Donald Trump

Trump Gives Out Lindsey Graham's Cellphone Number During S.C. Speech

Was called a jackass, acted like one in response

|

Todd Krainin

Republican presidential candidate and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who previously said Donald Trump was "killing his party" with his inane comments about immigration, called the fellow Republican presidential candidate a "jackass" on CNN. It's an apt description people of all different kinds of ideological stripes can agree to. Specifically, Graham complained Trump was a "jackass at a time when we need to have a serious debate about the future of the party and the country."

For Trump, everything seems personal, and he responded to Graham's comments in a speech in South Carolina today in typical Trump fashion. Via The Hill:

"It's amazing, he doesn't seem like a very bright guy. He actually seems to me not as bright, obviously, as [former Texas Gov.] Rick Perry," Trump said during a rambling speech Tuesday in front of retirees at Sun City, S.C. 

"Didn't this guy call me four years ago? Yes, he called me three or four years ago, Lindsey Graham, I didn't even know who he was." 

After telling the crowd that Graham had called him to ask for a good reference to be on Fox News and to see if he could come visit Trump to receive some campaign cash, Trump held up a sheet of paper with a telephone number on it that he said was Graham's.

That Donald Trump didn't know who Lindsey Graham was four years ago says a lot about how serious of a candidate he is. It's not the first time Trump's publicized private contact information during public disputes with others. He posted a note from a Univision executive including that man's phone number when Univision dumped Trump's beauty pageant. Trump, a billionaire not afraid of using his money to curry political influence with Republicans or Democrats—a cronyist, if you will—is fond of pointing out how those people who attack him had previously been polite to him, or asked him for money, as if that were a strange thing to have happened.

NEXT: Is the Iran deal constitutional?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That Donald Trump didn’t know who Lindsey Graham was four years ago says a lot about how serious of a candidate he is.

    So you are telling me Trump is a serious candidate?

    1. Actually, this is the one positive thing I’ve heard about Candidate Trump.

      He’s a beautiful idiot; wonderful fun. I hope his candidacy lasts a good long time.

    2. No, he is a troll. And the media is feeding him.

      Why is there such a compulsion to feed trolls? I’m guilty of it myself sometimes. There is something about people being vocally wrong that we just can’t let go.

      1. Pretty much that. But I meant my comment as a slam on Graham not Trump. I don’t see how not knowing who Graham is could be a bad thing.

    3. John — It’s chumps like you who take every word Trump says seriously that makes me wonder how you’ve made it this far in life. Don’t you get it? This petty crap with Trump not speaking politically correct about the illegal murdering, raping immigrants and not being ‘nice’ to McCain (who is as bad as any socialist out there) and who claims he didn’t know Lindsey the faggot Graham (nothing against gays, I just don’t like McCain) four years ago? so fucking what?

      Hell yes he’s serious. He’s the ONLY candidate who isn’t going to be obligated to anyone (he has his own money). I LOVE the fact that he speaks off the cuff as opposed to every other politician out there who has every word scripted, rehearsed and polled before they open their fucking months.

      Hell yes The Donald’s serious. Time for you and the rest of the sheep to fall in line.

  2. If Lindsey Graham wants to have a discussion about the future of the GOP, why is he constantly berating and insulting the liberty wing of the party? He’s no better than Trump in that respect.

    1. He is much worse than Trump. Fuck him. Just get a new number.

    2. Lindsey Graham wants to have a serious discussion about how the government should spy on you more and throw pot-smoking hippies in jail before they kill everyone out of reefer madness.

      1. He thinks we should also mandate CHRISTIAN prayer in schools, and change our media to be more in line with what Scripture says.

    3. When did Lindsey ever claim to want such a discussion?

      1. Graham complained Trump was a “jackass at a time when we need to have a serious debate about the future of the party and the country.”

        1. Yeah but when was he serious about it?
          It was a goddamn Goof!!!

    4. Yeah, the guy who jokes about using the military to force Congress to not cut defense probably should not be throwing around the term ‘jackass’.

    5. Lindsey Graham needs to come out of the closet before I listen to him about anything. On second thought I still wouldn’t listen to his ridiculous ass.

  3. Bitch Fight!

    YES!

    1. Two girls one trump?

  4. Okay, I call for a Trump moratorium until he either gets a vote or does something really crazy like urinate on the White House lawn. If the latter occurs, I look for Reason to endorse him. Otherwise, enough is enough. We’ve got some serious shit running for obvious, and letting the clown distract from hammering felons, socialists, and psychopaths is a bad idea.

    1. Agreed. At least we’re down to one or two articles a day. The four-a-day Trumpfest last week was just too much.

    2. Perhaps Reason needs an extra, temporary blog exclusively for Trump commentary. It could be called “Shit & Trump.”

      1. I’m actually shocked we still have not yet been given the millennials’ take on Trump’s candidacy.

        1. Millennial will be puckering up for Hillary (take that how you like) thanks to some timely swag from the campaign HQ.

        2. “OFFENSIVE OFFENSIVE THE 1% OFFENSIVE OFFENSIVE #Trumpoffensive OFFENSIVE OFFENSIVE the 1% MISOGYNIST WHITE MALE #blacklivesmatter OFFENSIVE “

          1. That, sadly, seems likely. I hate being a Millenial.

    3. We’ve got a year and a quarter for incessant serious coverage. Trump is doing everyone a favor by softening us up for the oncoming slate of terrible “serious” candidates and distracting the media from humping dreary election “year” stories interminably.

      1. Besides, as inflammatory and retarded as his rhetoric on immigration has been, we still have the inevitable gaffs involving abortion and/or contraception and/or rape to look forward to. Someday we’ll look back on Trump’s couple weeks in the spotlight with something approaching nostalgia.

    4. “Media coverage has helped make Trump the top clown, but the public is lapping it up too. As FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver reports, Trump, despite low odds of winning the nomination, has received vastly more media attention and public interest?judged by Google searches?than any other candidate in the GOP field.” -Peter Suderman.

      I said this before, but if Reason’s constantly talking about Trump for the clicks, that’s fine. But you don’t get to also have your writers decry the media attention at the same time (credit where credit’s due I’m pretty sure this is the only time Suderman has talked about Trump).

      1. Do you not get that this excerpt is making the point that there’s a genuine public interest apart from media focus?

        1. Do you not get that Reason’s absolute focus on Trump has absolutely nothing to public interest?

          Please, show me where Reason plastered the site with the same amount of articles for a solid week when Sanders started pushing up. Oh wait, they covered that well enough with an article here and there, not two-to-four a day that say the exact same things. Sorry Bo, but claiming its about ‘public interest’ is utter bullshit based on Reason’s actual behaviour. Clicks are the most likely. Of course, you’re not in it for the ‘public interest’ either but we’ve well established your neurotic issues.

          1. No, I think that Reason’s exaggerated interest is not due to a desire for clickbait. It’s partly that Trump is more fun to write about. The more wild statements a candidate makes, the more newsworthy they are. It’s partly that Trump rankles libertarians in special ways. It’s partly a desire to say (once again): “See, millennials and leftists, we aren’t afraid to attack a Republican! You should like us!”

            1. And this tidbit isn’t any less fucking stupid the more it gets brought up.

            2. I prefer to imply that they do it for savvy business reasons rather than vapid social signalling because I expect better of libertarians. We’re the people who pioneered orphan labour dammit.

          2. Trump is leading every recent poll

    5. Why should they not be focusing attention on a current front runner of one of the big two who’s peddling ideas contrary to libertarianism as long espoused by this Reason.

      1. Thank you for this insightful, though incorrectly punctuated, tidbit of wisdom, Bo! You are a valued contributor to this website!

      2. Considering that you were outed as being another Tulpa sock puppet a couple of weeks ago, I’m surprised that you decided to try and post here again with that log-in name. What’s the matter…didn’t have enough imagination to pretend to be yet another person?

        1. Yes, in the feverish, desperate minds of some here I was ‘outed as Tulpa.’ In reality I’m not and have never been any other handle.

    6. You know, I’m kinda happy to see political “discourse” turned into the gossip sewer that it’s been heading towards. Most people who are going to vote don’t give a fuck about the issues or anyone’s shady background or possible illegal activities. Welcome to the new America.

  5. Neither one of these two is a serious candidate. The only interesting thing about tRump, is the bases reaction to him, if polls can be trusted.

    1. Who takes polls seriously this early? If I got a call, I’d say I liked Zod the Enforcer best.

      1. I’d say Joe Biden. I honestly think he is too dumb to do much damage.

        1. I’m surprised that anyone takes anything seriously right now. Trump is entertaining, but no one takes him seriously. Polls are practically useless right now, with most people barely aware of who is running. And polls also are showing that people think Trump is a clown.

          This politics-as-sport business offends the shit out of me. There are real problems with several candidates, who should be shamed out of this election by the media and the public. Instead we waste time with ghafla.

  6. Eight six seven five three oh nieeeeieeen!

    1. I was assuming it was 1-202-HOT-STUD or something like that.

      “Senator Graham’s office, may he… help you?

      1. I called this number and they asked for my credit card number. I’m starting to think it was a scam and not a resource for breeding horses.

    2. Lindsey I got your number!
      I’m gonna make you mine!
      Lindsey don’t change your number!

      1. For a good time! For a good time, caallllllllllll!

        1. I tried to call you before but I lost my nerve
          I tried my imagination but I was disturbed

  7. Tell me there’s an recording of people prank calling Lindsey Graham in our future. Please.

    1. Actually, my refrigerator *wasn’t* running. You’ve saved me quite a bit of spoilage. Thank you, anonymous young man.

  8. These guys make me wish pistol duels were still in legal.

    1. I’m envisioning a primetime Vaseline-sponsored wrestling event to the tune of Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On”

    2. Especially as a means of settling run off votes if no candidate gets more than 2/3 of the votes cast.

      1. I’m hoping for a tie.

      2. I always pictured this settled by a “Hunt for Justice”/Hunger Games sort of survival competition

        1. O doubt any of them could suvive in a metro park for a day,let alone the deep woods.

  9. Meanwhile there are stories that actually matter.

    Lawyers for Sen. Robert Menendez accused federal prosecutors and FBI agents Monday of lying to win a corruption indictment against him this spring, saying the Justice Department would “stop at nothing” to try to convict the powerful lawmaker…

    According to the defense documents, the lead prosecutor allowed an FBI agent to falsely testify to the grand jury that HHS officials were “perfectly clear” that Menendez had been seeking favorable treatment for his friend. In contrast, defense lawyers argued, internal FBI memos showed the officials saying that they couldn’t recall Menendez mentioning Melgen, and one said she wasn’t sure what Menendez specifically wanted.

    In attacking the credibility of the Justice Department, Menendez and his lawyers are making claims that recall the prosecutorial mistakes that forced the government in 2009 to withdraw a corruption conviction against another senior senator, Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). That case remains a black eye for the department’s public integrity division, which is heading the Menendez prosecution.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Note that according to the Post, suborning perjury is just a “presecutorial mistake”.

    1. “presecutorial mistake”.

      Well, if history is any indication, they’re at least correct in the practical sense.

    2. No, the prosecutorial mistakes were letting the corruption become public knowledge.

      1. Exactly, everyone knows that Senator was guilty of being a Republican, and he managed to walk because of a loophole.

    3. suborning perjury is just a “presecutorial mistake”.

      I thought it was standard procedure for prosecutors to have law enforcement officers commit perjury.

      1. Generally only against those too poor to get a good legal defense, though.

  10. “Yes, he called me three or four years ago, Lindsey Graham, I didn’t even know who he was.”

    And Graham is the “not bright” one.

    1. I wish I didn’t know who Graham was and envy anyone who doesn’t.

  11. Are these Trump articles just Reason click-bait? With all of the shit this country faces, this takes precedent. I am still awaiting Reason to address the massive racial database that Obama has amassed? I posted this article a few days ago by Paul Sperry:

    http://nypost.com/2015/07/18/o…..-database/

    “The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.”

    1. Maybe try linking to the same story at a reputable news source?

      1. Exactly. The story is certainly noteworthy and it’s entirely possible there’s good reason to be alarmed, but it’s impossible to know when the writer has such a blatantly obvious agenda.

        1. And I’ll add on that he doesn’t source his claims.

          Also, how is this a “secret database” if there are news stories about it and if much of the data is going to be publicly accessible online?

          1. It was “secret” in the sense that its existence was only rumored for years. It was unannounced.

            1. According to John, this is all out there on government websites. I’m honestly not trying to be contrarian or sarcastic, I’m genuinely confused by the conflicting information.

          2. The second paragraph explains why it is secret: “Unbeknown [sic] to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school ? all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.”

            As to sourcing, you’re right. I wish he had included some links. You can, however, simply search his claims on google and you’ll see that he is basing his article on facts. I was going to include some of them, but John beat me to them (see below).

            At present, there’s only one story about this database, the author’s, Paul Sperry is breaking it.

            As to the author, Sperry is a fellow at the Hoover Institute and former (?) contributor to Reason. What counts, though, are his facts and argumentation. And they seem pretty solid his article.

      2. So, according to you, there is nothing valuable or correct in this news story, not because of the facts or the arguments made by an excellent scholar Paul Sperry, but because you don’t like the particular newspaper in which it appears? For this reason we should ignore a real story about the police state in action? What an utter fuckwit you are, Hugh.

        1. It’s written by a race-baiting pundit who works at a neocon think tank and published in a sensationalistic neocon tabloid rag. So yeah, forgive me if I’m somewhat skeptical.

          1. I dunno what you’re talking about, Hugh. That all seems legit to me.

          2. Then get off your lazy, dumb ass and check his work for yourself. Here are the claims he makes.

            1. The granddaddy of them all is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled out earlier this month to racially balance the nation, ZIP code by ZIP code. It will map every US neighborhood by four racial groups ? white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino ? and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing racial imbalances.

            The agency proposes using nonwhite populations of 50% or higher as the threshold for classifying segregated areas.

            That is absolutely true and if you don’t believe me, go look at the HUD website on this.

            http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html

            Or use google and read any of the news reports on this odious database and regulation.

          3. 2. the Federal Housing Finance Agency, headed by former Congressional Black Caucus leader Mel Watt, is building its own database for racially balancing home loans. The so-called National Mortgage Database Project will compile 16 years of lending data, broken down by race, and hold everything from individual credit scores and employment records.

            Mortgage contracts won’t be the only financial records vacuumed up by the database. According to federal documents, the repository will include “all credit lines,” from credit cards to student loans to car loans ? anything reported to credit bureaus. This is even more information than the IRS collects.

            Yup. That one exists as well.
            http://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyProg…..abase.aspx

            1. There was already one version of this foistered off on the banks called ‘redlining”. It contributed to the housing crash some say.

              This could turn out different though. If the Fed. Gov says there aren’t enough green people in a particular neighborhood will home sellers be forced to sell only to green people until the desired racial balance is reached ?

              More likely it will be presented like this. There are too many whites in this zip code. No whites can be approved in this zip. or, there aren’t enough whites in this zip. No mortgages for whites for any zip code will be premitted until the correct number of whites move into this zip. . All future approvals for whites will be limited to this zip code wuntil the proper balanced is reached. Sorry white people, if you want to buy a house this is the only zip code you are currently allowed to buy in.

              What a disaster. Affirmative action mortgage approvals with a twist.

          4. That’s the ad hominem fallacy, Hugh. Just because someone you distrust says the sky is blue, doesn’t make it some other color. Do you think the NY Times, or The Nation, or Mother Jones is going to be first to jump on a story like this? A story that should give people the creeps, unless they are so far down the “social justice”/identity politics rabbit-hole that they think this is a great idea?

            1. “That’s the ad hominem fallacy, Hugh.”

              No, it isn’t. He’s not saying the guy’s wrong because of who he is. He’s saying that because of who he is and his an obvious agenda, he’s skeptical and not going to simply assume what he wrote is true. That’s an entirely rational and reasonable response. I highly doubt you would question it if he responded in such a way to an equivalent article with a leftist slant.

              1. Sure, except that it is not true. A few simple google searches verify everything the guy says. Moreover, the Post is not Gawker. They don’t as far as I am aware publish verifiably false claims. Everything in that article can be verified by a quick search of the internet.

                I am sorry Cali, the truth doesn’t give a shit if a NEOCON!!, whatever the fuck that is, dares to utter it. It is still the truth.

                1. And everyone knows it’s impossible to prevent a series of true facts in a way that paints a misleading picture or serves an agenda.

                  1. prevent

                    My kingdom for an edit button.

                  2. Jessee,

                    If anything he says is wrong, show me. I just showed where what he said was true. If you think he lying, show where. Don’t just say “he is a neocon he must be lying”.

                    1. Jhoon,

                      I don’t care about the particular article or the story it represents. Hugh feels the author and paper have a habit of presenting facts in a way that serves a particular agenda, which Hugh finds distasteful.

                      Should Hugh give every story in every publication the same benefit of the doubt and fact check everything that comes out of Mother Jones and the National Enquirer before he decides to freak out about the claims made? Or can he wait until sources he feels are reputable to pick it up before he loses his shit?

                      Every time one of the left-leaning commenters on the board posts something do you bother to assess and fact check the source and make a measured response to it? Do you have that much extra free time on your hands? Or should Hugh do it because it’s an article that you and Papaya find engaging?

                    2. Should Hugh give every story in every publication the same benefit of the doubt and fact check everything that comes out of Mother Jones and the National Enquirer before he decides to freak out about the claims made? Or can he wait until sources he feels are reputable to pick it up before he loses his shit?

                      Sure he can. But when someone gives him links to other sources that show the information is true, then no he shouldn’t. Is the HUD website not reputable? IS HUD lying when they say they are doing this?

                      And the housing regulation has been covered by a ton of people. The regulation is online. Go read it yourself. Then it won’t be tainted by being associated with the unclean post.

                    3. Yeah, John. I read it myself. Sperry’s contention is that pretty mundane improvements in government data gathering capabilities are a secret racial plot. HUD is literally just continuing to do what it has always done. Every year we are more technologically advanced than the last and are able to capture and collate more data. Sperry is clearly serving an agenda by pretending that Obama for Obama’s sake is collecting more data than ever before. I guarantee that Bush collected more data than Clinton and Clinton more than Bush I.

                      So yes, his facts are true and it adds up to a disingenuous story.

                    4. Jesse,

                      That is completely untrue.

                      AFFH obligates any local jurisdiction that receives HUD funding to conduct a detailed analysis of its housing occupancy by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, and class (among other categories). Grantees must identify factors (such as zoning laws, public-housing admissions criteria, and “lack of regional collaboration”) that account for any imbalance in living patterns. Localities must also list “community assets” (such as quality schools, transportation hubs, parks, and jobs) and explain any disparities in access to such assets by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, class, and more. Localities must then develop a plan to remedy these imbalances, subject to approval by HUD.

                      AFFH obligates grantees to conduct all of these analyses at both the local and regional levels. In other words, it’s not enough for, say, Philadelphia’s “Mainline” Montgomery County suburbs to analyze their own populations by race, ethnicity, and class to determine whether there are any imbalances in where groups live, or in access to schools, parks, transportation, and jobs. Those suburbs are also obligated to compare their own housing situations to the Greater Philadelphia region as a whole.

                      Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/…..nley-kurtz

                    5. John, you called Hugh a lazy dumb ass before any links to other sources were posted.

                    6. John, you called Hugh a lazy dumb ass before any links to other sources were posted.

                      NO I called him a lazy dumb ass after I easily verified what was in the article.

                2. John, apparently it’s a difficult concept for you to grasp, but I don’t simply assume everything I read is true. That doesn’t mean I assume it to be a lie, either.

                  Furthermore, countless claims in that article are made in the future or conditional tense (this “will” happen or this “could” happen). In those cases, the writer is making assertions about what will or could happen, not what has happened or what is currently happening, which are empirical facts. Now, his assertions very well may be correct, and many of them probably are. But he doesn’t offer the sources or proof needed to effectively make his case. That’s just poor persuasive writing, and relying on the reader to sift through Google to verify your claims is a copout.

                  1. ohn, apparently it’s a difficult concept for you to grasp, but I don’t simply assume everything I read is true. That doesn’t mean I assume it to be a lie, either.

                    I don’t either. That is why I provided links to t he government websites that describe these databases and verify exactly what he says about them. Those databases collect exactly the information he claims. Further, the assertions he makes about their uses are entirely reasonable. What the hell else would a bunch of data on race be used for if not to use race to drive policy?

                    If you think this guy is a bad writer, good for you. If you think he is a big neocon meanie, so what? The fact is what he says is true. Again, why are you so bothered that someone you don’t like said something truthful?

                    Go read the links I provide. Then you can make you own conclusions. Just pretend the evil NEOCON didn’t say it. That way the facts will no longer be tainted with the unclean.

                    Meanwhile, can you please let the rest of talk about the actual subject rather than spending our time trying to get you out of your NEOCON fainting fit?

                    1. “Further, the assertions he makes about their uses are entirely reasonable. What the hell else would a bunch of data on race be used for if not to use race to drive policy?”

                      That’s not arguments work. You can’t make a claim, deny the possibility of any alternative, and then declare yourself infallible. Particularly when the writer makes some very specific claims, and not something as general as “use race to drive policy.” Had the writer argued “this data could be used to do X, Y, and Z, and here are some sources that provide evidence for why I believe that will happen” then he would have written a much better article than the sensationalist clickbait it turned out to be. I’m not even arguing he’s wrong, I’m saying his persuasive writing is terrible.

                      John, you’re the only person here who has used the word NEOCON. I’m not sure why you have such a fixation on it, but don’t project that onto me. I can’t even recall the last time I used that word in a comment (prior to this one) or in conversation.

                    2. That’s not arguments work. You can’t make a claim, deny the possibility of any alternative, and then declare yourself infallible.

                      yes it is. You give me another reasonable alternative. And the HUD database is clearly designed for that. HUD says so in its regulations. Here is a story from the Hill explaining how the HUD database he is talking about is going to be used.

                      http://thehill.com/regulation/…..ghborhoods

                      The Administration is clear that it intends to use the loan databases to ensure banks lend to more minorities.

                      You keep saying “we don’t know this” but you never say which things you think are untrue and you keep ignoring the links I give showing that what the guy says is true.

                      Exactly what about this article do you think is untrue? I can’t do the research for you and spoon feed you the facts unless you tell me what you can’t understand.

                    3. “You give me another reasonable alternative.”

                      That’s not how the burden of proof works.

                      “You keep saying “we don’t know this” but you never say which things you think are untrue and you keep ignoring the links I give showing that what the guy says is true.

                      Exactly what about this article do you think is untrue? I can’t do the research for you and spoon feed you the facts unless you tell me what you can’t understand.”

                      John, you’re missing the point I’m making. It doesn’t matter how many links you post, because you are (presumably) not the writer of the article. I am criticizing the writer for making a poor persuasive argument and not adequately sourcing his claims. You could post a link proving every line correct and it still wouldn’t change the fact that the writer himself did a poor job of making his case. The links you’ve given also don’t by any means prove everything he wrote true, it proves some of it is. The Hill article is a much more objective, better take on the issue that reveals plenty of troubling aspects and potential risks and flaws of the plan without the over-the-top sensationalist “OBAMA’S USING THE DATABASE TO TURN THE COUNTRY INTO A FASCIST DIVERSITY POLICE STATE!” biased rhetoric.

                    4. I am criticizing the writer for making a poor persuasive argument and not adequately sourcing his claims. You could post a link proving every line correct and it still wouldn’t change the fact that the writer himself did a poor job of making his case

                      I was always under the impression saying something true was making the case. Can you move the goal posts any further? You said this guy wasn’t credible. I said it didn’t matter because he was right and show you that is was. And now you claim “well I just said he wasn’t persuasive”

                      WTF? Really? What exactly is your point here other than to shit all over the thread Bo style?

                      Read the Kurtz article above. It shows how bad this is. I have spoon fed you the facts. They are what they are. And this guy is not lying, It is that simple.

              2. For John and some others here there’s no difference between ad hominem and everyday judgements of credibility based on past performance and reputation.

                1. “For John and some others here there’s no difference between ad hominem and everyday judgements of credibility based on past performance and reputation.”

                  I’ll just let this stand here since the lack of self awareness contained in the phrase ‘everyday judgments of credibility based on past performance and reputation’ is just breathtaking.

                  1. No, as usual you don’t get what’s being discussed.

                    I’ve seen John do this where he or someone sources a claim and the response is : I don’t believe anything that source says, sorry. They go oh noes ad hominem!!! But that’s not an ad hominem at all. An ad hominem is not when you say you don’t believe something x says because of something about x, it’s when you say x is wrong and the reason he’s wrong is something about x. It mixes up ad hominem and quite normal judgements of credibility of sources. Then Johns answer is to say something like he’s currently saying, that the burden is somehow not on the claimant to supply more credible sourcing but on the audience to prove the claim right or wrong.

                    1. I’ve seen John do this where he or someone sources a claim and the response is : I don’t believe anything that source says, sorry.

                      No you haven’t. You are just lying and making that up. I have never done anything of the sort. And if I had, you could provide a link showing where I did. And you can’t and won’t. So shut the fuck up Bo. And stop lying.

                    2. Bo, we live on a board where everything is archived and linked. So provide links to your examples or admit you are lying and no such thing exists.

                2. Which I just said so. Cali is right. It wasn’t an ad homonym attack. The problem is, whatever you think of this guy’s credibility, what he says is true and you can verify it being so from other sources.

                  Joe is just an angry midget. Tony is just evil. You in contrast really are stupid.

          5. I am not going to waste anymore space but every claim the guy makes can be verified. These databases exist and are collecting exactly the information he says they are.

    2. Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.

      What is a “federally funded city,” and how does such a city changing its zoning laws affect zoning in its suburbs?

      1. It can be a catch-all term for any city that receives federal funding for low-income housing. Remember, this is all speaking in the context of HUD, so that’s the federal funds they’re talking about.

        That’s how it’s commonly used in the biz, at least (I work in the mortgage industry).

        If that sounds overly broad, that’s because it is. Almost every city of any size is a federally funded city, including major suburbs of any city. So the feds can easily, say, take Dallas and Plano (just to use two cities with which I am familiar), and demand that they figure out between them some kind of minority outflow program to get the negros out of Dallas and into Plano, and if they can’t come to an accommodation, neither city gets their annual lucre. Even if the suburb doesn’t want to go along, their economic ties with the parent city are usually too great for them to be able to just tell the larger magnate area to go pound sand.

        1. I know what it means, JJ. It’s just shit writing because the NY Post is a shit paper.

          Even if the suburb doesn’t want to go along, their economic ties with the parent city are usually too great for them to be able to just tell the larger magnate area to go pound sand.

          On the other hand, I don’t understand how or why this would work at all. Jobs in NYC aren’t going to disappear when Greenwich, CT refuses to build a bunch of Section 8 housing.

          1. It isn’t that jobs in NYC would disappear.

            It’s that NYC has the ability to have a disproportionate impact on the economy of Greenwich, if they were to so choose, and so Greenwich has a metaphorical gun to their head to go along (sure would be a shame if NYC never did contract work with any firm based in Greenwich anymore, wouldn’t it, or imposed additional licensing costs for any business located in Greenwich to work in NYC in order to prove they aren’t racists as defined by HUD, since after all we can’t be sure since you refused compliance). And that’s only in scenarios where the suburbs themselves aren’t already hooked on the funds, in which case they go along just to keep the money flowing without needing coercion.

          2. Here is how the game works. They threaten to take their federal funds if they don’t comply. If the city doesn’t, basically all of the low income housing n the city gets defunded. It looks really bad to have people being thrown out of their rentals, which is what will happen. And if that isn’t enough of a problem to get the city to roll over, HUD just sues the city for fair housing violations since absent federal funding there is no way cities can afford to provide the low income housing federal fair housing laws demand they provide.

            1. In aviation there is something called the coffin corner. If one draws a chart of the aircraft’s flight envelope showing altitude on the y axis and airspeed on the x axis, the coffin corner appears at the upper limit of the aircraft’s altitude, where the critical mach number and low airflow stall speed lines cross.

              Once at that altitude/speed combination, the aircraft is in danger. If it slows, its wings will stall and high altitude stalls can be very hard to recover from. If it speeds up, the air above the wing will briefly hit supersonic speeds as it curves over the wing, and the shock waves will create a loss of lift, and the plane can go into an unrecoverable stall.

              In many ways the U.S. government has reached its coffin corner; it is strangling the economy that supports it, but any reduction in spending will cause a recession, and each growth in spending strangles the economy further.

              1. Good analogy.

        2. So, each city is going to have to hire a slew of new coordinators, inter-city liaisons, planners, etc., etc. I hope they have the good sense to do so along strict racial lines to avoid another scandal!

          1. It’s called a multiplier, and it’s GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY, JACKASS!

            1. You’re right. Just think of the money to be made at hotels and restaurants when all the city planners get together for fact-finding conferences!

          2. Maybe Joe can go back to being an urban planner?!?!?!?!

            SQUEEE!!!!!

            1. I’m not sure new hiring criteria for disadvantaged people will allow that. Does anyone know if the database tracks short, fat guys?

      2. These days, all cities are federally-funded cities, in that they all get Section 8 money, etc.

      3. The irony of that the “overly segregated” standard is, of course, that it will (or should, but I’m sure they’ll get a pass somehow) mostly impact elitist liberal Meccas like DC, Chicago, and San Francisco.

        All the allegedly RACEIST southern cities I’ve ever lived in or visited are as integrated as can be.

        1. Eh, you’re right about places like DC, but Dallas is a fairly segregated city. The suburbs in the south are black, and the suburbs in the north are white and asian (both south and east). Is that a perfect description of every single household, no, but it’s largely accurate.

          I happen to think it’s more due to self-selection than anything else. People want to live near people who are like them.

    3. Well, I did my part to combat this sort of thing by lying about my race on all the census forms I received and completely making shit up on the extended household survey, or whatever it is called.

  12. Commentariat: Must. Deflect. Attention. From GOP Frontrunner.

    1. I’m confused by your statement, but I love you anyway.

      1. He needs a lot of help. You are a good man Woodchip

      2. That’s because Bo is an incoherent Troll whose mind was shattered when we refused to accept him.

        It takes an impressively weak mind to look at a comment section with quotes like:

        “These guys make me wish pistol duels were still in legal.”

        “Neither one of these two is a serious candidate. The only interesting thing about tRump, is the bases reaction to him, if polls can be trusted.”

        “If Lindsey Graham wants to have a discussion about the future of the GOP, why is he constantly berating and insulting the liberty wing of the party? He’s no better than Trump in that respect.”

        “Actually, this is the one positive thing I’ve heard about Candidate Trump.

        He’s a beautiful idiot; wonderful fun. I hope his candidacy lasts a good long time.”

        and conclude we’re supporting the Republicans in this story.

        1. Yes Irish, there’s no wave of “oh Reason, why all the focus on Trump!!!” butthurt here!

          1. Why can’t we think Trump is a clown and that Reason has focused too much on him?

            1. If Al Sharpton were pulling Trump’s numbers we’d never hear the end of it. Do you think any of them would be singing the same tune?

              If these Hit and Runblicans don’t want a focus on this guy let them talk to their fellow travelers and convince them not to rever guys like Trump and what he’s selling. He’s currently polling far in front of one of the big two while espousing ideas long denounced by Reason and he’s a celebrity to boot. Why wouldn’t they focus on him?

              1. “If Al Sharpton were pulling Trump’s numbers we’d never hear the end of it. Do you think any of them would be singing the same tune?”

                Are you fucking with me? Sharpton does worse things than that literally every day and people don’t talk about it all that much.

                Why would I care if Sharpton gave out some asshole’s phone number? That would be like the 12th sleaziest thing he’d do in a given week.

                1. Try reading entire sentences. I said if Sharpton were performing as well within his party as Trump is with his do you really think the same crowd would urge Reason not to cover him and his crazy antics?

              2. He’s currently polling far in front of one of the big two while espousing ideas long denounced by Reason

                Hillary Clinton is basically a shoe in, yet not much about her lately.

                Also, at the end of the day everyone knows Trump is a complete sham of a candidate and is not going to win the nom. So much political capital being expended on denouncing his obvious inanities for what, exactly?

                and he’s a celebrity to boot. Why wouldn’t they focus on him?

                So what if he is a celebrity? What real power other than his command of ephemeral poll numbers does he have that makes him so newsworthy of a political magazine? I haven’t seen anything at all about the Menendez case involving accusations of major prosecutorial misconduct or about John Corzine like I posted earlier today. I think those are much, much more newsworthy than “Look, Trump gave out Graham’s phone number!”

                1. At this point polls are all we have. And do you really not get why intra party arguments like this are news over ‘Hillary tops Dem polls for another week”

          2. That’s because Trump isn’t actually important until we get close to the election. I think he’ll flame out horribly and be a nobody by the time we reach the primaries. If that’s wrong, then Reason should cover him when he’s actually threatening to win something rather than making noise 7 months before the primary.

            Bernie Sanders is running a crazy campaign where he demonizes foreign nations because DEY TURK ER JERBS, but for some reason Sanders madness on that subject is not discussed in the same way as Trump’s pathetic anti-immigrant animus. It’s an obvious double standard given that fearing foreigners who live in Mexico isn’t any less crazy than fearing Mexicans who move to Arizona, after all.

            So the constant harping on Trump is entirely political and it’s tiresome because his campaign probably won’t amount to anything anyway.

            1. One involves trade barriers and the other rounding up people and sending them to camps. Also, while I’m happy to condemn protectionists like Sanders, I’ll note he isn’t implying entire ethnicities are rapists and other criminals.

              1. Camp is fun!

              2. Here’s the difference between me and the right leaders here: I’d love to see more articles condemning Sanders (an open, avowed adherent of a disastrous ideology currently pulling Trump numbers in the other major party), but I welcome coverage of Trump (whose currently outpacing everyone in the other party while engaging in similarly awful demagoguery).

            2. “If that’s wrong, then Reason should cover him when he’s actually threatening to win something rather than making noise 7 months before the primary.”

              Reason reacts to what gets attention. If the rest of the media covers Trump, and people read and comment on their stories about Trump, they’ll write about Trump.

              “Bernie Sanders is running a crazy campaign where he demonizes foreign nations because DEY TURK ER JERBS, but for some reason Sanders madness on that subject is not discussed in the same way as Trump’s pathetic anti-immigrant animus. It’s an obvious double standard given that fearing foreigners who live in Mexico isn’t any less crazy than fearing Mexicans who move to Arizona, after all.”

              Sanders’ position on trade is idiotic, but Trump has taken basically the same position in that area. Also, people simply don’t take offense to anti-trade rhetoric to the same extent they do anti-immigrant rhetoric, particularly given how over-the-top Trump’s comments were. Also, foreigners in other countries by definition don’t live in the United States, so it stands to reason that attacking them will offend less people in the United States.

            3. In addition, Trump’s public celebrity and his outlandish nature, including these sort of ridiculous squabbles with McCain and Graham grab attention to an extent Sanders simply doesn’t. I have no doubt that the MSM loves covering Trump from a political angle, but the stories on him are simply good business decisions. People care more about him and his antics right now than they do about other candidates and serious takes on the issues. The fact that you or I wish that wasn’t the case doesn’t make it so.

              1. I agree. That’s what I’m saying – people cover Trump not because he matters, but because he’s a clown. Getting annoyed by coverage of a clown does not make one pro-GOP, except in Bo’s delusional SJW mind.

                1. I agree with that. But I don’t really blame the media that much for the coverage, but rather the public’s lack of interest in more serious issues related to the presidential election.

                  1. Also, the more Trump’s poll numbers rise, the harder it is to dismiss him as irrelevant. At the very least, he’s going to shape a lot of the discussion and perception of this race. I too don’t think he has a shot at ultimately winning but as long as he’s at the top of the polls it’s difficult to dismiss him (though I do wish people took as much interest in serious policy proposals and positions by candidates as they do in Trump’s antics).

              2. Don’t waste time talking this sense to Irish, he’s got people with wagons to join circling.

                1. Hey Bo, remember when I was one of like 3 people here who defended you and thought people were being overly mean?

                  Do you realize what a narcissistic delusional prick you have to be to make me dislike you as much as I do now? I mean, I can’t even fathom how broken you must be to troll in this annoying, mean-spirited manner for no reason.

                  Do you have that little going on in your life that you have to get your rocks off by being a dick to people who have grown to hate you due to how terrible your own past actions are?

                  1. You turned on me when I finally commented on your predilection to go after minorities and other ‘real racists’ while hand waving away racism by whites.

                2. If Al Sharpton were pulling Trump’s numbers we’d never hear the end of it. Do you think any of them would be singing the same tune?

                  So your entire argument is based on how you imagine the people here would react in an alternative scenario, when you’ve already proven that you have a poor grasp of people’s motivations and ideologies.

                  Seems legit.

                  1. My argument is based by the fact that the same people decrying the coverage are the ones that regularly lean right and the common sense conclusion that if x is an embarrassing but suddenly popular figure for a group then people in that group who get how embarrassing x is are going to want attention deflected from x.

                    1. It’s long been a truism that anybody who relies on throwing out “common sense” instead of “evidence” as the basis of a political argument is a vicious lying cunt with no more self-awareness than pond algae, who routinely suckle from the thin stream of foul-smelling muck that trails from their mother’s unwashed and unwiped assholes as they slither from one resting position to another in the commercial breaks between daytime television programs.

                    2. I’ll accept that you don’t get common sense.

              3. Fair points, and I can understand Reason pursuing it for the revenue and such, but the problem is the repetition. We can cover ‘Trump is an utter moron on *blank*’ in one article fairly quickly because he actually is an attention-seeking moron who is easy to discredit. Welch’s first article on his speech covered a lot of his immigration idiocy well, for example. Didn’t need two follow-ups that said pretty much the exact same things, to the point of Gillespie repeating Welch’s ‘Idiocracy’ comment. And this is applicable to pretty much any politician. I utterly hate Justin Trudeau, but there’s no way in hell I’d want to read two to four articles on Reason a day about how much he sucks.

                I actually think Reason’s Sanders coverage has actually been pretty good, and I wish that was the model they’d go for with Trump.

                1. (Comment above in response to Calidissident because Reason’s threading is terrible).

                2. “I utterly hate Justin Trudeau”

                  Obviously you’re just one of those notorious Canadian Republicans. /Bo

                  1. The worst part is I’m a fucking registered Liberal.

                  2. SnOCONZZZ

                3. JT,

                  I don’t disagree at all. I’m just pointing out that no one should be surprised that Reason, or especially the media in general is covering Trump this much.

          3. And here’s an actual reason people are giving for being tired of this story, and it’s from Pro L who can hardly be accused of closet Republicanism:

            “I’m surprised that anyone takes anything seriously right now. Trump is entertaining, but no one takes him seriously. Polls are practically useless right now, with most people barely aware of who is running. And polls also are showing that people think Trump is a clown.

            This politics-as-sport business offends the shit out of me. There are real problems with several candidates, who should be shamed out of this election by the media and the public. Instead we waste time with ghafla.”

            What happened to you, Bo? You didn’t used to be this annoying. Parents cut off the allowance? Ejected from law school?

            1. What happened to you, Bo? You didn’t used to be this annoying.

              It was always obvious he was an MNG class troll. The only thing that has changed is that he has ran out of trolling ideas and had to resort to more brazen tactics.

              1. I like how John thinks he’s some kind of MVP here. Yes, I get Blue Tulpa but you do know you’ve got a similar title here don’t you?

        2. That’s because Bo’s a delusional narcissist. He believes that he’s able to determine people’s motives despite utterly failing to understand a lot of human interaction and behaviour. He has to project his personal view on the world because that’s the only way it can possibly make sense to him. The only motives people can have are the ones he dreams up for them. It’s this brilliant mix of cognitive dissonance, collectivism, anti-intellectualism and an utter lack of empathy to others.

          1. The set of people here complaining about Trump coverage and the set that leans GOP has some significant overlap. These are also the same people who would welcome a similar focus on leftie relative nobodies as Amanda Marcotte, so it’s clearly not that.

            1. Thanks for the example Bo. As everyone can see, blatant collectivism and claims about other people’s motives. He projects his neurosis about Republicans onto others. Please Bo, get back to me with a quote from these secret Republicans about how they really want four articles a day ripping Marcotte apart and you might have an argument rather than an unsubstantial delusion.

              1. I wouldn’t say I want four a day, but I do love a weekly Marcotte-bashing

                1. I should add that I’m not a Republican, secret or otherwise

                  1. I should add that I’m not a Republican, secret or otherwise

                    LIAR!

                    /Bo-PB Off

                  2. There, weekly Marcotte bashing and a daily, singular Trump bash about vaguely libertarian-ish things would be great. Of course, part of it is that Marcotte comes with a MSDS that says prolonged exposure can cause irritation and blindness.

    2. Some days, Bo, I like you. Other days I think you would make a great journalist.

    3. I don’t give a shit if Reason wants to cover Trump 24-7. But you are being insane and paranoid. “Frontrunner” at this point means jack shit. Trump won’t win a single primary and everyone knows it. People aren’t decrying the trump coverage to protect the Republican party’s image. That’s ridiculous. There are a bunch of other candidates out there who might actually be elected to something who aren’t getting a lot of coverage.

    1. Rick Perry isn’t dumb!!! He has nerd glasses now. That means he’s super-smart!

      1. The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side.

  13. Talk about two jackasses going head to head.

    Anyone wondering why Trump gets attention just needs to read this story. This shit is simply more entertaining than the standard election year stump speeches and what not. And in this country, even for politics people care more about entertainment than serious analysis of the issues. That’s just the nature of the society we live in.

    1. They’re not wondering why, they realize he’s a walking embarrassment to their favorite party and/or ideologies and knowing he’s indefensible they are naturally trying to hand wave it all away.

      1. He’s an embarrassment to their party because he represents their party accurately?

        1. Because he’s a bit more obvious in his buffoonery

          1. Let me try, people here are secret democrats, and Sanders represents the democrats accurately. Therefore someone here complaining about Sanders just wants to get rid of him so a democrat can win. I guess I’ve proved everyone here is a secret democrat with your logic.

            1. If someone here were complaining about Reason coverage of Sanders’ awful ideas I’d suspect they were just trying to deflect attention from a figure who is on his face an embarrassment to the Democrat Party. Of course such a situation is unlikely given the skew of the current commentariat here.

      2. “Indeed. Trump gets attention because:

        1). He’s a celebrity
        2). He’s the leading GOP candidate
        3). He’s a retard”

        “Anytime anybody praises Perry, they need to be reminded of his role in covering up the fact that Texas executed an innocent man.”

        “Rick Perry isn’t dumb!!! He has nerd glasses now. That means he’s super-smart!”

        More quotes from this comment section that are highly supportive of the GOP. They’re everywhere!

        1. I was obviously talking about Calidissident. Keep grasping Irish.

          1. I think you missed the point he was making.

            1. It’s patently dishonest to look at this thread and think the ‘perry is dumb’ comments are as prevalent as the ‘stop covering Trump’ emphasis.

              1. But the stop covering Trump emphasis has nothing to do with being pro-Trump or pro-GOP, it has to do with being annoyed that this clown gets half a dozen stories a day while actually important stories go uncovered.

                So in this thread, we have two groups of people – those actively attacking Republican candidates, and those irritated by the continued coverage of a moron. You’re the one being dishonest when you pathetically try and attempt that one of those groups is pro-GOP, especially given that the GOP are driving a lot of the Trump stories.

                The GOP establishment has been going after Trump for weeks and have been actively driving stories about him, so our disdain for this fucking sideshow has nothing to do with supporting the GOP establishment.

                1. Yeah, that’s the weird thing. Aren’t comments like Graham’s and other GOP members about Trump pretty obviously establishing that they don’t consider him an example of their party either? By Bo’s insane logic, doesn’t that mean that constantly ripping on Trump means you’re actively supporting the GOP establishment?

                2. If you had a relative who was an embarrassment you’d not want the people in the neighborhood talking about him. It’s obvious what’s going on. The regulars here who don’t tow the GOP line aren’t complaing about the coverage it’s the ones who regularly lean GOP.

                  1. Pro L does not tow the GOP line and he feels the same way. And the only people who have ever been stupid enough to claim I’m a closet Republican are you and Palin’s Buttplug, so it’s not like anyone respectable has ever tried to make that claim.

                    So you’re wrong about this argument too. Any more lies you’d like to tell for the purposes of trolling?

                    1. It’s “toe” the line, y’all.

                    2. tow the lion!

                    3. Pro leans GOP. Come on.

                    4. What the fuck does this even mean? “Leans GOP?” So if someone doesn’t hate both parties equally their positions is discredited. Brilliant argument.

                      And by that logic you lean Democratic. So go fuck yourself, this argument of yours damages your position just as much as anyone else’s.

                    5. It means Pro is inclined towards the GOP rather than ‘a pox on both these houses.’

                    6. Pro is now in the lean GOP camp? Has he ever said anything positive about a Republican other than the Pauls, Amashes, and Massies of the world?

                    7. Hmm. Well, I suppose I hate and fear the Republicans less than the Democrats, only because the Republicans seem less obviously suicidal than the Democrats. Otherwise, I despise both parties and think neither represents my political, economic, ethical, or moral beliefs. Haven’t voted for either party for president in decades–always LP.

                      I am registered Republican so that I can vote in primaries, but if that makes me a Republican, well, I doubt the party would agree. Around here, I may come across as moderate, but I’m pretty radical by their standards. I don’t see many Republicans not named Paul that want to slash the government back down to constitutional limits and then some, establish a free market with minimal government regulation and virtually no intervention, privatize almost everything the government is involved in, from manned spaceflight to education, restore the concept of a wide view of civil liberties, stemming from, let us call it natural rights, rather than government fiat. . .need I go on? If I ran for president as a Republican, they’d execute me.

                  2. Yep, me and Rufus up here hiding in our secret Canadian Republican base.

                    1. The asymmetry between the parties is slight in practice, yet the Republicans do have a handful of liberty-minded politicians and significant minority of people that you could at least refer to as minarchists if not all fully libertarian. I mean, they have a liberty caucus that the Democrats don’t need, because the state is all they care about.

                      God knows that if I had a power ring, the parties would both be dissolved, but that’s not be granted to me by the Guardians just yet. So we have to work with the mess that’s before us.

                      If I “lean” anywhere, it’s LP. I’m far more sympathetic to their platform and to their viewpoint than to either major party’s.

                  3. So you’re openly admitting that you’re fine with collectivizing people if it suits your argument? Fantastic Bo, I love how you chase after unpure libertarians while unironically spewing collectivism.

                    1. Come on, who is going to trust an admitted Canadian Republican?

      3. Oh, for fuck’s sake, Bo. If the R’s are anyone’s favorite party here it’s because it contains a few slightly more liberty minded people than the alternative. If you really think no one here is presenting their actual political views in good faith, why don’t you just go away and find some other people to annoy?

        1. I actually think only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the regulars here are essentially conservatives Zeb. This is actually easy to demonstrate: look at any thread about the hot button issues that libertarians and conservatives tend to part ways, such as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, and you’ll see about a third to a half of the regulars criticizing the Reason writers positions.

          1. And why should I go elsewhere? I tend to agree with Reasons positions across the board. It’s all these conservatives who are squatting at a libertarian site.

            1. Because you spend half your time here complaining about conservatives. And it gets really old, even to definitely non-conservatives like me who don’t think you are a secret Tulpa sock.

              Yes, there are conservatives who probably vote reliably Republican on here. They tend to be pretty honest about what they think. And I think it is good to have that diversity of opinion.

            2. I’ve explained this to you before: just because I disagree with Reason or the LP or any other nominal leaders of libertarians on an issue doesn’t automatically make me a Republican.

              1. Nor does lockstep agreement with Reason make you a Libertarian (or libertarian).

          2. Reason itself being a paragon of unified ‘libertarian goodthink’.

    2. Indeed. Trump gets attention because:

      1). He’s a celebrity
      2). He’s the leading GOP candidate
      3). He’s a retard

      1. …but you repeat yourself.

      2. Those favorable to the GOP see that 2 and 3 are embarrassing for the GOP and so they want it all to go away. Their butthurt is hilarious.

        1. Remember everyone, whether you are A. focused on the fact that Reason is obsessed with Trump or B. you are focused on the fact that Trump is an embarrassing retard, you pretty much love the GOP. Your only other option, apparently, is to be an insufferable troll. They’re the only true libertarians.

          1. No, I think saying ‘yep, Reasons correct to point out Trumps many problems’ you’d not be thought of as GOP. Imagine, agreeing with the libertarian hosts! I know, I know.

            1. ‘yep, Reasons [sic] correct to point out Trumps [sic] many problems’

              I don’t disagree. I just find it boring when a significant portion of the articles at Reason over a certain week are focused on the same topic. I find the whole “candidate of the day” hullabaloo a little boring as well.

              Forgive my lack of patience for TEAM politics, it must be because I’m a secret Republican.

              1. I hate when 3 different writers post on the same topic. It’s a big world reason, don’t fight over the same bone.

                1. You Republican you.

                  just ask Bo.

            2. Bo, I haven’t commented one way or the other on Trump’s coverage here, but I gotta say that, for a (l/L) website, I don’t even know who the L candidates are (I haven’t looked it up anywhere else yet). Nor do I see much of anything said (other than by fellow travelers here) about Rand. Or, Justin. Or, Thomas.

              I don’t know that this is “wrong”, per se, but it does seem “off” to me.

    3. In the (albeit unlikely) event that Trump gets the nomination, I expect a campaign of 1824-level awesomeness

      1. America at large doesn’t’ deserve Trump but the creatures inhabiting Washington certainly do.

  14. For too long now our politicians have ignored their primary duty as entertainers on the pretense they are serious leaders.

  15. Bo actually seems to me as dumb as Rick Perry

    1. Rick Perry may be an empty suit, but does he really deserve that comparison?

  16. News Flash: Trump endorses 5th trimester abortions for illegal aliens and deep dish pizza.

    1. What’s his stance on circumcision?

      1. Mandatory 30 year waiting period

  17. Ed, found this quote of yours interesting:

    “Trump, a billionaire not afraid of using his money to curry political influence with Republicans or Democrats?a cronyist, if you will?”

    And that would make the Koch’s what?

    1. Well, given that the Kochs give tons of money to gay marriage causes and to organizations that oppose crony capitalism, I think it would make them philanthropists who are actually opposed to cronyism.

      1. “Well, given that the Kochs give tons of money to gay marriage causes and to organizations that oppose crony capitalism, I think it would make them philanthropists who are actually opposed to cronyism.”

        Or they’re very clever and covering themselves well.

      2. So much then for the definition that cronyism is using money to curry political favor, then. Surely you don’t suggest the Koch’s’ never do that.

        1. I’m sure they do, since that’s how the game is currently played. However, giving money to support getting rid of cronyism surely makes the Kochs the least pro-crony businessmen in America.

          1. Sure they are. By the way, what organizations that oppose cronyism have they given money to? I’m curious.

            1. This one?

              1. In my opinion, it would be hard to consider yourself anti-crony capitalism if you were supportive of Citizens United, and wanted the concept of “money equals speech,” which this website supported.

                1. In my opinion, it would be hard to consider yourself anti-crony capitalism if you were supportive of Citizens United

                  Congratulations Joe, that’s a new personal record for stupidity.

                2. “In my opinion, it would be hard to consider yourself anti-crony capitalism if you were supportive of Citizens United, and wanted the concept of “money equals speech,” which this website supported.”

                  Is your opinion the be-all-end-all when it comes to what is and isn’t cronyism?

                  Is one slip-up enough to fail the cronyism purity test?

                  Perhaps you’ve just reached an impasse. No worries.

                  1. Certainly not. But I guess Ed’ s opinion isn’t either, unless he wants to say the Koch’s engage in it as well. At least he then would be consistent

                    1. “Certainly not. But I guess Ed’ s opinion isn’t either, unless he wants to say the Koch’s engage in it as well. At least he then would be consistent”

                      Consistent with your opinion, yes. Not necessarily his own, or the predominant one. But since even you accept that even you may be wrong about Cronyism, it seems like a lot to ask.

                    2. Hey, it’s a blog. We’re all giving opinions here. Even Ed. Just calling him out on his consistency. Methinks he may want to redefine a crony capitalist.

                    3. “Hey, it’s a blog. We’re all giving opinions here. Even Ed. Just calling him out on his consistency. Methinks he may want to redefine a crony capitalist.”

                      You haven’t shown him to actually be inconsistent, only that *if* he used *your* definition/view of cronyism he would be. Says nothing about Ed.

                      Do you have any reason to think he uses your particular definition?

                      “Kind of amazing,isn’t it tak, that so many here took umbrage at my suggestion that if Trump tried to buy political favors and is therefore a cronyism, that certainly the Koch’s must be considered the same. Surely no one cod deny that, and yet, look how upset everyone got. Funny.”

                      I didn’t notice anyone disagree with the hypothetical, perhaps you can link some.

                  2. Kind of amazing,isn’t it tak, that so many here took umbrage at my suggestion that if Trump tried to buy political favors and is therefore a cronyism, that certainly the Koch’s must be considered the same. Surely no one cod deny that, and yet, look how upset everyone got. Funny.

                    1. *cronyist. *could. Me type good one day!

                    2. Kind of amazing,isn’t it tak, that so many here took umbrage at my suggestion that if Trump tried to buy political favors and is therefore a cronyism, that certainly the Koch’s must be considered the same. Surely no one cod deny that, and yet, look how upset everyone got. Funny.

                      While we’re being pedants, I’m curious as to how you characterize the three or four people I count responding to your statement as “so many” and “everyone”. And saying it was three or four is generous, as three or four of those obviously did not care what you had to say and just wanted to call you stupid.

                    3. Just referring to the ones responding to my question to Ed…that by his definition Trump is a crony capitalist. No one else.

                    4. One of the defining characteristics of crony capitalism is rent-seeking and using political connections to maximize the profitability of your business, and given Trump’s serial failures (by any reasonable definition of ‘failure’) he’s demonstrated that he’s not particularly good at it.

                    5. Hey I’ll ask you. Is Ed correct that Trump is a crony capitalist? Then how about the Koch’s.

                    6. Hey I’ll ask you. Is Ed correct that Trump is a crony capitalist? Then how about the Koch’s.

                      Well, I don’t know how Mr. Krayewski personally views these things, but speaking for myself, I believe an integral feature of crony capitalism is that there is no escaping it; if politicians and the politically connected pick the winnners and losers, then almost by definition, to be a winner you have to be politically connected (you could maybe argue that the black market is a sort of escape from this, but that does not seem germane to the discussion at hand).

                      Under that standard, nearly everyone participating in a system thus constituted would be a crony capitalist, and yes, that would include both Trump and the Kochs. However, I believe this analysis is insufficient insofar as it makes no distinction between those actors who are almost or totally dependent on cronyism (which I believe accurately characterizes Trump) and those who seek to diminish or eliminate the effects of cronyism (which, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the organizations and causes they fund, is in some sense true for the Kochs).

                      So in conclusion, Krayewski went for a pithy but somewhat facile joke that probably does not require this much analysis.

                    7. You may be right on all counts

        2. Will you similarly be denouncing Warren Buffet, every Apple CEO, the Clintons, union bosses, the alternative energy industry, and a host of other lefty lobbyists?

          1. Read again. I didn’t denounce anyone. Ed gave kind of a back handed slap to Trump for his cronyism. I’m just wondering if he is consistent in that charge. What do you think?

    2. Hey, joe. How’s being short and pathetic treating you today.

      1. Same as always apparently. Its making him very angry. Don’t you see how angry Joe is Warty? Don’t you see how important that anger is?

    3. Joe it is not the Koch’s fault you are an angry midget. Stop blaming them for your problems. That is what lunatics do.

    4. And that would make the Koch’s what?”

      A weak imitation of George Sorros ?

  18. We live in the best of all possible worlds, my friends. Donald Trump is the president this great nation deserves.

    1. +1 Brawndo

  19. http://thehill.com/policy/nati…..house-flag

    Is Obama’s staff this incompetent that they just forgot to do it or his he and his staff just pricks they actually didn’t want to and had to be forced to do so?

    1. I really can’t tell anymore

    2. I don’t think they are incompetent; I think they are being pricks. More specifically, they are trying to distract people to argue about what state the colors are being flown today rather than more substantive issues issues such as what exactly is the U.S. strategy vice ISIS and Syria?

      1. You have to remember, their supporters are angry retards like Tony and Joe who both don’t give a fuck those people died and are happy to argue about stupid shit, because that is all they know how to do.

        I think part of it is that Obama and the people around him are just a no kidding assholes who enjoy making people upset and unhappy. How fucking hard is it to lower the flag? Its not. But not doing it allows them to know they offended people and made them angry. And that is what it is all about. They really are that petty and pathetic.

        1. So you’re blaming Obama both for not lowering the flag and the raging butthurt the Drudge zombies are having over it?

          1. Yes, I am blaming Obama for not lowing the flag at the White House. He is THE PRESIDENT, you fucking retard.I know Obama is of below average intelligence, but he lives there and his staff runs the place. So, yes, if the flag didn’t go down, it is because he wanted it that way.

            1. But it’s also a conspiracy to get rightwing morons whining so they’re distracted from, lemme guess, the Iran deal? Fetusorgangate?

              Why do you guys only care about dead people when they die by Muslims?

              1. Tony, you are really stupid and are getting increasingly desperate. But that doesn’t even make sense. You can’t even form intelligible sentences anymore.

              2. Well, the president is the head of the military. A military base was attacked by an armed man based on what’s increasingly likely a terrorist attack.

                I personally don’t care all that much about symbolism. However, for better or for worse, the office of the presidency is very political, and symbols matter in politics. This was just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes from the Commander in Chief, and I can’t blame people too much for being upset about it.

              3. Why do you guys only care about dead people when they die by Muslims?

                Cops are Islamists?!? That explains everything!

                /dons foil hat

          2. So you’re blaming Obama both for not lowering the flag and the raging butthurt the Drudge zombies are having over it

            Considering that the butthurt was exactly the reaction Obama was hoping to elicit in his rope-a-dope strategy, I think the answer is a pretty definitive “Yes”.

            1. What a clever president we have.

              1. What a pathetic president we have.

        2. I think part of it is that Obama and the people around him are just a no kidding assholes who enjoy making people upset and unhappy.

          John, once again I must call your attention to this is exactly the sort of thing that people with narcissistic personality disorder do since they are emotionally manipulative, and lack empathy for others. Upset people are easy to confound and manipulate. In my experiences, there consistently is a pattern of

          1) Doing something anti-social with an unspoken dare of “you are too helpless to stop me/your wishes don’t matter”.

          2.a) When people got very upset by it to the point that it looked like there would be negative consequences, a pivot to take advantage of their emotional upset to manipulate or distract them from some plan, or

          2.b) A surrender to the outsiders and a rescinding or unwinding of the antisocial act with a vindictive postscript to make the disordered persons antagonists regret crossing him/her.

          In Obama’s case, he uses 2.a quite frequently. Sadly, it has worked out quite well for him; he can reliably exhaust his opponents on trivialities before pushing them to accept a shit sandwich.

          There was no way the question of saluting the fallen wasn’t brought up. The lack of a national presidential decree was intentional. And it now that he has reacted to the outrage, the outraged will forget to move on to the real meaningful outrageous stuff and be content with their empty victory.

          1. You pretty much nail it. That is exactly what is going on. And don’t see an answer to it.

            1. There is an answer, but it’s very difficult.

              To cope with a malignant narcissist, one must erect boundries and be prepared to defend them. A critical component to such an effort is learning to overcome one’s visceral emotional reaction to the MN’s transgressions. It also means learning to pick one’s battles.

              For example, if I were a governor; I could order the state colors flown at half mast, and suggest that people flying the stars and stripes do so as well. Or I could chose to do nothing if it was a side show to a real battle I was having with the president.

              Let’s say senator tarran is fighting the president on three fronts; liberalizing immigration laws :D, ending the “War on Energy”, and reducing defense spending, the question would be how confronting the president regarding the treatment of the fallen would impact these important fights?

              If I judged it would distract from my succesful efforts in those fronts, I would choose to do nothing. Or I might decide that this killing could help me in my broader point of reducing defense spending by providing me with a great excuse to wade into the insanity of our mideast policy.

              1. The important thing is to stay focused on no more than 5 things. Patton famously argued that 5 units was the most that a skilled officer could tactically manage (1 general can direct 5 regiments, 1 col can direct 5 batallions, etc) and that dictum is true in this area as well. And, no matter what sorts of distractions are thrown up, one cannot allow themselves to be emotionally diverted from one’s main goals.

                The second thing is to not fight battles in the court of public opinion. The real work will be in front of judges and juries and committees and smoke filled rooms. Becasue Washington is Holywood for ugly people, too many politicians don’t get this (or even worse they do get it but like using public opinion to advance their own plutocratic schemes).

          2. I thought the ‘Obama has narcissistic personality disorder’ thesis was pretty obvious to everyone but super-partisans after the first four years.

            1. Yes John and it is amazing at how perfectly it fits.

            2. About the only thing Obama hasn’t done to signal his condition is write “I suffer from a malignant form of narcissistic personality disorder!” on a sandwich board and parade up and down Pennsylvania avenue. He’s pretty much exhausted the other ways of signaling it.

    3. What is it they call you people? Symbol-minded?

      1. Tony look! A confederate flag!

        1. I think it was I who was saying, during that idiocy, that it was a shame that people were focusing on a symbol instead of anything real. Let me check. Yep, that was I.

          1. Tony, You were saying nothing of the sort. You are lying out of your ass. If you are not, provide a link to a post where you said that.

            If you can’t do that, shut the fuck up.

            1. I might have also pointed out that the symbol that people were literally crying over when it was taken down is a symbol of white supremacy and nothing else, and that anyone defending it is either a white supremacist or too fucking stupid to realize they’re supporting white supremacy, and that anyone who cried over that and is also crying over the US flag not being half-staff is a hypocrite who needs to pick sides. Well, I’m saying it now I guess.

              1. You sound symbol-minded!

              2. So you were not saying it then and are saying it now because it is convenient.
                We already knew that.

                1. I said I wanted the conversation to be about guns in the hands of psychopaths and not flags, and I was criticizing liberals for being content to let the flag conversation suck up all the air in the room. But it’s still a symbol of white supremacy.

                  1. Yet you were more than happy to see it go. You were doing what you accuse others of doing. You were symbol-minded.

              3. symbol of white supremacy and nothing else

                No one I know that flies the battle flag does so to support white supremacy or racism in any way. You should try to learn what other people actually believe before you project all over them. Also, even taking a cursory look at real US history would be quite beneficial to you.

                1. I have. When the war was lost, both Lee and Davis wanted the flag retired forever. It didn’t really resurface until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, specifically as a symbol of white power. If people don’t know that, they fall under the category of “too fucking stupid” to which I referred.

                  1. “I have. When the war was lost, both Lee and Davis wanted the flag retired forever. It didn’t really resurface until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, specifically as a symbol of white power. If people don’t know that, they fall under the category of “too fucking stupid” to which I referred.”

                    Even if it was, point blank, nothing more than a symbol of White Supremacy in the 1950’s what does that have to do with people and their view(s) of it today?

                    Were the protesters waving it in the Ukraine calling for white supremacy?

    4. I think there should be five stories about that subject at Reason every day from now until the end of the month.

      Who’s with me?

      1. We need a 20 articles today about how much Gawker sucks.

      2. News Lags, Rag Plugs Flag Gag, Tea Baggers Nag

      3. As long as there’s a poll to gauge how millenials feel about it, I’m down

  20. So with Trump as prez we now know how well he’ll guard our private information….

  21. Which end of the jackass is Lindsey and which end is Donald?

  22. So one hand Trump is going full troll mode in the hopes that his “Fuck the establishment, I’m telling like it is!” attitude will propel him into the White House which exposes US politics for the idiocy that it is.

    On the other hand he is fucking terrible and leads to Reason publishing disingenuous defences of supposedly sensible Republicans like Jeb and McCain.

    Also I wonder what the Trump campaign entails for a real thuggish demagogue (hush Mike M!) running for President? I mean Lenin sounded kinda libertarian before Red October and the Khmer Rouge sounded like wonkish land reformers before they launched their revolt.

    1. Trump could attack Graham with a cane and put him in the hospital and his poll numbers would likely go up. People are that angry.

      1. Seems to be working, for now….

        And has Gillespie written an article yet on how Trump and Sanders are proof that the Libertarian Moment is upon us?

        1. Right after he is done telling us how great Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham are and what a big meanie Trump is for attacking them.

          1. Hey, what odds do we get on betting whether Gilespie will endorse Jeb Bush over Hilary Clinton if they are candidates?

      2. As Mark Steyn put it about McCain

        Forty years ago, John McCain was a war hero. Since then he’s mostly been an asshole. The problem is you can’t out-asshole Donald Trump. McCain is in the Superbowl of assholery and hopelessly outmatched.

        They want to fight Trump on the field he’s been performing for decades, and they are shocked to be losing. Seriously?

      3. To be fair, that would raise my opinion of him…

  23. Trump is a performance bullshit/con artist at the top of his game. Bear witness to the glory that is The Donald, as he single handedly revives his flagging self-promotion empire and guarantees his media presence for the next decade.

    1. Is he nearing bankruptcy at this point?

      1. Well he has built 4 companies that went Chapter 11, but in which he got to keep a (non-controlling) stake afterwards. It’s one hell of a business model.

        1. Isn’t building sham companies that attract a lot of capital only go under with Trump leaving with a lot of money pretty much his business model?

          1. Yep

            How he can get a loan to buy a Dodge Neon is baffling to me.

            1. The power of celebrity. People want to be associated with a celebrity. Just because you have money doesn’t mean you are smart. I bet his investors consist entirely of rubes looking to be around a famous person.

              1. Yeah, that was my response to Dark Lord as well. It’s still baffling in the same way that people still believing in Uri Geller is.

            2. “How he can get a loan to buy a Dodge Neon is baffling to me.”

              That’s the way it works. Chrysler Credit knows that no one smart enough to have a good credit rating is dumb enough to buy a Neon. Chrysler has to build Neons, or something like it, to reach Fed Gov Cafe standards.

              SO the back scratching plan is this. People with bad credit can get a loan to buy a Neon because Chrysler has to sell enough Neons to meet CAFE standards. So, bad, or weak, credit can buy a Neon but they can’t buy a Dodge truck, even if the amount financed is the same..

    2. I don’t know. Seems like he’s cost himself a lot of business at this point.

      1. Nah, The Donald’s real asset is recognizability. It’s what he uses to sucker in investors.

  24. It’s fun watching the pundits consistently underestimate the childishness and mean-spiritedness of GOP primary voters.

    1. In fairness Tony, if there is anyone here who understand what it means to be childish, mean spirited and profoundly stupid, it is you. So there is that.

  25. Sheesh, people. In a post about the perils of feeding a troll, you all fed every troll in our roster. Well, except shriek, so far.

  26. Goddam! Bo shit all over the place! It’s a Commons tragedy.

  27. so knowing who Lindsey graham is makes you serious? Ridiculous, graham and all the other RINO’s have been jokes for the past 7 years and not likely to get any better regardless who calls them on their cellphones.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.