After hearing from exactly the sort of chucklehead that this post is about, I have deleted the chucklehead's comments and instituted a new policy: comments may be left by paying subscribers only, even on free posts like this one. If "Gen. Chang" wishes to berate me here, he is going to have to pay for the privilege. In the meantime, he has received a dishonorable discharge.
Probably the most regrettable transition I've seen in the Trump era was Glenn Reynold's transtiton from a man of the libertarian right to an ardent and uncritical supporter of Donald Trump. Winning, it turned out, was everything.
The classic essay on the problem you raise -- and one ironically suggested by Professor Reynolds, pre-Trump -- is "Who Goes Nazi?" by Dorothy Thompson, Harper's, August 1941.
If Ms. Wheeler defended Mr. Kimberlin, then I regret linking to her. She's been fairly thorough covering Trump's illegalities in office (and those of his minions).
I'm reminded of the piece by Peter Wehner, where he referenced the Southern Baptist Convention's condemnation of Bill Clinton with their "Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials”. But with Trump, a guy who's more immoral and dishonest than Clinton, their reaction has generally been "eh, no big deal", and it really points to the moral rot in the SBC, especially their problem with pastors and sexual improprieties was revealed.
I am not positive whether I ever wrote any posts about her explicitly taking the side of Rauhauser/Kimberlin etc. but I distinctly remember that she did. But in any event, these posts, in which she makes up an allegation about me out of whole cloth and then threatened to go to my bosses with it, tells you all you need to know about her dishonesty and vindictive, nasty nature.
It's a shame because I agree that she has done good work on a lot of legal stuff related to Trump, but I can't forget what I know about her ability to shamelessly try to destroy someone (me) based on completely made-up evidence.
I think it is fair to ask Glenn Reynolds "what happened to you" and equally as fair to ask Patrick.
Although I personally hate the question too, I still think it says a lot about me if I reflexively reject the question and questioner. I've come to see it as a reflective opportunity. Because human nature is to always over-adjust, it is reasonable and even probable that reactions to Trump (or whomever), positive or negative, are not precisely calibrated to eliminate personal issues.
So the real question may not be "what happened to you" ? But maybe "what is happening now?
For example, I'm fairly confident that the worst nightmare for a nacissistic egomanic is to be ignored, but what exactly compels me to applaud and facilitate the negative attention upon this person even if I know they thrive on any attention, positive or negative? Admit it. You want to keep the feeding tube attached so you can enjoy the show.
A word search on tweets and posts for "Trump" might lead to a different conclusion, but without the time for that am willing to concede I can't read your mind.
Trump has been a major theme in many lives for 6 years, representing a not insignificant percentage of their lives but they will resolutely maintain that tomorrow they could walk away cold turkey "if".
Do you really think I have written about him because I find his narcissistic and amoral personality to be intrinsically fascinating, separate and apart from his access to political power? Or is the obvious reason for my output due to the power he has held and his inexplicable sway over voters?
I was reading something else re: Putin lapdog Serbia and Kosovo and was reminded of the old Churchill quote that noted that "The Balkans produce more history than they can consume"
Congressional hearings, impeachments produce more history than they consume, perhaps by design, but ignore that they are providing a feast for whomever wants to take advantage. Private and bad state actor parties both feed off the excess and create more. Proceed with caution when adjusting the spotlight to your countenance
No but going on about him actually empowers him and his fans.
Let me put it this way.
There is wisdom in the ancient internet saying: Don't feed the troll, and every article where Trump is talked about for another day should be seen as yet another day we talked about Trump.
That is breakfast, lunch, dinner and a snack for Trump and his fans. There is something entirely explicable about the sway when raw meat is meticulously curated and catered to Trump and his fans front door daily by people who are smarter than that. The question to Jonah might be: What happened? You are smarter than that.
The impeachment(s) showed us that Trump was wounded but still came out 15% or11 million more votes stronger than 2016.
People are calling for indictments of Trump, but they'd better deliver with convictions on big ticket indictments or Trump will continue to pick up influence.
I know Wyomingaons are viewed here as irredeemable yahoos but look at it simply through the lens of human dynamics. A Casper, WY poll the other day found that only 27% of GOP voters approved of Liz Cheney's performance. It is clear that Trump became more powerful in the House and certainly in Wyoming/House during the course of the Cheney crusade because Trump has his person in the catbird seat and it was easy.
All Cheney opponent Hageman had to say was: "I'm not Liz and thank you Donald Trump for endorsing me" and Cheney will be lucky to get 30% of the vote. Cheney and Kinzinger gifted Trump enormous sway, squandering principles on the wrong battle. Think of it like the Ukraine. Lets say the principled human rights and international law thing is to counter the Russians by helping the Ukraine OK? But lets not drop the 172 Airborne Regiment into Kherson Int'l Airport. That would be righteous cause, wrong move. A propaganda windfall for Putin.
Trump is a dangerous leader. Patterico and everyone should write about his mistakes, immorality, illegality, ignorance, and stupidity. To ignore Trump out of a belief that it make him go away is laughable. Trump depends on people thinking criticism is useless.
And we should keep writing about him for decades so future generations know how easy it is to elect dangerous leaders.
I think Trump and Putin are similar personalities and find it interesting that NATO and most of the world are fighting Putin, but not talking much about him. Putin is still very popular with the common folk in Russia and NATO has chosen to facilitate a corrosion of that relationship rather than sparring verbally directly with Putin or the Russian Putin fan club.
But to each his own. Convincing people who spar verbally and in writing for a living, not to spar is doomed and either way, Trump will eventually disappear and we'll never be able to quantify if any of this made it faster or slower or better or worse
After hearing from exactly the sort of chucklehead that this post is about, I have deleted the chucklehead's comments and instituted a new policy: comments may be left by paying subscribers only, even on free posts like this one. If "Gen. Chang" wishes to berate me here, he is going to have to pay for the privilege. In the meantime, he has received a dishonorable discharge.
Probably the most regrettable transition I've seen in the Trump era was Glenn Reynold's transtiton from a man of the libertarian right to an ardent and uncritical supporter of Donald Trump. Winning, it turned out, was everything.
The classic essay on the problem you raise -- and one ironically suggested by Professor Reynolds, pre-Trump -- is "Who Goes Nazi?" by Dorothy Thompson, Harper's, August 1941.
https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
Great essay, as always. I can't match your rhetoric but I can vote for anyone running against Trump. It may not be enough but I can hope.
If Ms. Wheeler defended Mr. Kimberlin, then I regret linking to her. She's been fairly thorough covering Trump's illegalities in office (and those of his minions).
I'm reminded of the piece by Peter Wehner, where he referenced the Southern Baptist Convention's condemnation of Bill Clinton with their "Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials”. But with Trump, a guy who's more immoral and dishonest than Clinton, their reaction has generally been "eh, no big deal", and it really points to the moral rot in the SBC, especially their problem with pastors and sexual improprieties was revealed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/the-evangelical-movements-bad-bargain/616760/
Paul, Marcy Wheeler is a liar and a nasty actor. See here:
https://patterico.com/2012/12/14/how-a-fringe-leftist-thinks-my-flawed-perception-is-more-important-than-the-facts/
That one tells the story pretty well but these provide more background:
https://patterico.com/2012/12/12/sophistry-no-lying/
https://patterico.com/2012/12/12/rewriting-history-on-the-attack-on-steven-crowder-and-the-relevance-of-kimberlinrauhauser-tactics/
I am not positive whether I ever wrote any posts about her explicitly taking the side of Rauhauser/Kimberlin etc. but I distinctly remember that she did. But in any event, these posts, in which she makes up an allegation about me out of whole cloth and then threatened to go to my bosses with it, tells you all you need to know about her dishonesty and vindictive, nasty nature.
Noted. I didn't know her history with you until today.
It's a shame because I agree that she has done good work on a lot of legal stuff related to Trump, but I can't forget what I know about her ability to shamelessly try to destroy someone (me) based on completely made-up evidence.
I think it is fair to ask Glenn Reynolds "what happened to you" and equally as fair to ask Patrick.
Although I personally hate the question too, I still think it says a lot about me if I reflexively reject the question and questioner. I've come to see it as a reflective opportunity. Because human nature is to always over-adjust, it is reasonable and even probable that reactions to Trump (or whomever), positive or negative, are not precisely calibrated to eliminate personal issues.
So the real question may not be "what happened to you" ? But maybe "what is happening now?
For example, I'm fairly confident that the worst nightmare for a nacissistic egomanic is to be ignored, but what exactly compels me to applaud and facilitate the negative attention upon this person even if I know they thrive on any attention, positive or negative? Admit it. You want to keep the feeding tube attached so you can enjoy the show.
I deny it. Donald Trump could vanish tomorrow in a puff of putrid smoke and my only reaction would be relief that he could never again be president.
A word search on tweets and posts for "Trump" might lead to a different conclusion, but without the time for that am willing to concede I can't read your mind.
Trump has been a major theme in many lives for 6 years, representing a not insignificant percentage of their lives but they will resolutely maintain that tomorrow they could walk away cold turkey "if".
Do you really think I have written about him because I find his narcissistic and amoral personality to be intrinsically fascinating, separate and apart from his access to political power? Or is the obvious reason for my output due to the power he has held and his inexplicable sway over voters?
I was reading something else re: Putin lapdog Serbia and Kosovo and was reminded of the old Churchill quote that noted that "The Balkans produce more history than they can consume"
Congressional hearings, impeachments produce more history than they consume, perhaps by design, but ignore that they are providing a feast for whomever wants to take advantage. Private and bad state actor parties both feed off the excess and create more. Proceed with caution when adjusting the spotlight to your countenance
No but going on about him actually empowers him and his fans.
Let me put it this way.
There is wisdom in the ancient internet saying: Don't feed the troll, and every article where Trump is talked about for another day should be seen as yet another day we talked about Trump.
That is breakfast, lunch, dinner and a snack for Trump and his fans. There is something entirely explicable about the sway when raw meat is meticulously curated and catered to Trump and his fans front door daily by people who are smarter than that. The question to Jonah might be: What happened? You are smarter than that.
The impeachment(s) showed us that Trump was wounded but still came out 15% or11 million more votes stronger than 2016.
People are calling for indictments of Trump, but they'd better deliver with convictions on big ticket indictments or Trump will continue to pick up influence.
I know Wyomingaons are viewed here as irredeemable yahoos but look at it simply through the lens of human dynamics. A Casper, WY poll the other day found that only 27% of GOP voters approved of Liz Cheney's performance. It is clear that Trump became more powerful in the House and certainly in Wyoming/House during the course of the Cheney crusade because Trump has his person in the catbird seat and it was easy.
All Cheney opponent Hageman had to say was: "I'm not Liz and thank you Donald Trump for endorsing me" and Cheney will be lucky to get 30% of the vote. Cheney and Kinzinger gifted Trump enormous sway, squandering principles on the wrong battle. Think of it like the Ukraine. Lets say the principled human rights and international law thing is to counter the Russians by helping the Ukraine OK? But lets not drop the 172 Airborne Regiment into Kherson Int'l Airport. That would be righteous cause, wrong move. A propaganda windfall for Putin.
Trump is a dangerous leader. Patterico and everyone should write about his mistakes, immorality, illegality, ignorance, and stupidity. To ignore Trump out of a belief that it make him go away is laughable. Trump depends on people thinking criticism is useless.
And we should keep writing about him for decades so future generations know how easy it is to elect dangerous leaders.
I think Trump and Putin are similar personalities and find it interesting that NATO and most of the world are fighting Putin, but not talking much about him. Putin is still very popular with the common folk in Russia and NATO has chosen to facilitate a corrosion of that relationship rather than sparring verbally directly with Putin or the Russian Putin fan club.
But to each his own. Convincing people who spar verbally and in writing for a living, not to spar is doomed and either way, Trump will eventually disappear and we'll never be able to quantify if any of this made it faster or slower or better or worse