Open Thread and Link Farm, Mini Moon Edition


Beautiful Tomboys of the 1930s

  1. What it’s like to be that fat person sitting next to you on the plane. — Medium
    It’s not like this for me, happily, but I’ve heard several fat friends express similar feelings about flying.
  2. Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago – The Washington Post
  3. Are Left-Populists Wrong About Political Campaigns? – Lawyers, Guns & Money
    Eric Loomis considers the lessons lefties can learn from Bernie Sanders’ campaign.
  4. Radical feminism: hermeneutically sealed – Sweet Talk
    Although this critique of radical feminism doesn’t mention trans women’s rights, it’s interesting to consider that conflict – which, for me, is the biggest exhibit in the case against (much of) modern radical feminism – in the light of the view of radical feminism as “hermeneutically sealed.”
  5. Chattanooga Mayor Says City’s Gigabit Network (Which Comcast Tried To Kill) To Thank For City’s Revival
    “… letting AT&T and Comcast lawyers literally writing bad state telecom law has resulted in Tennessee being one of the least connected states in the nation.”
  6. The Complete Calendar Plug-In of the World’s Fictional Holidays | Atlas Obscura
  7. Court Says Free Speech Rights For Prisoners Not ‘Clearly Established,’ Gives Pass To Retaliatory Actions By Officials
    “… appeals court decision finding a federal prisoner’s rights weren’t violated when he was removed from a halfway house and placed in solitary confinement in retaliation for publishing an article about his prison experience.”
  8. Scottish people insulting Donald Trump
  9. “Ashley Carol I will not have drugs in my house! Come home right now!”
  10. To Keep The Blood Supply Safe, Screening Blood Is More Important Than Banning Donors
  11. U.S. citizen sues feds over border body cavity search | Arizona Capitol Times
    There was no warrant, and no apparent probable cause. They didn’t find any drugs, but they did send the teenager’s parents a bill for $575 for the search. Isn’t this essentially rape?
  12. Citigroup trademarks “THANKYOU” and sues AT&T for thanking clients | Ars Technica
  13. A professor at the United States Naval War College illustrates the merits of US strategy against ISIS by imagining a meeting of the Islamic State National Security Council. (Thanks to Nobody.)
  14. Quotes From Feminists That Will Make You Rethink Trusting Men’s Rights Activists
    Ozy contextualizes many of the “horrible things feminists have said!” quotes that MRAs pass around.
  15. Fantastic short documentary on movie sound effect artists / Boing Boing
    Somehow this nearly wordless short film, showing two foley artists creating everyday sounds for a film about fishermen, is fascinating. They’re concentrating so hard.
  16. Donald Trump Will Be Buried in an Electoral Avalanche | New Republic
    Jeet Heer argues for the optimistic view. I hope he’s right.
  17. Thinking About Hillary — A Plea for Reason — Medium
    “…the public view of Hillary Clinton does not seem to be correlated to “scandals” or issues of character or whether she murdered Vince Foster. No, the one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power.”
  18. Brock Turner sentence: Why sex offender registries don’t work — Quartz
  19. The ultimate trolley problem.
  20. BERNIE SANDERS: 7,000 supporters signed up to run for office – Business Insider
    Probably this will fizzle out – I say that because let’s face it, most things do – but if it doesn’t fizzle, this has the potential to matter.
  21. When the Bank Robs You: Wells Fargo Contractors Allegedly Stole Family Heirlooms Rescued From Nazis
  22. Congresswoman Who Used To Receive Welfare Wants To Drug Test Rich People Who Get Tax Breaks | ThinkProgress
  23. Gun control’s racist reality: The liberal argument against giving police more power –
  24. Rape culture, a new definition for a contentious idea – Sweet Talk
  25. The Party Left Me And Other Complaints of the Voter-As-Atomistic-Consumer – Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money
  26. USDA ERS – Recent Evidence on the Effects of Food Store Access on Food Choice and Diet Quality
    This USDA study shows that the “food desert” theory doesn’t actually seem to have much impact on how people eat. The best way to convince poor people to eat more veggies seems to be to subsidize veggies.
  27. Donald Trump’s invisible campaign.
  28. That time the Devil returned to Georgia and got in a Tuba duel….
  29. Sonia Sotomayor dissent in Utah v. Strieff takes on police misconduct.
  30. New Star Trek Fan Film Guidelines Have a Chilling Effect on Star Trek Fans |
  31. Vine: “When they charge you 25 cents for some extra sauce”
    If this isn’t fake, then these people are stunningly assholish. And committing a felony, as Grace pointed out to me.
  32. Policy Approaches to Decreasing Unemployment that neither the Democrats or Republicans seem willing to consider. (Pdf)
  33. The Reductive Seduction of Other People’s Problems.
    What’s wrong with westerners focusing on improving the developing world. Interesting responses in the comments, too.
  34. A case study of Playpumps International.
    Another failed “magic bullet” approach to solving developing world problems. (Pdf)
  35. Embattled whiteness gave us Brexit. It won’t give us President Trump.
  36. Low-cut dresses boost women’s job application chances, says researcher
  37. Model legislation for improving campus rape investigations.
    This is coming from an MRA group, which makes me automatically skeptical of it, and I’d really like to see some skeptical lawyers reading it. But at first glance it seems reasonable and balanced. (Pdf).
  38. People Actually Live In These Beautifully Insane Houses – ALLDAY Via Mandolin.
  39. Ambiguous Cylinder Illusion – YouTube
    You’ve probably already seen this wonderfully mind-twisting illusion, but if you haven’t, take 60 seconds and look at it; it’s stunning.
  40. NRA Complaint Takes Down 38,000 Websites | Motherboard
    Once again, intellectual property law is a useful tool of censorship. I guess defending the 2nd amendment means acting with contempt towards the first?
  41. Judge Orders Macy’s to Quit Fining, Detaining Suspected Shoplifters in In-Store Jail
    Basically, they’d lock people up and not let them go until they paid cash and signed a “confession.” I don’t know why I was shocked that Macy’s does this. I’m glad the judge ordered Macy’s too stop, but in a better world some Macy’s folks would be arrested.
  42. Don’t Look At Us, We Didn’t Do It! – Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money
    Trump’s rise is the logical outcome of where the Republicans have been heading for years.
  43. The Story Behind the Most Bizarre Strike Photo Ever Taken | Atlas Obscura
  44. Watch Anna Kendrick and James Corden Nail Adele in “Soundtrack to a Love Story” Performance |
    A super fun mini-musical from Corden’s show.
  45. NASA Just Confirmed That Earth Has A New “Mini-Moon”

This character is named Sailor Mini Moon.

This entry posted in Link farms. Bookmark the permalink. 

24 Responses to Open Thread and Link Farm, Mini Moon Edition

  1. 1
    desipis says:

    This act of wanton violence against a peaceful demonstrator is by a group of radical pro-affirmative-action leftists. Here’s the ring leader gleefully acknowledging using violence to shut down her political opponents. Here’s the write up from the institution she represents indicating her words and actions are supported. The group appears to be well organised and funded enough to undertake significant litigation.

    Given the express intent to cause political outcomes through threats and actual violence should this be considered a terrorist organisation?

    Has there anything so brazenly pro-violence and anti-freedom from the right and/or Trump supporters, or is this a problem mainly on the left?

  2. 2
    Harlequin says:

    #9 makes me laugh every time. :)

    Re #30, the Organization for Transformative Works has a rather different take: Now, that’s more focused on copyright law and doesn’t address the trademark portions, but still, they seem to think the restrictions aren’t as binding as the article does.

  3. 3
    Grace Annam says:

    For the record, reference #31, I didn’t specify a felony; I pointed out that it was either assault or battery (depending on how the jurisdiction defines those terms). In my jurisdiction, that vine depicts a misdemeanor-level assault.


  4. 4
    Paul says:

    Thanks for linking #4. Incidentally, I was listening to a radfem theorist discuss transwomen when I had the thought that radfem was somehow interpretively “closed”. It makes sense in a radfem framework to suggest that transwomen are buying into and further entrenching the dominant view that women must behave in “feminine” ways and if you “want” to be a woman you have to adopt those “feminine” ways. But then, that doesn’t seem at all like the most relevant aspects of the trans experience.

  5. 5
    Grace Annam says:

    Most cis women can be taken as women with very little effort, even if they are dressed in “neutral” (male) clothing and not wearing makeup. Even when someone genders them as male at first, usually all that’s required is that they say something, and people will look again, find enough cues, and settle into treating them as women.

    Some trans women can do the same thing. My voice is good enough and my other variables are now good enough that I’ve done the same thing. But many trans women can’t do that; they have to send more cues. Some simply can’t send enough cues, and get taken for men no matter what they do.

    Trans-hostile radical feminists want trans women to clear a hurdle which is impossibly high — they want trans women to go out in public without wearing makeup or explicitly feminine clothing or hair styles, and then somehow magically be taken as women anyway. They want trans women not to reify patriarchal expectations by act or deed, in a patriarchal society, and then expect the patriarchal society not to take its shots, even though they know perfectly well from their own personal experience that our society will take its shots against any woman who fails to conform to her assigned role.

    Even if they thought a trans woman was cis until they found out otherwise, many people won’t treat a trans woman as they treat a cis woman. In other words, trans-hostile radical feminists are demanding that trans women do nothing to indicate that we are women, and then expecting a largely transphobic public to divine that we are women, without assistance, and treat us accordingly. And that’s just not how it works.

    Also, of course, there are many trans women out there who are accepted as cis without a second glance, and also without wearing makeup and whatnot. But radical feminists and other theorists and other people don’t see them, because they don’t stand out. So everyone makes judgements on the trans people who are visibly trans, and believes that’s all the trans people out there, because of the widespread belief, often expressed with smug confidence, that “you can always tell”. It’s a form of confirmation bias.

    Long story short: trans-hostile radical feminists want trans women to accomplish the impossible, indeed, to achieve something which they themselves have been unable to.


  6. 6
    Ampersand says:

    Desipis –

    I’m no lawyer. But it seems like a stretch to call that incident terrorism. I do think that they should be arrested and charged with assault (or whatever other charges are appropriate – again, IANAL).


    Has there anything so brazenly pro-violence and anti-freedom from the right and/or Trump supporters, or is this a problem mainly on the left?

    I think violence outliers are a problem in virtually every demographic and (writ large) political group. I can certainly think of examples on the right, like the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, or the violence committed by pro-life activists.

    I’m more concerned about things Trump has said to encourage violence – because Trump, as the Republican candidate for President, should be held to a high standard.

  7. 7
    Ampersand says:

    For the record, reference #31, I didn’t specify a felony; I pointed out that it was either assault or battery (depending on how the jurisdiction defines those terms). In my jurisdiction, that vine depicts a misdemeanor-level assault.

    My bad, thanks for the correction. :-)

  8. #37: Thank you — I’m glad you like our Campus Equality, Fairness and Transparency Act (CEFTA).

    Having worked with Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) for some time now, I can tell you we’re not an MRA group. For example, we have nothing to say about wage gaps, job safety/comfort gaps, child custody decisions, differential suicide rates, etc. And we certainly have no position on whether or not men should GTOW.*

    [*] Go Their Own Way, or be what previous generations called “women haters” — bachelors by choice.

    We focus on making sure people accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape get a fair shake. Period. I’m sure many MRAs want this too…as do at least a few feminists.

  9. 9
    Ampersand says:

    Hi, Jeffrey no relation! Thanks for commenting.

    Is it unfair to call SAVE an MRA organization? I don’t think so. Yes, SAVE focuses on a particular set of issues – but no more than, say, NARAL does, and I wouldn’t hesitate to call NARAL a feminist organization.

    It’s telling that you say “We focus on making sure people accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape get a fair shake. Period.” If that’s your focus – “period” – that implies zero focus on making sure people who have been sexually harassed, assaulted or raped get fair treatment.

    I absolutely want those accused to get a fair shake – but I want the same for people who say they’ve been assaulted. I think a lot of feminists feel the same as I do.

    Your model legislation appears more even-handed than your statement here in comments (or I wouldn’t have linked to it). But I’d still like to read an assessment of it from lawyers who come from a different perspective.

    As a result of your comment, I looked more carefully into SAVE, and frankly the organization doesn’t look pretty.

    I think that SAVE showed incredibly bad judgement by working to weaken legal protections for abused immigrant women. I understand that a “fair shake” for immigrant women whose husbands beat them up and hold guns to them isn’t your “focus,” but just because something’s not your “focus” doesn’t excuse taking the side of vicious, violent abusers. Doing so while SAVE’s treasurer Natasha Spivack was running “Encounters” – a “matchmaker” service for American men wanting to marry Russian women – and insisting that one of the women who used her service was lying about being abused – also shows terrible judgement.

    From Legal Affairs magazine:

    About two years later, according to Nataliya, James attacked her while she breastfed their newborn daughter. Nataliya was taken by ambulance to the hospital, where the attending physician noted contusions and swelling on her face and body as well as a bite mark on her hand. “During the course of my examination of Ms. Fox, a man identifying himself as Ms. Fox’s husband made repeated and threatening phone calls to the emergency department,” the physician stated in a deposition.

    Nataliya’s suit charges Encounters with failing to do a meaningful background check of James, whom a former fiancée accuses of nearly strangling her to death. (He is now married to another mail-order bride.) Encounters also failed to tell Nataliya about her right to bring her own immigration petition and so broke the 1996 law written to protect battered foreign wives, the suit says.

    As Nataliya tells it, she told Spivack that James hit her months before the attack. Spivack didn’t really believe Nataliya: “I felt she was manipulating the situation to gain my sympathy.” The broker was inclined to trust James, who said it was “absolutely not true” that he ever hurt Nataliya, accusing her of faking her injuries because she was “on shaky ground with her immigration status.” Spivack encouraged Nataliya to work out her troubles with her husband and warned her that she would likely be deported if she did not remain with him.

    I realize that Spivack resigned from SAVE a couple of years ago – more than a decade after the court found against her – but SAVE’s website still praises her highly.

    From the unanimous U.S. Court of Appeals decision against Spivack’s organization:

    On July 6, 2000, approximately three weeks after Plaintiff gave birth to her daughter Sophia, James Fox subjected Plaintiff to a final violent episode. Specifically, James Fox physically and verbally abused Plaintiff for approximately two hours, including threatening to kill her while holding a gun to her head. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff called an ambulance because of severe chest pain. The ambulance took Plaintiff to the local hospital where she was treated by Air Force Lt. Col. Marilyn Perry, M.D. Plaintiff had numerous physical injuries including contusions and swelling on her face; hand marks on her arms (indicating that she was violently grabbed and/or shaken); a human bite to her hand; and contusions on her chest. Dr. Perry — board certified with substantial experience with domestic abuse — also testified that it was clear to her that Plaintiff had been terrorized and was a victim of domestic abuse . . .

    The record is undisputed that Spivack knew about the battered spouse waiver during the times that Plaintiff had confided in her about the physical and mental abuse that James Fox inflicted upon her. The record is also undisputed that Spivack, nor any other agent or employee of EI, ever informed Plaintiff about the battered spouse waiver.

    SAVE’s website also takes James Fox’s side in what appear to be deceptive ways:

    In 2000, Nataliya Derkach Fox, who was seeking permanent US residency, accused her new husband, James M. Fox, of attempted homicide in order to bolster her petition under VAWA’s battered immigrant provisions. The allegation was found to be non-meritorious. On June 7, 2002, a Loudon County judge went so far as to issue an order that all police and court documents regarding the case be expunged from the record…

    But the Baltimore Sun tells a different story: “[Fox] was charged criminally in Virginia, but his record was expunged after he completed a class for batterers, according to court records.” Having your records expunged in exchange for taking a class for batterers is NOT the same as the allegations being “found to be non-meritorious.” And (as quoted above), it’s clear that the Court of Appeals did find that James Fox viciously abused Nataliya, and that rather than helping Nataliya Spivack deceived her about her legal rights.

    As Daran at the extremely-critical-of-feminism blog Feminist Critics writes, the lack of information about SAVE available on SAVE’s website makes the organization appear sketchy.

    I’m a strong advocate for DV services which recognise and serve male victims, and the possibility of false accusations being used as a tool of abuse. But this didn’t look right, didn’t feel right, didn’t smell right. Who are these people? Who are their associates? What do they do? They say they offer assessment, accreditation, and training services but who assessed the assessors? Who accredited the accreditors? What training do the trainers have?

    The more I looked at it, the less it looked like a bona fide, albeit dissident, domestic violence organization, and the more it looked like a propaganda front.

    And in comments, the very pro-feminist David Futrelle writes:

    What DOES pretty much destroy the group’s credibility is that the group provides NO information on Spivak’s role in the organization, or indeed about ANYONE involved in the group. There is no info about a board of directors, if there is one, or about any DV experts who might be advisors to the group. If you look at the group’s press releases, you see only the names of two staffers. There’s no info about them on the site either. If you look at the group’s “research reports,” there are no authors listed.

    When David Futrelle and Daran agree on something, that’s pretty unusual.

    So yeah, I don’t think that SAVE is very credible. Sorry.

  10. 10
    nobody.really says:

    Jonathan Chait forthrightly declares, “To be perfectly clear, Trump is not Hitler or a Nazi” and spares no effort to ensure that you disagree.

  11. 11
    Charles S says:

    A really good essay on Walking while black.

  12. 12
    Christopher says:

    RE #24

    I think it’s hard for Americans (And other people?) to acknowledge that two conflicting ideas or cultures can exist in this country and that, depending on the context, they can both be very powerful.

    The commonest objection I see to the idea of Rape Culture is people saying that, no, clearly America is dominated by an Anti-Rape Culture, and listing all the ways we attempt to counter and prevent rape.

    And I think it’s obvious that there is Anti-Rape Culture in the US, both in the general sense that rape is quite often heavily stigmatized (As well it should be), is considered a crime, is considered a more sensitive matter to joke about than, say, murder, and all the other many ways we attempt to treat the crime of rape seriously; as well as the fact that there are a number of people who are specifically aware of rape culture and work to point out and combat the tropes of that culture, often from positions of cultural power or substantial community support.

    It seems very hard for people to admit that the power and presence of one of these cultures doesn’t completely eclipse the power of the other. Depending on the context, Rape Culture may be extremely prevalent and guide decision-making, or Anti-Rape Culture (In either sense) may well have stamped out most or all expressions of Rape Culture. Both of these situations can exist simultaneously, in the US and in the world.

    The main objection to the idea of Rape Culture seems to be that Rape Culture doesn’t have a hegemony in American thought. I think that’s pretty indisputably true (and maybe even worth acknowledging explicitly more often), but that doesn’t mean Rape Culture doesn’t exist or is powerless.

  13. 13
    RonF says:

    I keep reading articles expressing dismay over the fact that the FBI failed to indict Hillary Clinton (conservatives and Sen. Sanders’ supporters having found a point of commonality). But one comment I’ve seen struck me. The FBI doesn’t indict people – the DoJ’s prosecutors do. The FBI investigated her, but isn’t it the Attorney General’s decision?

  14. 14
    Charles S says:

    Yes, RonF, it is the DoJ’s decision. That’s kind of been well covered? The House committee on Clinton Conspiracy Theories (or whatever) dragged the AG over to demand to know why she hadn’t indicted Clinton for murdering JFK Jr (or something) earlier this week. All Fox News was up in arms about Bill meeting with the AG a week or two ago, and she declared that to assuage their concerns she would simply accept the FBI’s recommendations.

    Can you find a case of the FBI recommending no charges at the end of an investigation and then the DoJ charging anyway? That would seem pretty weird.

  15. 15
    RonF says:

    I haven’t researched the matter, so I wouldn’t know. But:

    she declared that to assuage their concerns she would simply accept the FBI’s recommendations.

    But that puts the FBI in a role that doesn’t belong to them. They are not prosecutors and don’t make that kind of decision. It seems to me that what she should have done is have appointed a special prosecutor – perhaps with Congressional approval – and let them decide.

  16. 16
    Jake Squid says:

    It seems to me that what she should have done is have appointed a special prosecutor – perhaps with Congressional approval – and let them decide.

    I’d be happy to spend another few million to bring Ken Starr back! I’m sure Trey Gowdy would be happy to help out and then a conviction is totally in the bag.

  17. 17
    Charles S says:

    Okay, so you don’t know enough to know whether the DoJ ever prosecutes someone after the FBI finds no evidence of a crime and recommends no prosecution, but you do know enough to recommend that the DoJ appoint a special prosecutor. That’s a highly selective and predictable sort of knowledge.

  18. 18
    RonF says:

    It just seemed to me that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s job would be investigating and a Federal prosecutor’s job would be prosecuting.

  19. 19
    nobody.really says:

    The GOP finally crushes the #NeverTrump movement, and Trump has named a running mate. As a result:

    • If you go to the GOP Convention, you will hear Trump/Pence sound.
    • In their more genteel moments, they may serve tea and Trump/Pence.
    • And since self-destruction seems to be the GOP’s dearest wish, come Election Day, come hell or high water, they will get the come-Trump/Pence they so richly deserve.

  20. 20
    nobody.really says:

    And when they play a round of golf at Trump’s Scotland resort, I doubt that they’ll give the caddie an entire Pound Sterling for a tip; they’d probably just give him a trumpence.

  21. 21
    Harlequin says:

    Though their words are simple and few, listen, listen, they’re calling to you…feed the birds…

  22. 22
    MJJ says:

    Okay, so you don’t know enough to know whether the DoJ ever prosecutes someone after the FBI finds no evidence of a crime and recommends no prosecution, but you do know enough to recommend that the DoJ appoint a special prosecutor.

    The FBI found plenty of evidence that Clinton behaved questionably. The issue was whether or not what she did qualifies as a crime. The FBI should not be put in a position where they make the final determination of whether or not questionable behavior is criminal – the FBI was aware that their recommendation would not just be an opinion, it would be the final decision.

    The point is that if Lynch felt she was unable to make the decision, she should have given the decision to someone with the proper qualifications who lacked whatever issues made her unable to do so, rather than outsource the decision to the police.

  23. 23
    Jake Squid says:

    As far as I can tell, Clinton’s email server is an issue of great import to those who would never, never ever ever never, vote for her. To those who are reliably Democratic, it’s an annoyance but not one that will stop them from voting to keep Trump out of the White House. In other words, it’s a slightly more valid version of Benghazi. Good luck with that, guys.

    From my perspective, anybody running for president on a major party ticket is going to be a terrible human being. The important thing is which one of the sociopaths is more likely to do less harm (and possibly help) and which one is more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices who are closer to my politics.

    In other words, I don’t care how corrupt Clinton is just as you don’t care how corrupt Trump is. Neither of us is going to convince the other that we’d do better by voting for the sociopath of the party we see as much less desirable.

  24. 24
    nobody.really says:

    For your pre-convention reading pleasure, here’s an excerpt from ABC News’s ongoing series, DIVIDED AMERICA: To Some, Trump Is a Desperate Survival Bid:

    The population of Logan County [West Virginia] is … half what it was 50 years ago. [O]ne in five lives in poverty; few have college degrees. Drug abuse is rampant. [Men] die eight years younger than the average American man.

    Even cremations are up at the funeral home down the street. People can’t afford caskets anymore….

    The unemployment rate is 11 percent, compared to less than 5 percent nationwide. Many have given up working altogether: West Virginia is the only state in America where less than half of working-aged people work. More than 12 percent of Logan County residents collect Social Security disability checks, three times the national average.

    They gave up on their politicians — they elected both Republicans and Democrats and believe both failed them in favor of chasing campaign contributions from the class above them and votes from the one below, the neighbors they suspect would rather collect government welfare than get a job.

    Anxiety turned to despair…. And desperate people, throughout history, have turned to tough-talking populists….

    “[Trump] offers us hope … and hope’s the one thing we have left.”
    * * *
    “[N]ostalgia voters…” [see] an uneven recovery from the recession lined up with societal shifts — the election of the first non-white president, a rising minority population, the decreasing influence of Christian values. It left many in struggling, blue-collar communities across the country feeling deserted for the sake of progress someplace else.

    “Today, we’re not interested in the plan, we’re interested in the slogan…. When confidence falls, it’s all too complicated to understand an elaborate plan or an articulated policy. We don’t want to wait for the details; we don’t want to read the footnotes. Just give me a powerful headline.”
    * * *
    “I don’t know exactly what’s in [Trump’s] head, what his vision is for us…. But I know he has one and that’s what counts.”
    * * *
    People like Trump’s delivery, the rat-a-tat-tat of promises and insults so unscripted they figure he couldn’t have given it enough forethought to be pandering.
    * * *
    [These voters aren’t blind; they acknowledge Trump’s shortcomings, but are] willing to forgive because they believe the political machine left them with no other option.