Going Rogue: updated with video

Related Post Roulette

22 Responses

  1. CK MacLeod says:

    Beneath or amidst it she makes a tenable argument or two, but, more important,


  2. zic says:

    I am detecting a trend for religious privacy; here’s a more serious take. We’ll leave the Benedict Option alone while Dreher celebrates his father’s life.Report

    • Richard Hershberger in reply to zic says:

      Eh? That linked piece is on a different topic entirely: the newly-discovered infringement of religious freedom of bakers of wedding cakes. The Trump/Palin bit is on the largely unrelated notion that it is improper to delve too deeply into a candidate’s religious beliefs. This has long been standard fare whenever you suspect that your guy’s religious beliefs won’t stand up to scrutiny by potential voters.

      Exhibit A is John McCain. He clearly is largely un-religious and comes from a culturally Episcopalian background (of the older variety, when the Episcopal Church was the Republican Party at prayer–not the newer variety of gay-lovin’ feminists). This is unacceptable in a presidential candidate of either party, so he revealed that he thought he probably was Baptist, though he was unclear on the details. This was absurd on its face, but he was given a pass on it. The media was too busy investigating the suspiciously negro religion of Obama.Report

      • zic in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        They’re two sides of the same coin, @richard-hershberger

        If you’re going to impose your beliefs, people have a much greater right to challenge them than if you simply want to go around living them without too much scrutiny, because it’s something that ultimately happens in the privacy of your own mind.Report

        • Joe Sal in reply to zic says:

          “If you’re going to impose your statist beliefs, people have a much greater right to challenge them than if you simply want to go around living them without too much scrutiny, because it’s something that ultimately doesn’t happen in the privacy of your own mind.”

          (filing this away for future statist worshipping events)Report

  3. LeeEsq says:

    Nobody can be that masochistic to want to watch this interview. It sounds like American rightist political pornography.Report

    • zic in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Following the Mother Jones link, I got a page about ‘how to access it.‘ At the bottom, there’s this, which struck me as an incredibly odd collection of countries:

      International: Also available on My-HD in the following countries:
      Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, K.S.A., Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen


    • CK MacLeod in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Don’t get One America News, and didn’t even know it existed until today, but, if I had it, and the interview was on, I’d probably check it out.Report

  4. Kolohe says:

    from wikipedia

    In July 2014, [One America News] relocated its news and production studios out of The Washington Times Building to its new location at 101 Constitution Avenue NW, just steps from the United States Capitol.

    True fact – this is the same building as the regional gas utility.Report

  5. KatherineMW says:

    …that doesn’t even sound like language. It sounds like she just strung a bunch of catchphrases strung together. Or like a random YouTube comment.

    Was she this dumb when she was the quite-popular governor of Alaska, did she go into some kind of a breakdown in 2008, or is she acting this way on purpose despite knowing it sounds dumb?Report

    • Stillwater in reply to KatherineMW says:

      Was she always this stoopid? Did she suffer a Flowers for Algernon moment? Is she merely acting stoopid as part of an elaborate grift-based ruse?

      Either way: the genius of Sarah Palin.

      {{“Ms. Palin, what source materials have you studied to prepare for your interview of Mr. Trump?”

      “All of em!”}}Report

    • DavidTC in reply to KatherineMW says:

      Sarah Palin, when not reading from a script, has always spoken in word salads. She can barely string sentences together.

      We’re just lucky here she appears to *mostly* be reading off a teleprompter.

      But, here, at the very start, she apparently strays off it, and claims ‘[Voters] need someone who can fire all those politically-correct police’.

      First, what on earth does she mean ‘all those politically-correct police’? There are a *lot* of ways to describe the way the police are current behaving, some good, some bad, but ‘politically-correct’? Does she even know what those words mean, or do they just mean ‘bad’ to her?

      To clarify, I don’t mean, ‘Is she using that term in a misleading or inflammatory manner, or a made-up far-right version’. I literally am not sure if she knows what it means by *anyone* definition.

      Second…why, exactly does she think ‘the police’ should be fired? What the hell is she yammering about? It’s possible this is just some conservative meme I’ve missed, but seriously, what?

      Third…does…Sarah Palin think the president can fire the police? Why does she think this? Why would *anyone* think this? I mean, she’s not some random uninformed street person, she was a *governor*. A governor who, let us recall, had some actual problems with ethics violations because of her firing a sheriff!

      None of this makes any sense, and I don’t mean that in ‘She is on the far-right and everything she says is wrong’. I don’t disagree with her, I don’t even *understand* her enough to disagree with her.

      But, hey, the Republican party always wanted to bring Ronald Reagan back to life, and they have…with even less opinions of his own, and in the form of a moderately attractive woman.Report

      • Glyph in reply to DavidTC says:

        I’m not crazy enough to want to watch it, but “PC Police” as the term is usually encountered has nothing to do with actual police, but generally referes to language, concept or dialogue policing in the name of being politically correct. Presumably “fire” is just a riff on The Donald’s Apprentice catchphrase, not meant literally.

        IOW, she probably means”The Donald is going to talk real talk, and meet head-on those whose desire to appear morally superior at the expense of all other considerations prevents us from discussing hard truths.”Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Glyph says:

          The *standard* way of saying what you’re suggesting is ‘fire the political-correctness police’ or ‘fire the PC police’. She said, quote, ‘someone to fire all those politically-correct police.’

          There’s a bit of a difference between the ‘political-correctness police’ and the ‘politically-correct police’. I am entirely on board with the idea that she *meant* what you said, but that just serves to demonstrate how complete word-salad her speech is.

          Although it does explain that she only went a *little* off script.

          Also, there’s a difference saying ‘the police’ and ‘all those police’, which add to the confusion by implied she’s talking about *groups* of police.

          Presumably “fire” is just a riff on The Donald’s Apprentice catchphrase, not meant literally.

          That is probably what her *scriptwriter* meant, but she appears to have missed it by completely failing to emphasis it. Or at least, not emphasizing it *like* it’s wordplay.

          But I think, actually, together, we’ve managed to figure out what was supposed to happen.

          Roughly her script: They need someone to _fire_ the PC police. *pause* This is a movement. Trumpetors. Trumpservatives. That is what these folks are called. (I refuse to accept that a speech writer wrote ‘These are what these folks are called’.)

          When run through her mouth: They need someone to fire the politically correct police, and this is a movement, eh, uh, Trumpetors. Trumpservatives. These are what these folks are called.Report

  6. Ken S says:

    “By the way, even with my reading scripture everyday I wouldn’t want to answer the guy’s question either… it’s none of his business; it IS personal”

    If it’s so damned personal, why did you just tell us that you do it?Report

  7. Kolohe says:

    Ok, I’ll give one thing to Trump, he’s a good father. His desire to showcase his daughter’s brand outweighed the need to have a background free of distractions while giving an interview.Report