better understanding of this kerfuffle than Althouse's overwrought imagining is that a lot of historically educated writers made the connection that Trump never thought of, but which a competent White House Communications Office would have edited.
And the notion that Trump intended exactly what we see now is in fact the damning notion that Trump really does like these remarkably divisive hot-button media fights. In that case, Trump deserves the title of the most despicable figure in American national politics in 100 years or more.
At Roy Rogers restaurants, they would say "Happy Trails" when you got your food.
In France the waitrons actually say "bone appa teat" like they're on TV or something. I was afraid to find out what "appa" means because they eat some weird things over there.
Warren as stalking horse?
They didn’t need any more white women from Rutgers at Penn Law School.
They needed a Native American. Warren volunteered for the role.
The Washington Redskin
The Left B nutz.
That is the only takeaway you need.
Chuck again misses the big picture.
You need a hundred Trumps, or you are done. No alternatives remain.
Democratic voters, liberals, progressives, socialists, slightly left of center voters, independents are going to be turned off and rally to defend Warren yet even more the more often Trump and the rightosphere insults Warren. You people have no idea how many people on the left have been waiting for her to run.
I wrote just above, "And the notion that Trump intended exactly what we see now is in fact the damning notion that Trump really does like these remarkably divisive hot-button media fights."
I meant to write, "And the notion that Trump intended exactly what we see now is in fact the damning notion that Trump really does like these remarkably divisive hot-button media fights about racial issues."
In my brother's part of rural CT, the older roads follow the Indian trails--or was that deer?
From the easy-to-me clues they miss on Jeopardy, even the brighter young people have a different knowledge set from us old farts. But then the white girls know the rap stars and movies that I've never heard of.
Or just withdraw your careless remark and apologize.
The remark was not careless; it will not be withdrawn. I will not apologize.
The closest I will come to an apology is to recognize that, as a law professor, you may have taught your students by presenting a controversial subject in a fashion that was contrary to the accepted wisdom and perhaps even to your own views on the subject. Having never been one of your students, I don't know, but I recognize that this is a valid approach to legal pedagogy.
But you are not a law professor anymore, nor am I now, nor have I ever been, one of your students. I am entitled to draw my conclusions about your views, not from a single sentence but from the totality of your posts on any subject. I do not recall any single post, much less a single sentence, that tells me you believed Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court would spell the doom of Roe v. Wade, but I can read a succession of posts during the hearings, and that is the conclusion I drew. If it does not represent your thinking, then perhaps you need to clarify your writing. As regards Christine Blasey Ford, your posts blissfully ignored the problems with her testimony, going back to when she obviously lied about her alleged fear of flying (her parents live in the Washington, DC suburbs and she has flown from California to DC numerous times). She couldn't remember when the alleged assault happened, or where it happened, and she did not tell any friend -- women who had really been sexually assaulted say that they remember every detail of those assaults, and the damning point about Justin Fairfax, and Bill Clinton before him, is that their victims told their friends. Blasey Ford couldn't remember when the alleged assault happened, even to the year it happened. And here I certainly can point to a post where you admitted you had fallen for her crap -- when you live-blogged her presentation and Kavanaugh's response. I read what you posted and my one thought was "gullible."
Again, I am not your student, but I am a diligent follower of your weblog going back about a dozen years. I am a mathematician with my master's thesis in formal logic; I think I know how to read a post and grasp its point. So I say again, if my logical conclusions do not match the views you think you are presenting, then it is on you to be more on point in your writing.
Ban me if you want to, but what I write is the truth as I see it.
I don't even know how to respond. Trump writes "Campaign TRAIL" and his haters mind read him and say he meant "trail of tears" and then trash him for their made-up mind read. Crazy town USA.
In any case, the "trail of tears" was NOT Genocide. There was nothing wrong in transferring the Cherokees from the South where they were clashing with Whites, and giving them better land in Oklahoma. BTW, did you know these "noble red men" owned Slaves? And took their slaves on the "trail of tears"?
Gahrie said...
But let's assume I did "leap" to my conclusions. Who was proven right in their positions, and who was proven wrong?
No one, actually. It's odd that you think anyone was. No one advocating either for either party has proof. No one has been proven right. No one has been proven wrong. What the hearings established is that the accuser lacked evidence to support her accusation.
That's more than sufficient to decide in favor of the accused, in my opinion. But it's not proof.
Howard said...
Wikipenia:Texas ranchers using the Chisholm Trail started on the route from either the Rio Grande or San Antonio, joined the Chisholm Trail at the Red River of the South at the border between Texas and Oklahoma, and continued to the railhead of the Kansas Pacific Railway in Abilene, Kansas, where the cattle would be sold and shipped eastward. The trail is named for Jesse Chisholm, a half-Cherokee trader from Tennessee, who originally created the trail as a means to transport his goods from one trading post to another.
So it was a half-breed trail?
“So I say again, if my logical conclusions do not match the views you think you are presenting, then it is on you to be more on point in your writing.”
Woooooo, condescension on steroids.
@Inky the Stinky, Althouse is not my favorite female blogger, nor is she a 'girl' in any sense of the word. I would be shocked if she and I agreed on most topics, and I certainly but I am disappointed in what I perceive to be her gullibility when it comes to topics introduced to her by CNN, the Times, and the Post.
So, when Roy Rodgers said "Happy Trails" - he were really mocking the Indians "trail of tears".
"Before Georgia had roads, it was laced with Indian trails or paths. These trails served the needs of Georgia's native populations by connecting their villages with one another and allowing them to travel great distances"
The Mohawk Trail and Kennebec Trail were two of the most famous Indian trails in New England. During the American Revolution, they were used for military maneuvers. Benedict Arnold followed both, the Kennebec Trail to his regret and the Mohawk Trail to his satisfaction – he captured Fort Ticonderoga at the end of it.
buwaya said...
Chuck again misses the big picture.
You need a hundred Trumps, or you are done. No alternatives remain.
Oh, I love this post because it is so flailingly wrong. The one beauty of Trumpism is that there is no ideology, no movement, no policy. It is a cult of personality. That is what I like about Trumpism and Trumpists. They have no Plan B. There is no other Trump.
Even after 50 years+, there really wasn't another Castro. There was a second Chavez (Maduro) but he never had "it." There wasn't a second Mugabe.
When Trump is gone from office -- this year hopefully -- there won't be another Trump. There will be several Republicans, who all try to bring the Trump base to them. But there is no second Trump and there won't be.
Maybe Melania can run if she isn't indicted. Then, we can have a good look at Melania's birth certificate. Oh and more pictures. More pictures would be worth it.
"slightly left of center voters, independents are going to be turned off and rally to defend Warren"
OK.
Scott Adams used the followig example of putting the dumbest interpretation possible on someone else's statement.
"I ran a mile in six minutes"
Dumbest Interpretation: "What a liar. No one can run a mile underwater in six minutes"
Jeez, Chuck, he's needling her about fraud, not race. Normal people don't get why a few make everything about horrible race issues and just laugh at the joke.
"See you on the Campaign Trail Liz"
Dumbest Interpretation: "How dare Trump mock the "Trail of Tears".
Here's the game Conservatives:
Liberals are going to call you racist no matter what.
What's the blowback for them? There is none.
So, Tea Party = Racist. Republicans = Racist. Rommmney = Racist. Trump = racist.
Its never going to end, till Republicans/Conservatives stop playing defense, and saying stupid shit like "How is that racist?" or "No one hates racism more than me, I can't be racist". Loser talk.
I guess ths closest parallel is with degaulle, the gaullist party which upholds its values, in the American idiom it isn't correct to say the GOP strictly followed Lincoln's vision in all case.
I'm going with EDH. It's a reference to Roy Rogers' Happy Trails. Trump wants to play Cowboys & Indians with Warren in the old fashioned Roy Rogers way. None of this Dances With Wolves crap..........You know who never heard of The Trail of Tears? Arthur Schlesinger. He wrote a two volume history, "The Age of Jackson", that never once mentioned The Trail of Tears. That history won the Pulitzer Prize. If you think that was a glaring omission, you should see what Schlesinger left out in his books about FDR and JFK.......The left gets to say what's left out, or, in the case of Trump, what's put in.
Maybe he was referring to Scottish Trails: https://www.scotlandsgreattrails.com/. Trump has a golf course there, no? Interestingly, "way" and "path" seem more commonly used than "trail".
Where did the term campaign trail come from?
“nor is she a 'girl' in any sense of the word.”
That’s not how you come across Mikey, you have been condescending and even rude toward her quite a few times in the past. You come across as a scolding asshole who has been disappointed that Althouse doesn’t express what you think is the correct conclusion (how are you any different than Chuck?). You might have been less insulting to her if you had just called her a dumb bitch, as I did, although I don’t consider her to be one in reality. As a matter of fact, I’ll take this moment to apologize to her
Why any of you care about what Althouse actually thinks is completely beyond me.
Chuck, you missed that buwaya was talking about Trump as a social force, not as an elected politician.
Troll level: Master.
An apology to Althouse as follows. I did not see this comment from her:
Trump's humor was double meaning. One meaning was the campaign trail. What was the OTHER meaning? His detractors say the Trail of Tears. I say it's at least arguably the trails Native Americans used on their own in their own endeavors.
And in fact my own comment in ignorance of hers, is saying much the same thing. I think Althouse "gets it" as I do, in this one particular.
In the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia
On the Trail of the Lonesome Pine
Chuck, the real fight isnt political, and narrow.
It is cultural, and broad.
Its not about who passes what bill, but about your peoples personalities.
You are losing that independence and initiative, that spit-in-your-eye, that talent for improvisation and spontaneous organization. That sense that there are no limits to what you can go forth and do. Everything is turning to asking for permission, to following only safe paths, to looking over your shoulder.
Its a battle against the same forces that chewed up Brendan Eich, Linus Torvalds, James Watson. None of them politicians. Its a sickness in the souls of your elite castes.
Chuck said...
This is Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome at work. It is the presumption that all Trump criticism is generated by and for an ideological left.
Just google "Trump Warren Trail".
All the headlines from the usual suspects are in lock-step: "Trump Appears to..."
A slight variation on the earlier "If true..." insinuation.
Whereas roosevelts vision and before that McKinley's carried over into the 20s.
Ask 100 people at random on the street what "the trail of tears" is and I bet you get at least 80% blank stares and wrong answers.
Ralph L said...
Why any of you care about what Althouse actually thinks is completely beyond me.
Chuck, you missed that buwaya was talking about Trump as a social force, not as an elected politician.
Trump's only importance is as the owner of an electoral majority. He's a cult of personality more than any social force.
Remember that some voters (the "Reagan Democrats," the remarkably critical vote of Macomb County, Michigan, and Althouse herself?!?) were Obama-Obama-Trump voters. What kinda social force is that? Some Trump voters might just go back to being Dems, and some might go back to being in the Tea Party. And others will return to the Aryan Nations, I suppose.
I am unaware that Indians named their trails. However, a lot of our highways were developed from original Indian trails that evil white settlers used. Minnesota highway 10 was one such old Indian trail going north from the Twin Cities to Fargo ND. East of the highway was wooded land, and the western side was prairie. I have no doubt that the Oregon Trail and Chilkoot Trail were originally Indian trails.
You have to be an Indian to know these things.
The narrow perspective of Chuck is also a plague of these decadent days.
I have seen it a hundred times.
It used to be easy to explain these things, to persons educated in the old ways.
You can no longer expect to mention ideas from Drucker or even Tom Peters to management trainees, and expect any understanding.
The American brain is failing.
Happy Trails!
“...buwaya was talking about Trump as a social force, not as an elected politician.”
And that right there is what we on the left are repulsed by. That you people see him as some leader, some force, something which you see anything worthwhile or worth emulating. That is what is wrong with you folks, Clinton called it deplorable, but that wasn’t strong enough. Trump is hated for good reason, it’s not based on his physical appearance, his odd habits, it’s based on his substance. There is absolutely nothing deranged about despising the man by people who see him as a destructive,negative and hateful force.
And the Left is reading minds again. As Scott Adams has pointed out before, that's the place you go when you can't refute facts. Instead, you "read the mind" of your opponent, and then attack THAT instead.
"Perhaps. But then why are you willing to believe CBF's lies? Why did you say that Kavanaugh was too perfect? Why did you wait until months after Kavanaugh's confirmation to say you would have confirmed him? Why did you criticize Sandmann and never criticize Phillips?"
I listened to the testimony in the normal way that you ought to listen to testimony, which is not pre-believing that it's "lies" (or truth).
Almost everything you've written there is infected with distortion and misunderstanding. You ask me why, but why are you willing to say those things about me? You're basically lying about me, so I don't regard you as a person who values truth.
Quote something I wrote, and ask me about it. Treat me with decency, and I will take the trouble to respond. Otherwise, just withdraw your careless remarks and apologize.
I think that traces were paths worn by the bison. People also used them because it's easier than blazing your own trail and, for cultures reliant on the bison, it makes sense to follow their paths.
Reagans legacy was lost as was Thatchers because her would be successors like John major lacked civilizational confidence that allowed the Clinton's and the blairs to seize the high ground. Boris Johnson for all his faults probably closest represents the latter current.
"The America brain is failing". Describes how I feel when I hear most elected official speak and almost every liberal speak or write.
I first thought of the "Blaze Your Own Trail" signs, in Park Service trade dress, that festoon all the Salesforce.com buildings in downtown SF. Of course, the Park Service does not want people blazing their own trail, but whatever
This is a reasonably nasty thread for a Sunday morning. How did we get so worked up over a routine tweet? Maybe if Trump had not used capital letters this would not have gotten nasty. --- That's it, it is Trump's fault.
Everything is turning to asking for permission, to following only safe paths, to looking over your shoulder.
The PC bureaucraticization of the British police is so horrifying on their recent cop shows that I hope it's more parody than reality.
Where did the term campaign trail come from?
Good question. British MPs were expected to go door-to-door for a few days, often far from their real homes. McKinley had a Front Porch campaign where people came to him. TR spoke from trains long before Truman. I imagine journalists could have come up with the term about themselves since they trail the candidate.
The term 'campaign trail' is used by virtually everyone in the biz. Only when Trump uses it does it become fuel for [faux] outrage.
It was a ridiculous squirrel balloon if we cannot describe things as they are what is the point. Were asked to believe 100 ridiculous things with breakfast.
Just google "Trump Warren Trail".
All the headlines from the usual suspects are in lock-step: "Trump Appears to..."
All the headlines contain his name. Again. Why would any politician want THAT?
It makes you wonder what would happen if Trump wounded his knee.
The social force Trump evokes and inspires is that of the "legacy" Americans, the people and culture described by Toqueville. You see this in the actual persons at his rallies, which are little different from those of the 1830s.
It matters little how they voted, as the people and parties in contention were different and themselves defined by the society from which they came. This should be obvious to any political observer - the Democratic party of today is nothing like that of 1968. Culture comes before politics, and defines the terrain on which politics is fought.
The battle today is not between parties as such, but between social castes, each with a distinct culture that is entirely incompatible with the other. The balance of power between these factions is highly skewed, in terms of economics.
I'm enjoying Althouse's impotent post menopausal rage that unlike those poor bastards who had her as a professor, she cannot threaten or bully commenters into telling her she is right.
You have your kept lawnboy for that, Althouse. We don't have to pretend to agree with your bullshit feminist nonsense.
Are you going to cry about it like when you were at a dinner party with Libertarians? A literal trail of tears through Madison?
I am unaware that Indians named their trails.
The Ancients named Trail of the Ancients Scenic Drive and paved it, too! Then they got wiped out.
"Trump's humor was double meaning. One meaning was the campaign trail. What was the OTHER meaning? His detractors say the Trail of Tears. I say it's at least arguably the trails Native Americans used on their own in their own endeavors."
How do you know that it has a double meaning? He could have just meant the Campaign Trail, which is the obvious meaning (after all, neither of them would actually be on the Trail of Tears) This is part of the genius of Trump. The left is avidly reading that second meaning into his Tweat, because, of course, everything he says has a double meaning. But does it? Or is this just some more of their dog whistle nonsense, where they read much more into statements by their enemies than was ever intended? So, the statement has its usual effect, with his enemies melting down with the second meaning that they have read into something he said, and the rest of the country trying to figure out whether they are vendictive, mad, or just too stupid to understand the obvious meaning of his statement.
The power of the undistributed middle:
I strongly dislike Trump
I strongly dislike racists.
Ergo Trump is a racist.
QED.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
There is absolutely nothing deranged about despising the man by people who see him as a destructive,negative and hateful force.
I hope you see the circular reasoning there.
Thinking about people (deliberately?) misinterpreting conservatives, I found it absurd that Candace Owens was forced to acknowledge recently that Hitler was evil. The thrust of her original statement was clear to anyone who didn't assume SHE was evil.
Indians called their travel roads a "Trace." They usually them ran along a ridge line to keep the climbing up and the climbing down to the minimum. The City of Atlanta white settlers also followed such a ridge line the Indians called the Standing Peach Tree Trace.
Following the ridge line principle was also used by the first RailRoad Engineers to curtail the number of rivers needing to be bridged over, which was the sole variable in RR construction costs per mile.
DJT's shout out to the Okalahoma Territory Cherokee wannabe can only be understood when seen with the pic of the smiling Trump standing next to the Oval Office portrait of Old Hickory.
Enjoy the Trail!
Althouse wrote: Quote something I wrote, and ask me about it. Treat me with decency, and I will take the trouble to respond. Otherwise, just withdraw your careless remarks and apologize.
Here's something that bugged me about what you wrote at the time and I quote at length from this post (emphasis added):
20. This was the ultimate he said/she said. Both were tremendously strong and they told diametrically opposed stories. If I had to decide, I would not go by who's more likely to be telling the truth, but how everything we've heard weighs on the question whether or not to confirm. In view of everything we know about Kavanaugh, does he deserve confirmation even with the degree of doubt we have about something terrible he might have done when he was 17 (and a couple of other, much weaker allegations)? I suspect most people will end up in the same position they had on him anyway, because it's a matter of weighing. But when I think about how BK and CBF could be so far apart, I have 3 explanations: 1. BK has some alcohol blackout holes in his memory, and what CBF remembers is in one of them, 2. CBF has a false memory and really believes it (caused by some genuine trauma), 3. BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain. Since there's no way back to his old life, he must force his way through this obstacle. And he's barreling ahead to save his life and save his family. Cornered, he had to fight like hell, and that includes lying.
You opened the door to Kavanaugh lying, but you conveniently left out the possibility that Ford was lying, only having "false memory" which removes intent and motive on her part. I think that was a gross oversight on your part. To this day I don't believe that you think it possible that Ford was outright lying or making up any part of her testimony.
The "destructive, negative, and hateful force" is that which is gaining ground, that which constrains, suppresses, controls. That which evokes such reactions against, not just Trump, but Eich, Torvalds and Watson - and in every American school. Gleefully throwing the baby of achievement out with the bathwater, whatever its nature or state. That demonic, incoherent rage at opposition.
The desired endpoint, it is clear, is a fearful unanimity, a giant de facto bureaucratic spirit imposed on the whole population, explicitly made to redefine virtue as contingent and in opposition to all previous human understanding. A work of demonic influence.
Trump is a flawed man, but he fights demons.
AllenS said...I am unaware that Indians named their trails. However, a lot of our highways were developed from original Indian trails that evil white settlers used.
AllenS is quite right here (of course). The Boundary Waters "trail" is a waterway shown by the Indians to French. I believe -- but cannot prove -- that Marquette-Joliet did not discover the route from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico but were shown.
I'm thinking "Chisholm Trail" (there are others) for getting cattle to markets or rail heads.
Definitely #2.
The left's rage and hate over Trump might do them in.
Here's something that bugged me about what [AA] wrote
You guys are taking a feminist too seriously.
@Inky, yup, I will continue to scold Althouse when I believe that she has failed to connect the dots, especially when I conclude that it's because she has bought into the perspectives of the Times and the Post.
Of course sometimes she presents things from a perspective that I hadn't considered, and I conclude that she's right, and obviously you won't see me scolding her that she's right I was not. But I have worked with too many university professors during the course of my career, some with international reputations, to be much cowed by her credentials as a full professor in an endowed chair. If I can correct a mistake made by a Turing Award winner I can surely do the same to a law professor.
Name one Indian trail without using English words, since before the arrival of the evil European MEN, Indians couldn't speak English. And, no, gitchigoomie is not a trail.
I agree with AllenS and chickenlittle. Some Indian trails are known today as, for instance, US 50. Indian trails represented centuries of learning the easiest way to get from point A to point B, given the terrain. White settlers later turned them into dirt roads and eventually into highways. For the same reason it would surprise me if the Oregon Trail did not follow old Indian trails for at least part of the journey.
AJ Lynch said...
Ask 100 people at random on the street what "the trail of tears" is and I bet you get at least 80% blank stares and wrong answers.
From all the complaints about PC schooling, I thought Indian genocide is now the second biggest thing in American history--after slavery.
@AllenS, I would bet that at least some Indian place names -- names of lakes, of rivers, of good sites for towns -- are actually Algonquin for "why do you care what we call it?"
Oh - 3 and 4, yes and yes.
@AJ, outside of Oklahoma, I'd guess closer to 99%.
The Indians were killing and scalping each other — man, woman, and child — long before the White Man arrived.
The Aztecs were as bad as the Nazis.
The Indians lost the wars and were treated as a conquered people just as they did to each other.
Let’s show them more respect as former adversaries by not making them out to be victims. They lost. That’s all there is to it.
The left and LLR's hate Trump's success. Ego defense mechanisms naturally will not allow them to be honest with themselves so they must create other "reasons" for their hate. Pretty obvious,actually.
As far as the Trail thing, Trump meant to reference Trail of Tears and probably knows as much about it as average person, which is not much.
Please be patient with Althouse's passionate denials of what a reasonable person would conclude are her views. "Cruel neutrality" is an old law professor's game. It necessarily requires treating every allegation or defense as credible on its face, regardless of how preposterous (at least initially). With regard to the Covington incident and Ford testimony, the initial posts took the allegations very seriously. Plenty of readers concluded that ALthouse thought those allegations (and the Ford allegations) were credible. It was not an unreasonable reading. However, like a wily law professor, the posts studiously avoided saying anything that could be later cited. WHen the allegations or defense are revealed to be garbage, the law professor can say that she NEVER said they were credible or those were her views.
The issue is not who said what and when. That is a useless rabbit hole. The issue is the "cruel nuetrality" theory which causes these misunderstandings and disputes.
I enjoy this blog quite a bit but one does have to indulge when the law professor comes out to play.
"The word "trail" evokes the settling of the American West in a non-specific way... familiar territory to any Boomer. To millennials, however, there are many fewer referents, so they Google up Trail of Tears."
That's an interesting point. To anyone with a broad knowledge of American history and/or the English language, jumping immediately from campaign trail to trail of tears evokes a "Wait... WTF?" response; but Young People These Days have received such a filtered and distorted view of history, and have such a limited knowledge of literature, that trail of tears is probably the only "trail" referent they know.
The covington lie revealed the demonic left.
Buwaya @ 12:37
Yes.
I think Chuck would make great fertilizer, being full of shit and all.
Big, Mike, how about this --
The name "Milwaukee" comes from an Algonquian word Millioke, meaning "Good", "Beautiful" and "Pleasant Land" (cf. Potawatomi language minwaking, Ojibwe language ominowakiing) or "Gathering place [by the water]" (cf.
History of Milwaukee - Wikipedia
If the Indians were around now giving out names of places, they wouldn't be using the word Milwaukee would be my guess.
What's the big deal? She's not an Indian so the 'Trail of Tears' has no significance in relation to her.
Happy trails to you, until we meet again.
Happy trails to you, keep smilin' until then.
Who cares about the clouds when we're together?
Just sing a song and bring the sunny weather.
Happy trails to you, 'till we meet again.
Some trails are happy ones,
Others are blue.
It's the way you ride the trail that counts,
Here's a happy one for you.
Happy trails to you, until we meet again.
Happy trails to you, keep smilin' until then.
Who cares about the clouds when we're together?
Just sing a song and bring the sunny weather.
Happy trails to you, 'till we meet again.
Is the word "Trail" now off limits?
the list of mind-crime words banned by the collective left, grows.
Someone once observed here, accurately I think, that Trump will choose his 2020 opponent. Discerning whether he’s choosing, or eliminating, a given Dem will be interesting.
"how could someone as ignorant as Trump is supposed to be even know about the Trail of Tears?"
Anyone over the age of 50 received in elementary school a basic knowledge of American history, sprinkled full of iconic moments like Yorktown, Gettysburg, and, yes, The Trail of Tears. Most college-educated young adults have a weaker grasp of history than I had in the fifth grade.
Dances with Wolves did a lot of damage.
I first thought of The Oregon Trail and now have the tune in my head from the computer game.
Trump is the organ grinder and the Left and the LLR-Never Trumpers are the monkeys.
rhhardin said...
Opponents make blanket statements.
*******************
In Trump's case, it's smallpox-infected blanket statements.
I'd like to step into a working class bar in Long Island City, New York, or Youngstown, Ohio or Warren, Michigan and ask the Trump supporters about the Trail of Tears. I don't think that they could tell me when it occurred, where it occurred, which presidential administrations were involved and which native tribes were involved.
Why start there? Why not begin on any college campus? Why not any major media newsroom?
What we're seeing is the internet at work. No matter Trump's intention, a very few people tried to think about how to create the most terrible interpretation and the winner was the one who said, "Hey, trail. Trail of Tears. Indians. Genocide."
I'm willing to bet that was the limit of their knowledge. For all we know they put "trail" and "american indians" into Google and it spit out Trail of Tears as an option.
And then this is repeated by people who simply liked that it made Trump look racist and went on the warpath.
Of those who think they know anything of the subject, I'd check their browser history before I'd believe a word they said.
Most of the Democrat field have some sort of skeletons in their closets. Their nominee should be someone who has been thoroughly investigated and found without fault or flaw. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Hillary Clinton.
You have to remember, the people who are offended by Trump's tweet still believe Warren is an Indian and because she's 70, they think she actually lived out on the plains with her people, sleeping in a teepee, eating vegetarian jerky and exchanging stories of wisdom and community with the local fauna in that golden time before the white man came.
Future headline:
"Warren trails in polls, sheds tears."
RAAACCIISSST!!!
With regard to the Covington incident ... the initial posts took the allegations very seriously.
Except for that not looking at the video before commenting thing.
I found out recently that several place names near me weren't Indian names as I'd assumed for decades.
Something I just don't get:
If I visited a blog repeatedly and concluded that the host's views were wrong on issues of fundamental importance, or that the host was disingenuous and full of crap, I am pretty sure -- really, pretty sure -- that I would stop visiting. It's really easy; plenty of other places to visit. Y'know, like Sam Kinison said: MOVE!!
Otherwise, it's like eating at a restaurant you hate every day, and then whining loudly that you don't like the food or the service.
I'm here every day (not necessarily in the comments) because I think Ann brings clarifying perspectives to interesting things in a way not many others do. Many of the comments do the same, and many make me laugh (in a good way).
So for me, it's a fun and edifying place to be. If that's not the case for you, why show up? It's not like you're spurring some meaningful debate or changing minds.
Blogger cronus titan said...
Please be patient with Althouse's passionate denials of what a reasonable person would conclude are her views. "Cruel neutrality" is an old law professor's game. It necessarily requires treating every allegation or defense as credible on its face, regardless of how preposterous (at least initially). With regard to the Covington incident and Ford testimony, the initial posts took the allegations very seriously. Plenty of readers concluded that ALthouse thought those allegations (and the Ford allegations) were credible. It was not an unreasonable reading. However, like a wily law professor, the posts studiously avoided saying anything that could be later cited. WHen the allegations or defense are revealed to be garbage, the law professor can say that she NEVER said they were credible or those were her views."
Althouse should always use the 72 hour rule before taking any scurrilous accusations seriously. So should we. In the meantime we have Coon Carnival vs The Woman Must be Believed spectacle in Virginia that the MSM has now decided needs to disappear lest it embarrases the Democrats.
Otherwise, it's like eating at a restaurant you hate every day, and then whining loudly that you don't like the food or the service.
But the portions are huge!
I'm here to illuminate the appreciate others valuable contributions in the socratic method these threads are intended.
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/02/trump-wins-so-bigly-critics-dont-see-it.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR1uyoITKeMKdaEkuBsTQhvhc-mazwTKxVHG-w2C2a-KdQBNGZ_B-77W1qI&m=1
Note how no major outlet addressed this story:
https://babalublog.com/2019/02/10/venezuelan-military-colonel-abandon-maduros-dictatorship-pledges-allegiance-to-legitimate-president/
Would this be happening if the Iran deal was not being dismantled piecemeal:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6688053/British-spies-MI6-smuggled-defecting-Iranian-nuclear-scientist-UK-dinghy.html?fbclid=IwAR26H3N-spIbSPXhe7HmI8sYdAvg0xa9NzLa4HaZH23p8JOnL_UuIZ398GM
tcrosse said...
Most of the Democrat field have some sort of skeletons in their closets. Their nominee should be someone who has been thoroughly investigated and found without fault or flaw. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Hillary Clinton."
What you say in jest is also true. It's hard to imagine Hillary having any further skeletons in her closet. Grifter. Criminal. Traitor. Married to a rapist. What could she possibly top that with?
Any one with half a brain could see by the way Warren walks that she grew up hunting kale on horseback with a bow and arrows.
Wonder if there was a wig to warm Warren's scalp when she was wanderlust on the way to Wenatchee, WA. Lot of work and not weally close to "wigwam."
The trail follows a path through the Mediterranean, across Mexico, and behind the walls of "clinics."
If that's not the case for you, why show up?
My dad used to read WaPoo editorials just to get mad at them.
Blogger narciso said...
I'm here to illuminate the appreciate others valuable contributions in the socratic method these threads are intended.
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/02/trump-wins-so-bigly-critics-dont-see-it.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR1uyoITKeMKdaEkuBsTQhvhc-mazwTKxVHG-w2C2a-KdQBNGZ_B-77W1qI&m=1
Trump despite the bombast isn't an idiot which is more than can be said of any of the current Democrats and was certainly true of JFK in the first two years of his term. As for Venezuela, as much as I would like to believe this is the beginning of the end for the Communists until a number of troops refuse to carry out their orders or better still shoot the officers ordering them it isn't happening.
AllenS said...The name "Milwaukee" comes from an Algonquian word Millioke, meaning "Good", "Beautiful" and "Pleasant Land" (cf. Potawatomi language minwaking, Ojibwe language ominowakiing) or "Gathering place [by the water]" (cf.
History of Milwaukee - Wikipedia
That was Alice Cooper's lesson in Wayne's World
P.S.: Does Garth look like CBF?
@cubanbob: Your list is good but leaves a lot of open field for Clinton. Use your imagination. Clinton certainly does.
Your 72 hour rule before giving a hot take is wise. Smart people did not react to the original allegations by Jussie Smollett until the story developed more, and it is increasingly looking like a hoax.
It will likely require direct intervention like Panama in 1989,
Fauxcahontas (it's so sad that Trump keeps on getting that wrong) had an ancestor who participated in the Trail of Tears.
He was one of the US Army officers "committing genocide against the Cherokee."
That's her only relationship to the Trail of Tears.
All those left-wing numb-nuts on Twitter bitching about Trump, instead of Warren, are just showing off their own stupidity and worthlessness.
Roccean- I’m sure you know this, although many in a typical faculty lounge or newsroom will not, that when the Civil War broke out many , if not most, of the removed Indians, not all Cherokee, by the way, sided with the Confederacy. Stand Waite, and his Confederate Cherokees according to legend, were the last southern unit to surrender
Your 72 hour rule before giving a hot take is wise.
Yes but if a blogger waits more than 72 hours to cover important events and also withholds opinions, that blogger risks being left behind.
I should note that a certain subset of commenters here always get these things right.
Isn't that pesky portrait of Andrew Jackson hanging in Trump's office the real reason for all this travail of tears?
The Left also wants Jackson taken off the $20 and replaced with a SJW hero.
Point taken, but dont jump to the conclusion one is being railroaded into, question the premise.
Blogger Henry said...
Gahrie said...
Why didn't you leap to the same conclusions I did?
No, what he said was "why did you trust the serially dishonest Left?"
Because the reality is that the Left has absolutely no compunction about lying for political advantage, and as such only an idiot ever believes anything they say, until such time as they provide actual proof.
See Phillips v. Sandman (everything Phillips said about the encounter was a lie), Jussie Smollett fake "hate crime", and CBF v Kavanaugh (we know she was lying, because she refuses to share the shrink's notes with us, after showing them to the WaPo reporter).
Believing any of the lefties in those three cases was an act of either gross stupidity, or political partisanship so extreme it amounted to gross stupidity.
Well, well, well, it appears that the word Oregon has a little background, let's take a look at Wiki --
Historical usage
Most scholarship ascribes the earliest known use of the name "Oregon" to a 1765 petition by Major Robert Rogers to the Kingdom of Great Britain, seeking money to finance an expedition in search of the Northwest Passage. The petition read "the rout... is from the Great Lakes towards the Head of the Mississippi, and from thence to the River called by the Indians Ouragon...."[2] Thus, the early Oregon Country and now the present day state of Oregon took their names from the river now known as the Columbia River.[3]
Bold added. It was an old Indian trail.
tcrosse said...Most of the Democrat field have some sort of skeletons in their closets. Their nominee should be someone who has been thoroughly investigated and found without fault or flaw. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Hillary Clinton.
That would be funny were it not true. She is seeping back. Let's see if she remains standing in hotter weather.
"Bold added. It was an old Indian trail."
I love me some Althouse, but she's clearly an amateur historian.
1: Thank you EDH. Tennessee Militia officer, not US Army officer. My bad.
2:
Blogger Chuck said...
4. The Trump antagonists are giving us another example of the harshness of the left's demands. Whatever you say may be presented in the worst possible light. It seems that if anything can be portrayed as racist/sexist/homophobic, it will be, and you can be ruined in an instant in the American they have created and want to control. It's scary.
This is Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome at work.
It is the presumption that all Trump criticism is generated by and for an ideological left.
So this is the alternative thesis that Althouse ignored or never even considered... That Trump's Tweet was not bad because of identity politics that we must promote; Trump's Tweet was bad because it was stupid and tone-deaf. From his reminding us explicitly about, "sometimes referred to me as Pocahontas," to his capitalization of TRAIL.
Bzzt.
As EDH posted right above you, and as an non-ignorant person would know, Elizabeth Warren's only connection to the Trail of Tears was the ancestor who helped send the Cherokee out on it. bringing that up is entirely legitimate. Bitching about it is not.
Name one "conservative" NeverTrumper who hasn't given up on actual conservative beliefs while going anti-Trump. You can't.
Which is why there's no such things as TDS DS. Because there's nothing "deranged" about spitting upon tribalist wankers who dump their professed beliefs in order to show solidarity with their social class. And that's what all the NTers are doing.
Rob Lowe got into heap big trouble when he tweeted:
Elizabeth Warren would bring a whole new meaning to Commander in “Chief”.
Blogger Henry said...
Gahrie said...
But let's assume I did "leap" to my conclusions. Who was proven right in their positions, and who was proven wrong?
No one, actually. It's odd that you think anyone was. No one advocating either for either party has proof. No one has been proven right. No one has been proven wrong. What the hearings established is that the accuser lacked evidence to support her accusation.
No, what was established during the hearings was that the accuser was a liar.
CBF claimed she "could recall" if she showed her therapist notes to the WaPo reporter who write an article that claimed to have information straight from those notes.
She "couldn't recall" because if she said no, they'd subpoena the reporter, and he'd point out that she was a liar, and if she said yes, then she'd have no more excuse for not sharing them with Senate investigators.
Since the notes stated the attack was in a year where she could not have had any interactions with Kavanaugh, she couldn't let them get out.
Because she's a liar.
Because only a liar or an imbecile still claims to believe CBF.
AS for Rob Lowe - what he tweeted was funny. It would have been better if he had not deleted it and apologized.
Greg P...
No, what he said was "why did you trust the serially dishonest Left?"
You're mistaking assertion for logic. Incidents are enjoyable, but they remain incidents. The fact that one person lies doesn't mean another person lies.
we know she was lying, because she refuses to share the shrink's notes with us, after showing them to the WaPo reporter
Really? I don't know that. Do you know that? Did she tell you? Did you see the notes?
Do you think that's the only logical interpretation?
Good grief, man, I can think of alternate, logical interpretations without even breaking a sweat. Perhaps there are unrelated things in the notes that, if revealed, would be hurtful to people she loves. Perhaps she doesn't trust Congress to keep secret the non-pertinent parts of the notes. Perhaps she knows that political operatives will interpret what she said, and how her shrink wrote it down in the worst possible light down to the color of the ink and the doodles in the margins. Perhaps she's following her lawyer's advice.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Perhaps. But then why are you willing to believe CBF's lies? Why did you say that Kavanaugh was too perfect? Why did you wait until months after Kavanaugh's confirmation to say you would have confirmed him? Why did you criticize Sandmann and never criticize Phillips?"
I listened to the testimony in the normal way that you ought to listen to testimony, which is not pre-believing that it's "lies" (or truth).
Really? What was your response when CBF claimed she couldn't recall whether or not she'd shown her therapist's notes to a WaPo reporter three months ago?
What was your response when she refused to share those notes (the ONLY physical evidence of any sort to back up her claims) with Senate investigators?
What was your response when she claimed not to know how she got home from the party? Couldn't recall if she called a friend for a ride, or walked several miles home?
What was your response when she provided a new version of her story (as to the house location) and a new number of people there, at the hearings?
How many times does someone have to change their story as contradictory facts come out, before you stop giving them any benefit of the doubt?
Come on all. This is Trump's MO -- ALways leave a little room for deniability. Remember when he made fun of the disabled reporter and then denied it? Stop being so stupid people and give him credit for being so darn clever. He deserves it.
cronus titan said...
Please be patient with Althouse's passionate denials of what a reasonable person would conclude are her views. "Cruel neutrality" is an old law professor's game. It necessarily requires treating every allegation or defense as credible on its face, regardless of how preposterous (at least initially).
Bzzt
Real "cruel neutrality" could, and should, treat everyone as a lair until proved to be truthful.
Given the proclivities of the Left, one would end up with a much better batting average going that way
steve uhr said...
Come on all. This is Trump's MO -- ALways leave a little room for deniability. Remember when he made fun of the disabled reporter and then denied it? Stop being so stupid people and give him credit for being so darn clever. He deserves it.
I never bought that smear against Trump, especially in view of Hillary's blatant mocking of the mentally challenged. Do you recall that incident, Steve? Do I have to google it up for you?
As a variation of "cruel neutrality", the BBC has put Fiona Bruce in the moderator seat of Question Time. The Telegraph said she handles the job with "glacial professionalism".
Blogger Henry said...
Greg P...
No, what he said was "why did you trust the serially dishonest Left?"
You're mistaking assertion for logic. Incidents are enjoyable, but they remain incidents. The fact that one person lies doesn't mean another person lies.
We know that the Left has no principles other than a lust for political power (otherwise Northam, Fairfax, and Herring would all have resigned). Trusting any leftist, ever, before they've provided solid, tested, evidence for their claims is an act of credulity, if not outright stupidity.
we know she was lying, because she refuses to share the shrink's notes with us, after showing them to the WaPo reporter
Really? I don't know that. Do you know that? Did she tell you? Did you see the notes?
Do you think that's the only logical interpretation?
Good grief, man, I can think of alternate, logical interpretations without even breaking a sweat. Perhaps there are unrelated things in the notes that, if revealed, would be hurtful to people she loves. Perhaps she doesn't trust Congress to keep secret the non-pertinent parts of the notes. Perhaps she knows that political operatives will interpret what she said, and how her shrink wrote it down in the worst possible light down to the color of the ink and the doodles in the margins. Perhaps she's following her lawyer's advice.
She could provide all the notes that the therapist took about "the attack." To which none of your claims apply.
But those notes say the attack occurred 1984 or later ("mid eighties"), and by then Kavanaugh was long gone off to college, and wouldn't be associating with CB.
When know this, because that's the time period given by the early stories about CBF. A time period that disappeared once CBF realized that Kavanaugh was more years ahead of her than she thought he was, and that "mid eighties" didn't work.
If she wasn't lying, and the therapist notes didn't have that in them, then she would have released them, if for no other reason that to clear up that point.
Here you go, Steve
Hillary was either mocking the disabled or having a real seizure. Either should have disqualified her. Yet she carried on and your side defended her.
Yes he was reacting to the reporter denying his own bylines re the 9/11 feedback.
Several commentators here are under the delusion that litigating the hosts posts, is the purpose of her writings.
It is not.
The commentators that insist on litigating these posts, consider themselves always the wisest, most informed and prescient members of society. I do so truly wish you would start your own blog, as the rest of use could use a source of such unfailing accuracy and superior moral authority.
Post a Comment