Donald Trump

How Trump's Big Lie Technique Works—"Belief Echoes" from Disinformation

Politicians have an enormous incentive to "strategically spread false information" otherwise known as "lie."

|

TrumpHitler
Skier Scribbler

Boston University political scientist Emily Thorson has published a new article, "Belief Echoes: The Persistent Effects of Corrected Misinformation" in the journal Political Communication. The article appears to be based on the research she did for her dissertation. From the dissertation abstract:

The omnipresence of political misinformation in the today's media environment raises serious concerns about citizens' ability make fully informed decisions. In response to these concerns, the last few years have seen a renewed commitment to journalistic and institutional fact-checking. The assumption of these efforts is that successfully correcting misinformation will prevent it from affecting citizens' attitudes. However, through a series of experiments, I find that exposure to a piece of negative political information persists in shaping attitudes even after the information has been successfully discredited. A correction—even when it is fully believed—does not eliminate the effects of misinformation on attitudes. These lingering attitudinal effects, which I call "belief echoes," are created even when the misinformation is corrected immediately, arguably the gold standard of journalistic fact-checking. …

The existence of belief echoes provide an enormous incentive for politicians to strategically spread false information with the goal of shaping public opinion on key issues.

Translation: Strategically spread false information = lie.

Sunday's Washington Post published a fascinating (and frustrating) op-ed by Professor Thorson about belief echoes and how to handle them in political discourse. From the op-ed:

Belief echoes can arise through several processes. First, if the misinformation is vivid and emotionally affecting, it has a strong initial effect on attitudes. In contrast, the correction has a much smaller emotional impact….

The second process through which misinformation creates belief echoes is driven by our brains' instinct to create plausible causal narratives. In the few seconds after participants read about the accusation, their minds automatically went to work recalling facts that matched that narrative … After they learned that the misinformation was false, those memories remained, and they could continue to affect attitudes.

Her advice on how to handle Trump and his lies?

The existence of belief echoes means that if we want to minimize the impact of misinformation on attitudes, it is critical not to repeat it. Sometimes this might be unavoidable — for instance, fact-checking sites need to repeat the original statement in order to correct it. But when we spread a correction, whether it's through tweeting or conversation, we should do our best to avoid repeating the false information.

So, as frustrated as we might be when Donald Trump makes things up on the campaign trail, the best advice may be to deal with him the same way we're told to deal with bees, small children throwing tantrums and Internet trolls: Just ignore him.

Believe me, I am trying my best to ignore the lying SOB. For example, when the organizers of FreedomFest ill-advisedly invited Trump to speak at their event in July, I walked out of the room. To his credit, my colleague Matt Welch had a stronger stomach; see his "The Idiocracy Candidate" for an accurate summation of Trump's expostulations.

Or perhaps better yet, take Thorson's advice and just move on whenever Trump is mentioned. (I am not saying that other politicians don't lie; of course they do. It's just that Trump is the most enthusiastic political liar to come along in some time.)

In any case, Thorson's whole op-ed is worth reading. For more background, see my post "Donald Trump and the Big Lie Strategem." See also Reason TV's terrific interview with Dilbert creator Scott Adams on Trumps' "Linguistic Kill Shots."

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.

414 responses to “How Trump's Big Lie Technique Works—"Belief Echoes" from Disinformation

    1. No, no… it’s “YOU know…”

  1. You know who else tells “Big Lies”?

    1. You know who else was a Nazi?

      1. You know who else compared Trump to a certain Austrian gentlemen?

      2. Calm down, Hitler. You think Ron Howard just *wished* Willow was great? No…and yet it was.

    2. Hedey Lamarr?

    3. Hedey Lamarr?

  2. You know who else took advantage of belief echoes?

    1. You know who else was Hitler?

      1. Your mom?

      2. Certainly not Mr Hilter, my dicky old chum!

    2. Hedey Lamarr?

  3. Well, I would not rely on Politifact as an objective source. For an example of their “fact-checking” skills, check out this one. Romney said that the CBO said that up to 20 million people will lose health insurance due to Obamacare. Politifact investigates, discovers that indeed, that was the top CBO estimate, and while Romney did say “up to,” they say “it’s the most extreme outcome of the five presented, and it’s not the primary estimate,” so they rate it as “false”!

    In other words, you can quote a high estimate from the CBO prefaced by “up to,” which is undeniably true, and still be called a liar by Politifact. Amazing.

    1. I believe Politifact only calls “ignorant know-nothing bumpkin trash” liars.

      /sarc

      I’m joining the wee-hour commentariat during my next bout of insomnia.

    2. You know who else represented an extreme outcome?

      1. Stephen Hawking?

      2. STEVE SMITH?

      3. The Vikings kicker?

      4. The Phillips Lady?

      5. Hedey Lamarr?

    3. What does Politifact have to do with this post?

      1. You know who else blamed unrelated entities for unpleasant political circumstances?

        1. Julius Caesar?

        2. Just about every politician in history?

      2. Something something personal obsessions something

      3. Put down the cocktail and try to follow along, toots.

      4. There’s a link to Politifact in the post: 2015 Lie of the Year

    4. Yeah, I saw this

      In response to these concerns, the last few years have seen a renewed commitment to journalistic and institutional fact-checking.

      And I larfed. What we have seen is a wider adoption of faux fact checking as a partisan tool.

  4. Do you know who else put a person’s pic next to Hitler?

    1. Mrs Hitler?

    2. Every holocaust museum?

  5. Any suggestions on how to deal with the lies of Hillary, Sanders, Rubio, Jeb and the Rest?

    Or just Trump?

    1. MM: Applies to all politicians: just that Trump is – in my judgment – a far more shameless and enthusiastic liar than most.

      1. Really,pay their fair share,drug war,war on terror,farm and green energy subsidies and on and on.Just,how Ron.You jumped the shark with the pic.And Sanders is lying about his ‘economic’ plan.I don’t like Trump,but,hell’s bells.

        1. Sanders isn’t lying. He is just plain daffy.

          For example, he refuses to release his tax plan to pay for that $15 trillion in new spending. The new spending part is getting him primary votes while not specifying what tax rates will be is not a lie.

          He is honest about spending $15 trillion even though he can’t explain how to get it.

          1. He is honest about spending $15 trillion even though he can’t explain how to get it.

            If you don’t ignore history, his source is exceedingly clear. Offer up the unborn to be sacrificed at the alter of the central bank.

      2. I agree with this, which in a way, makes his lies easier to call out.

      3. Really, Ron? You think the others don’t enthusiastically lie to advance their own agendas just because they are more eloquent and less bombastic about disguising their intentions?

        They are all shameless, enthusiastic liars.

      4. More shameless then Hillary?

      5. a far more shameless and enthusiastic liar than most.

        My nominee for the most shameless and enthusiastic liar (lifetime achievement award) would have to be Hillary.

        1. Shameless – probably more, probably.

          Enthusiastic – not so much as Mx. Trump.

      6. Applies to all politicians: just that Trump is – in my judgment – a far more shameless and enthusiastic liar than most.

        Yeah, a video killed an ambassador, and the SoS running a private email server is no big deal.

        WTF, Ron?

  6. All: Just FYI from Mein Kampf:

    ..the principle?which is quite true within itself?that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

    1. You know who else quoted stuff that was written in Mein Kampf?

      1. Bernie Sanders, after scratching out “Jews” and scribbling in “billionaires” and “the 1 percent”?

        1. Julius Streicher?

      2. Hedey Lamarr?

    2. From the section quoted from Mein Kampf:

      For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down – now identified as “belief echoes.”

      1. Like Obama? You don’t have a leg to stand on here.

    3. Well, Hoffer says

      The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already “know.”

      1. Which sure as shit seems more apt for explaining Trump’s appeal. They aren’t trying to learn the truth from him — they believe they already know the truth, and they’re just happy to hear a politician saying it without shame or endless qualifications.

    4. According to Wikipedia, Hitler was imputing the Big lie technique to Jews and Marxists.

      And the supposed “big lie” was that Germany lost WWI, not because of the Jews and Marxists, but because of Ludendorff (who was only the de facto commander in chief, after all).

      Sounds like projection.

    5. RB-

      Care to discuss Al Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth”?

      Ooops! You actually believe that lie…

  7. So Trump tells “big lies”, which makes him exactly like every other Presidential candidate in my lifetime and for God knows how long before that.

    I mean, it is a good thing we have never had another candidate who told big, important lies let alone one that got elected. I mean thank God Wilson didn’t campaign on promising to stay out of World War I or FDR to cut the budget deficit or Kennedy on a nonexistent Missile Gap or Johnson to keep us out of Vietnam or Bush I not to raise taxes or Obama on the promise of closing GUITMO, ending the war in Iraq, letting everyone keep their health insurance and a list of other things too long to explicate in this forum.

    This Trump guy is really horrible. He is something totally new in American politics.

    Jesus fucking Christ did the staff of the Onion take over Reason?

    1. You know who else took over some stuff?

      1. The folks down in Mergers & Acquisitions? I can go check…

      2. The SOTU former illegal immigrant?

      3. The Argentinians?

      4. Hedey Lamarr?

        1. Keep going, you’ll get one right. It’s just a matter of the odds.

    2. So Trump tells “big lies”, which makes him exactly like every other Presidential candidate in my lifetime and for God knows how long before that.

      Ok, John, you’ve found the nut… now, are you going to consume it or drop it and wander away? 😉

      1. You know who else was nuts?

        1. Are they cashews? If so, then me.

        2. Mounds?

            1. Don’t try to tell me that coconut isn’t a nut.

              1. If you have some Mounds of them, I suppose so?

        3. Not Peanuts!

        4. Hedey Lamarr?

      2. Are you still looking for Trumpinistas under your bed?

        These are dark times we live in you know with the huge military style Trump rallies, with gangs of Trump supporters beating up Mexicans and burning down homes and attacking Rubio and Cruz supporters.

        The same people who view Godwining an argument as an article of religious faith are now going full Godwin on Trump. Like I said last night, the events in Europe have so discredited the open borders position and Trump’s rise in the polls has so discredited the usual “you can’t say that unless you want to lose the election because of the Yutes and the Mexicans” fallback line, it has caused you people to lose your fucking minds.

        1. What has happened in Germany has in no way discredited the opne borders argument.

          It has however, discredited modern nation states’ compact that if people will give up their right to self-defense, the state will take care of them.

          But that’s beside the very astute observation you just made:

          So Trump tells “big lies”, which makes him exactly like every other Presidential candidate in my lifetime and for God knows how long before that.

          Sooo, accepting that this is a true statement, and I agree that it’s true FWIW, what conclusion do you reach about the presidency?

          a) If we don’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in
          b) There is something wrong with an institution whose job interview requires weapons grade deception to land the job.
          c) Obeying the commands of liars is the only path to survival or salvation.
          d) Other:________

          1. When the ‘wrong lizard’ takes over, I assure you will not have actually voted

            1. Well??!! Who is the right lizard then, Mr. Informationhidey?

              1. There are no good lizards, FOOLISH MAMMAL

                1. My cousin is a reptillian. I hope that means I will be among the last to be lined up against the wall.

                  1. Think less ‘wall’ and more cattle ranch.

                    With that said your species seems hellbent on murdering each other in the interim. And I will be renting wall space next to a walk-in freezer, and a giant grill. No sense in wasting meat.

              2. Charles Johnson?

            2. Don’t blame me, I voted for Kotos

          2. You know who else didn’t think that happenings in Germany discredited their argument?

            1. The guys putting Lenin on a train to Russia?

              1. *stands to begin thunderous ovation*

                1. I add my hand clapping, hat throwing, whistling and foot stomping accolade to Swiss’s ovation.

                  That was good.

              2. *continues ovation and presents trophy to tarran*

            2. Neville Chamberland?…

              1. Honorable mention to the lizard.

          3. What has happened in Germany has in no way discredited the opne borders argument.

            Well how many of those migrants would be there absent resettlement and welfare benefits? You’re pointing to a government directed movement of people and calling it a free movement of people.

            1. That is a fair point. But understand that Tarran and the people on here refuse to make ending the welfare state a predondition of opening the borders and support Obama on the Syrian refugee issue even though Obama is paying for them to come with tax money.

              So when I say “open borders”, I mean the sort of open borders no matter what that people like Tarran and others on here support.

              1. and support Obama on the Syrian refugee issue

                I don’t support Obama on the Syrian refugee issue. My attitude towards Syrians coming to the U.S. is the same attitude towards Englishmen coming to the U.S. or for that manner, Okies coming to Massachusetts. 😉

                But carry on.

                1. But you are happy to let them come even if the welfare continues. So you don’t support open borders. You support internationalized theft from the American taxpayer.

                  1. You support internationalized theft from the American taxpayer.

                    No I don’t. The guys supporting the welfare state do that. I’m opposed to the welfare state and call for its dismantling.

                    1. But you support its expansion in the form of allowing as many people who want to come here to benefit from it. So, while you may support its dismantling in principle, you absolutely support its expansion in the mean time.

                    2. So, while you may support its dismantling in principle, you absolutely support its expansion in the mean time.

                      If I recall correctly, John, you are an opponent of forcibly sterilizing the unfit and criminal classes. Does that make you a fan of expanding the welfare state? 😉

                    3. False analogy, but solid effort.

                2. I agree, who in the hell would want to go to massatwoshits?

          4. Even if people had guns, it would still discredit the open borders argument. As I keep saying, the welfare state makes open borders impossible. The existence of the welfare state makes open borders nothing but internationalized theft. If there were no welfare state, immigration would be a very small issue. Without welfare few of those people would be going to Europe because they are unwelcome and have no prospects. Thanks to welfare, they are all coming not for economic reasons to but effectively loot the country via welfare.

            When people like you and Cytoxic support open borders without requiring the end of the welfare state as a precondition, you are doing nothing but advocating the organized looting of whatever country is dumb enough to take your advice.

            Lastly, being armed only does so much good. Even if the Europeans were armed, the refugees would still have totally destroyed the quality of life in those countries. It is nice to be armed but the point is to not have to use those arms very often. Who the hell wants to live in constant fear and unable to walk the streets without carrying a gun and being willing to kill someone?

            1. “Thanks to welfare, they are all coming not for economic reasons to but effectively loot the country via welfare.”

              Looks like quite a few are happy to supplement that with the more traditional form of looting, along with the traditional rape and pillage. The big three perks in the traditional benefits package for occupying armies.

            2. When people like you and Cytoxic support open borders without requiring the end of the welfare state as a precondition, you are doing nothing but advocating the organized looting of whatever country is dumb enough to take your advice.

              Sigh. Please don’t lump me as agreeing with Cytotoxic’s retarded arguments. He’s an idiot, and even when he is right, he manages to be wrong.

              My view is that the welfare state *is* organized looting!:

              Dr Hoppe is correct, though, to fear the consequences of an open borders policy coupled with a generous welfare state. One need only to look at the examples of France and England to see the consequences of allowing people to immigrate, denying them the ability to earn a living, and offering them a monthly stipend to sit around and do nothing. Of course, in such societies the problem is not limited to immigration itself, but any form of population growth. Every new baby born to someone living in the country has a similar chance of ending up as a strain on the capital stock of the country. Banning immigration serves only to prolong the inevitable collapse, and that if one accepts this as justification for preventing people from immigrating into some country, then one must also, to be consistent, be in favor of restricting births of new babies.

              1. So you don’t support welfare? Yet, you still support anyone from anywhere in the world having the right to come and get in on the action.

                1. John, when do you think you’ll get around to answering my question?

                  1. Vote for who you want. I am not telling you to vote for Trump. I am telling you to get a hold of yourself and stop pretending he is a fascist. Trump isn’t a Libertarian. I wouldn’t expect you to vote for him. But Jesus fucking Christ stop wetting the bed every night in fear of the Trumpista in your closet and be honest with yourself about what is going on.

              2. then one must also, to be consistent, be in favor of restricting births of new babies.

                This isn’t a symmetric analogy. The conflation here is the comparison between the agency of adult immigrants and the non-agency of infants. Unlike immigrants that are unconstrained by naturally occurring social factors, children don’t have the choice to be born and put on the doll. Moreover, reproduction is already being artificially constrained by the welfare state when people like myself can only afford to have two children since my wife and I must both work and spend about 40 to 50 percent of our time working for the government so Cleetus or Abdullah can have their 9 children supported by my taxes.

                Since consistency is on the table it’s worth pointing out that Hoppe’s argument isn’t to ban immigration, it’s to restrict it only to the point where the immigrants bear their own costs. The only libertarian compliant means of immigration without bearing one’s own costs is to be voluntarily sponsored. Natural births likewise are ostensibly sponsored by the parents who voluntarily brought the child into the world, whether through deliberate conception or as the consequence of a voluntary act. And similarly, no one has a right to steal from others to support their reproductive habits. But this is where the parallel stops.

                1. (continued)
                  As to whether the welfare state’s existence makes it de facto legitimate that the state to set limits on reproduction…no it doesn’t, in the same way that the existence of Medicaid doesn’t provide a legitimate reason for euthanizing old people. A person’s right to reproduce is as fundamental as a person’s right to live, it’s a core biological function inherent in living things. Conversely, there does not exist a “right to immigrate” to any particular place that isn’t contractually agreed upon. Even if there did exist such a nebulous right (which necessarily assumes the existence of public property in a state of nature, or the non-applicability of property rights at the very least), it rises to nowhere the level of a fundamental right like the right to live or reproduce.

                  1. Short version; To set limits on reproduction would require that the government violate a natural right. To set limits on unsponsored and subsidized immigration does not violate a natural right.

              3. Are you still butturt over the times I’ve called you out for sophistry and BS regarding foreign policy and anarchism? Guess so.

                1. Still butthurt that you don’t know how to make a coherent argument? Guess so.

            3. It is nice to be armed but the point is to not have to use those arms very often. Who the hell wants to live in constant fear and unable to walk the streets without carrying a gun and being willing to kill someone

              The point is that if the rapists were harshly punished they would change their behavior. Whether this is accomplished by the German cops going Major Napier on their asses or the frauen putting a few bullets into the odd man until they get the fucking message isn’t really important.

              Sadly neither has happened, which is why the culture is changing in a more dangerous way.

              1. Yes Tarran, your defense of letting these mobs in is they will change and get better after enough of them have been punished. Great. So how many women have to be raped so Muslims can run free?

                And considering the conditions where these peole are coming from, no punishments are going to be harsh enough to deter them unless they are way beyond your tastes. What are you going to do? Send them to prison? Prison in Germany is better than they have ever known.

                Since there is no death penalty in Germany, basically you are advocating open season on German women with the only alternative being vigilantism. Wow, were can we get some of that in this country?

                And you honestly can’t understand why your position is so unpopular and discredited with all but the true believers.

              2. which is why the culture is changing in a more dangerous way

                I’m not so sure.

                http://dailycaller.com/2016/01…..-assaults/

            4. It’s been nearly an hour, and I don’t think John has deigned to answer my question, so I’d like to repeat it:

              So Trump tells “big lies”, which makes him exactly like every other Presidential candidate in my lifetime and for God knows how long before that

              .
              Sooo, accepting that this is a true statement, and I agree that it’s true FWIW, what conclusion do you reach about the presidency?

              a) If we don’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in
              b) There is something wrong with an institution whose job interview requires weapons grade deception to land the job.
              c) Obeying the commands of liars is the only path to survival or salvation.
              d) Other:________

              What say you John? It’s multiple guess, although you will have to write something in if you choose D.

              1. The point is not that Trump would make a good President. The point is that yours and Reasons hysteria over him is fucking pathetic and shows how weak and sad your unqualified commitment to open borders has made you.

                1. John, please!

                  Have the courage to defend your convictions!

                  What does that statement say about the presidency?

                  1. How am I not defending my conviction? Whatever that is.

                    1. IMI,

                      So Trump tells “big lies”, which makes him exactly like every other Presidential candidate in my lifetime and for God knows how long before that

                      .
                      Sooo, accepting that this is a true statement, and I agree that it’s true FWIW, what conclusion do you reach about the presidency?

                      a) If we don’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in
                      b) There is something wrong with an institution whose job interview requires weapons grade deception to land the job.
                      c) Obeying the commands of liars is the only path to survival or salvation.
                      d) Other:________

                    2. My conclusion is politicians such and politics sucks more. That is because people suck and the world is a very hard place. That is the way it has always been. Democracy is hard but it is the best available option.

                      Politicians lie and pander and appeal to people’s worst instincts. That is called the human condition. It doesn’t say anything about the Presidency other than that the Presidency is a political office.

                      I honestly don’t see what your point here is.

                    3. It’s (c) then.

                      And the poor nut drops, discarded, to the forest floor.

                    4. Yeah Tarran, because politics suck, politicians suck and governments cannot be trusted, it therefore follows that c) Obeying the commands of liars is the only path to survival or salvation.

                      Not to be judgmental or anything, but reading my post and concluding my answer is “c” is insane. There is just no other way to put it.

                      What is wrong with you? You are never this stupid. Trump is a politician and not much different from other politicians. Why is that such a hard thing for you to admit?

                    5. hy is that such a hard thing for you to admit?

                      Holy shit!

                      I must have said 6 times I agree with you that all politicians, like Trump, are horrible people!

                      And you claim that I’m having a tough time admitting it?!?

                      I guess reading *does* go faster if you don’t sweat the comprehension!!!!

                    6. Than we agree Tarran. All I am asking is you stop abusing the term “fascism”. And you were on here last night with Cytoxic calling him a fascist. If you now admit that is idiotic, then there is nothing to argue about. If you still believe that, you have lost your mind. It is really that simple.

                    7. All I am asking is you stop abusing the term “fascism”.

                      It’s not an abuse of the term fascism to call Trump a fasicst.

                      Based on Trumps state policy positions, he is an actual, bona fide fascist, a throwback to Mussolini’s ideas of the state as corporation. If you read von Mises book on Socialism, particularly the chapters on the interaction of Italian fascism with Germany’s Nazism you will see very similar themes, an unprincipled interventionism that knows no limits, interventions intended as a reaction to external and internal threats, the vision of the state as a vehicle not only for national greatness, but as a corporation that is the primary economic unit.

                      Note, this is based on what Trump states. His actual policies were he to be planted in the oval office could be incredibly different. Most of his supporters have claimed that his stated policy positions are bullshit ones; that both he and his supporters know they are bullshit. But I have no magic debulshitter. I have to go on his pronouncements.

                      Moreover, the communication with his supporters is a two way street; when he makes these pronouncements, he is communicating their legitimacy to his audience, and if he is sufficiently persuasive, convincing them to support those policies. Thus when he panders to the fascist impulses of the electorate, he validates and reinforces them.

                      Maybe you’re his friend or something and know the true man behind the fascist facade. /shrug.

                    8. BTW, FDR was, by those same standards, a fascist. So it’s not like Trump is plumbing new depths. Fascism was in back then, and with the erosion of the rule of law in the present, it’s coming into vogue.

                    9. It’s like voting for the lesser of two evils, people get so proud voting for evil.

                    10. Pronomian,

                      The only way to avoid voting for a flawed candidate is not to vote at all, which is a perfectly acceptable option.

                    11. Oh you say that now!

                      I seem to remember you singing a very different tune in 2008!
                      🙂

                      Fuck you you stupid child. IF that bitch wins, it will be because in small part people like you refused to vote against her because you didn’t get exactly what you wanted.

                    12. And I was saying it then. I think refusing to vote for a flawed candidate is stupid but it is your right and therefore acceptable.

          5. What has happened in Germany has in no way discredited the opne borders argument.

            If a multi-city epidemic of organized sexual assault wouldn’t discredit it, at least with respect to this wave of migration, what would?

            1. Let me put it this way… Did the free pass that whites got in lynching or assaulting blacks in the Jim Crow south discredit whites and blacks living together?

              The situation in Germany is that the German state aided and abetted the assaulters. They kpet what was happening secret so that the people were unaware of the threats they faced.

              When the state protects a favored group from punishment for its crimes, while punishing would-be victims who take steps to protect themselves, the same sort of lawless savagery crops up.

              1. So its the State’s fault?

                I find the government’s reaction to be abhorrent, but really very subsidiary to the actual crimes themselves. The German government abrogated its responsibilities, IMO, when it invited a million of these primitives to move. Everything after that has been inevitable, to anyone who has been paying attention. These roving sexual assault gangs are a pretty well-known feature of life in the countries many of these migrants come from. The best way to prevent Germans from being sexually assaulted isn’t to prosecute post facto, but to keep out the assaulters in the first place.

              2. And last I looked Tarran, people were well armed in Syria and North Africa. Yet, as RC points out these roving gangs are a part of life there. So much for you dreams of an armed public stopping this shit.

                Think about what you are saying. You are telling the public “yes we are turning lose a bunch of men who will think nothing of gang raping a woman on society but that is okay because if they try you can shoot them.” Really? You think that is a good answer? You think that being attacked by a bunch of young men is not any big deal as long as you have a gun and win the fight?

                Your position on this issue gets sadder by the day.

                1. Your position on this issue gets sadder by the day.

                  I notice you still haven’t answered my question, sweetie!

                  1. It ain’t gonna happen, tarran. Save yer strength and pixels.

                    1. I have answered it about six times Swiss. I am not saying vote for Trump. I am just telling you people to stop calling him and his supporters fascists. It is fucking retarded and really damaging to the country. They are not fascists and everyone of you know it. Just Stop it.

                    2. You have not once said anything about the nature of the presidency!!!!!

                      Come on, John! You aren’t fooling anyone!

                      If I were unfamiliar with you, I’d be under the impression that your wails about immigration and tumpmania were intended as a smoke screen to mask a withdrawal!

                  2. Taran,

                    What is your question? Yeah, politics and politicians suck. What do you want me to tell you? I don’t understand even what you are asking other than “why do you want me to vote for Trump?”. Well, I don’t want you to vote for Trump. I just want you to cut down on the idiotic DERP about the dark night of fascism falling on America.

                    1. It’s a multiple choice question, with D serving for you to come up with your own answer.

                      Given that Trump is very much like every other Presidential candidate in that he is a lying liar who lies, what conclusion do you reach about the presidency?

                      a) If we don’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in
                      b) There is something wrong with an institution whose job interview requires weapons grade deception to land the job.
                      c) Obeying the commands of liars is the only path to survival or salvation.
                      d) Other:________

                      I figure you can answer it in 3 minutes. Five tops.

                    2. I gave you an answer. I don’t reach any conclusion about the Presidency other than it is a political office and that is how politics and political offices work.

                      What do you want me to say? You don’t seem to have a point here. Yeah, politics is hard, people drawn to it are not often the best types of people and as a result governments can never be fully trusted.

                      I am pretty sure everyone on here knows that. So again, just knock it off with the fascism DERP.

        2. well said

    3. You could try reading the second-to-last paragraph. Or not. Actually, don’t. Please don’t. Never mind.

    4. Are all of those other guys the current front-runner in one of the major political parties?

      1. No, they were actual Presidents whose broken promises had real consequences. And yet, the Republic survived.

        1. Germany still exists too.

          1. NOT TO ITS FULL, GLORIOUS EXTENT!!!!!

            /93 year old German living in Nuevo Berl?n, Uruguay

          2. That is so fucking stupid, there is really nothing to say. It is like some kind of vortex of idiocy.

    5. Not fulfilling campaign promises = “Mexicans are largely rapists.”

      1. You know who else, like Tony, was a totalitarian collectivist?

        1. Zoo Keepers?

      2. Strictly speaking, he only said that Mexican immigrants (and “illegal” was pretty heavily implied if not outright stated) are a more rape-prone segment of the broader Mexican population. “They’re not sending us their best people” is the phrasing he used. I give your comment two Pinocchios.

    6. It’s not the lies that really bother me about Trump as much as the refusal to answer any direct questions.

      Q:”how are you going to fund X?”

      A:”I made a lot of money in casinos. I went to good schools. I know people…”

      Ps: I know candidates don’t go in specifics, but they at least attempt a semblance of an answer.

      1. I suppose. But that makes him a typical politician. The point is not that Trump is a good candidate. The point is reason has lost its fucking mind over his candidacy. He is not a fascist and this is not Germany and it is not 1933.

        1. I know politicians never give specifics but they at least ramble something close to an answer. The way he deflects just annoys me. Not that it matters. I finally lost hope this election cycle. Now I’m mainly here to talk about food, guns, and booze. I will also discuss movies and cars.

          1. The alternative to Trump is likely to be Cruz. You would think if Trump is America’s Hitler, Reason would see Cruz as a good option. But Cruz is a big meany and David Brooks doesn’t like him or something.

          2. I finally lost hope this election cycle. Now I’m mainly here to talk about food, guns, and booze. I will also discuss movies and cars.

            That’s a shame. I was hoping you could give me some advice about the kind of meth I should be buying.

            1. My advice, buy cheap. Quantity is more important than quality when it comes to meth. You don’t want to be in the middle of an orgy and run out of meth. Believe me, it’s embarrassing.

        2. Just to be clear, you are for preemptively killing brown people who scare you, but you aren’t for preemptively shutting down a candidate that could actually do real harm to the country?

          1. You know who else preemptively shut down candidates?

        3. Yeah, we already have our Neville Chamberlain, so it’s at least 1938, maybe 1939.

        4. He is not a fascist and this is not Germany and it is not 1933.

          So, you’re saying that the Koch brothers are not going to build any oil refineries in America this year?

          1. Correct, the father of the Koch brothers will not be building any oil refineries and Time Magazine will not be naming Hitler as Man of the Year.

      2. I know candidates don’t go in specifics, but they at least attempt a semblance of an answer.

        Not really. Our last couple of drinking games involved the candidates evading answers with ploys like, “But that’s not the issue, the real question is…” Watch Bernie Sanders to see this in full swing:

        Q: Should we be bombing in the Middle East?
        A: The real outrage is all of our economic growth going to the billionaires.

        1. Watch Bernie Sanders to see this in full swing:
          No.

          1. You know who else refused a full swing?

          2. OK, then watch John. The topic doesn’t matter, he’ll change the subject to the Brown Hordes. I used to think that he was just dim and neurotic, but recent posts of his gave me better insight: we’re observing the long term effects of concussion.

            1. In this case, the issue is inescapably linked to Trump.

              The immigration issue is a key source of Trump’s support – and I suspect the thing in Germany is going to boost that support.

              1. What ‘thing’ in Germany are you referring to? I only get my world news from Reason so I assume this is not really much of a ‘thing’?

                1. I only get my world news from Reason

                  … idiot

                  1. … idiot

                    Choose the form of your reply-tor!

                    1. Neener Neener!
                    2. I know you are but what am I?
                    3. So’s Your Mom.
                    4. Check Calibration on Sarchasm Detector.

                    1. The point, oh troller of concerns, is that there is no reason for one to expect Reason to be an authoritative source of international, or even national, news.

                2. Apparently a couple of Germans were rude to some girls. From what I gather, there wasn’t an immigrant for miles.

        2. Also, the only reason I saw trump was I wanted to see how Rand would do in the debate. The Dems have no one for me to watch.

  8. Thank God that Obama, who half the staff here voted for, never lies.

    1. Folks: Do you really think that pointing out that other politicians lie is somehow a persuasive defense of Trump?

      1. No Ron, they’re just calling you a stupid bastard for only picking on Trump. Unless you call out everyone, you support Hillary/Bernie/Progressivism.

        1. You know who else relied on a false dichotomy to convey their politics?

            1. Good one, Swiss.

              Q. Why didn’t Krenz attend the Sarajevo Olympics?

              A. He heard that they assassinate Crown Princes there.

        2. No Ron, they’re just calling you a stupid bastard for only picking on Trump.

          Um…

          (I am not saying that other politicians don’t lie; of course they do. It’s just that Trump is the most enthusiastic political liar to come along in some time.)

          1. Dude, that’s like the second-to-last paragraph. People like John only need to read the headline before launching a counterargument.

            1. Its also false, I can thinl of a number who lie more than Trump.

              1. But are they as enthusiastic about it? I dunno. They seem kinda lackluster to me.

                1. Peter King is enthusiastic. Terroristic zeal!

                  1. Maybe we could get King drunk on whisky and have him riverdance into a minefield?

                    1. Or riverdance into a woodchipper?

            2. Trump is bombastic in his enthusiasm. The others are not. That’s the only difference.

          2. Nobody reads past Trump, Frank.

      2. Some of them really do, Ron, yes.

      3. Can’t you reprint those great anti-Trump pieces from Spy magazine back in the 80s?

        This reads like some NPR scold wrote it.

      4. John does.

        1. “If this is the best you can come up with then Trump isn’t that bad!!”

          1. “Did you know that there are problems? That’s why Trump is so popular!”

      5. It is interesting that this story is about Trump and not Clinton.

        Since reason loves rehashing stories from the mid 90s, how about some in depth anslysis of Hillary cattle futures career?

        1. r: You mean like this May, 2015 Stossel column published in Reason:

          Forty years ago, Hillary would have us believe that she wasn’t just the wife of a man running for Arkansas governor?she was a lucky or brilliant investor who in less than three weeks doubled her money. No, tripled! No, wait?quadrupled… no, actually, much more!

          “Clinton made almost $100,000 in the cattle futures market,” reported Tom Brokaw, and “many wondered whether that was a sweetheart deal arranged for the governor’s wife.”

          Of course it was.

          Or this November 2013 column from Ira Stoll:

          Neither Goldman Sachs nor Mrs. Clinton has disclosed in detail the contents of the speeches. But the image of Mrs. Clinton ? or, for that matter, her husband Bill ? as somehow na?ve or innocent in matters of finance or business is enough to bring a smile to the lips of anyone who remembers the Clinton back story.

          This is the same Hillary Clinton, after all, who made nearly $100,000 in ten months of 1978 and 1979 trading cattle and hog futures, gains she explained improbably by saying she had diligently read the Wall Street Journal.

          1. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

          2. That is nice. No detail. And the 2013 one isnt in this election cycle, so doesnt count. I mean an analysis. At the time, Liberty magazine had a great financial analysis of the deal.

            The Rehashing of the Ron Paul newsletter story from the mid 90s required everyone to write, including some multiple times!

      6. Socialism is one of the greatest evils know to man,I await your pic of Sanders next to Stalin,Mao or Lenin.

        1. Ron: See my comment just above.

      7. No we think you’re jealous of Welch for all the MSNBC time he’s getting.

        1. SCREEN TIME FOR THE SCREEN GOD!

          1. Can we get a stern squint at Ron?

            1. I’ll see what I can muster up…

              *disapproving glance*

              Dang, I am a bit low here.

              1. Are you quitting on me?….well are you?

                1. *struggles to give one glare, fails*

      8. It’s not a defense of Trump. Few of us like Trump, and we acknowledge that he could be worse than Obama for the same reason that Obama was worse than W, W Clinton, Clinton Bush, and so on.

        It’s the commentariat noting that, when an outsider emerges to threaten the political establishment, the bien pensant rush to throw him a blanket party where they do not do the same for, say, a first-term US Senator running for the same office or for a quisling like Paul Ryan. That’s to be expected of Fox News or another dull establishment outlet, but it’s disappointing when a libertarian publication does nothing but echo the mainstream.

        1. See, when you’re a loner then you stick to being a loner. You go with the crowd one time you might as well forget about your loner status. Just because everyone else has it right this time is no exchange to follow the crowd.

          1. exchange excuse

          2. Right, because that’s their motivation or ours for criticizing them.

        2. …when an outsider emerges to threaten the political establishment, the bien pensant rush to throw him a blanket party…

          … it’s disappointing when a libertarian publication does nothing but echo the mainstream.

          Being anti-establishment isn’t enough. Just because you grate on the establishment doesn’t give any credibility to your positions. Hell, the ONLY thing I like about Trump is that he’s outspokenly anti-establishment. But he’s wrong on nearly EVERY issue, is a horrible person, would make a horrible leader and IMHO is dangerous. He deserves all the criticism he gets here.

          1. If he’s wrong on nearly every issue, why does he match up so well to libertarians like me on Project Vote Smart? Try it: http://votesmart.org/voteeasy

          2. It’s not remotely enough. But Reason and Welch have been pearl clutching over this WWF announcer of a candidate long enough that you’d think they’d never seen a populist huckster politician before.

            Is Trump as bad as Biden would’ve been? Not hardly. As bad as Hillary? Probably not. Sanders? You’re kidding me. He’s just another clown on the same level as Rubio and Bush, but Reason is having the vapors and collapsing on the couch because, get this, he’s vulgar.

            And now a Godwin troll? Enough already.

      9. Folks: Do you really think that pointing out that other politicians lie is somehow a persuasive defense of Trump?

        How dare you offend Team Red!

      10. Sorry, Ron, but a single parenthetical on everyone who is not Trump makes it read like a partisan hack job, not a disinterested examination of what is actually an interesting phenomenon.

        Especially since Trump is not even close the King Liar in the current crop of candidates. Nobody, but nobody, can take the crown from Hillary.

      11. Nope, but a sense of proportion might be useful.

  9. So, as frustrated as we might be when Donald Trump makes things up on the campaign trail, the best advice may be to deal with him the same way we’re told to deal with bees, small children throwing tantrums and Internet trolls: Just ignore him.

    Yeah, this advice has worked great so far.

    1. Ignoring Trump means you support Hillary, don’t you get it? Or something.

      1. I think it is the great job of ignoring Trump they have done here….

        Of course, I am just here to laugh and maybe try to shite-stir a little. Normally I avoid the Trumpenartiklen…but I knew there would be Godwinnin’ fun a plenty with that photo 🙂

        1. I’ve been howling with laughter reading the comments, SS!

        2. “Shite-stir”? You sound like the kind of limey scum that should be kept out of this great country.

          1. *gives Glaswegian Kiss, resumes nursing pint of McEwan’s*

        3. Click on “Donald Trump” tag, and there are 240 (12 pages, 20 articles per page) articles from January 29, 2015 onward.

          That’s more than four a week. It doesn’t include (far as I can see) any Lynx Article that mentions him in passing. Once you do an article a day on a subject, I don’t think you can say it’s being “ignored”.

          For extra fun, from 2004 to 2014, there were 4 articles tagged with “Donald Trump.”

          And if anyone cares, there is no “Lou Reed” tag.

          1. Why would they tag Lou Reed…? Does he have a new tour about to start?

          2. And if anyone cares, there is no “Lou Reed” tag.

            Have you checked his toe?

            1. Too soon, man. Reason staff are still looking for a way to break it gently to the commentariat…

            2. I’m still LOL as I type this.

    2. And Reason has done such a great job of ignoring him, what with a half dozen articles about him every day. That sort of reaction–which serves to suck the air out of the room for serious politicians like Rand or even Ted Cruz–has nothing whatsoever to do with his popularity with Americans for whom Trump has fundamentally become the anti-Obama.

      1. which serves to suck the air out of the room

        You know who else suffocated people in a room?

  10. if you take dilbert, rearrange the letters, and put the d over the b…..o mein gott

  11. Does the picture Godwin the whole article?

    1. …or get it re-posted on Salon?

      1. Now Robbie has to scramble to find another creative commons photo for his next article.

        Life is sooo unfair!

        1. You know who else thought that some things were unfair and went to great lengths to change them?

          1. The NFL Competition Committee?

  12. I don’t know how you beat trump, but I don’t think ignoring 36% or (whatever he’s polling at) of your potential voting base in a primary is the way to succeed against him. I still think you should try win and persuade with ideas.

  13. you lose all credibility with that hitler picture. worse than the huff post with the fear mongering

    1. You know who else lost credibility through fear mongering?

      1. The local news anchor?

        1. Every news anchor ever?

      2. Beebop and Rock Steady?..

      3. The D.A.R.E. program?

  14. don?t think Trump lies anymore than Obama, Clinton and the rest of the GOP clowns

    1. RM: Hitler/Trump picture illustrates practitioners of the “big lie stratagem” – with regard to any fascistic tendencies that Trump may exhibit, we can set that topic aside to be addressed at another time.

      1. Ron,your full of crap on this.

      2. Oh, yeah… it only relates to the “BIG LIE”… forget all that other stuff… BS. The pairing of the picture evokes far more than an illustration of a single topic. It’s absurd to claim otherwise.

      3. I always thought Baily was a sort of doofus and now he’s proven his doofocity by going full throttle, barking at the moon, over the top pants shitting Godwin on this one.

  15. Okay, I’ll go there.

    I think pic is totally appropriate. Trump’s techniques remind me a great deal of Hitler’s.

    Scapegoating entire populations of people to gain political power, being the most obvious similarity. Sometimes Godwining is fitting.

    1. You know who else thought Godwinning was fitting?

        1. *Narrows gaze*, then thinks better of it

    2. You know who else wanted to make the Fatherland great again?

      1. The Motherland?

        “Get up and get to work, you lazy, good for nothing Reich!”

        1. Get me a beer bitch.

    3. You mean like scapegoating big oil,’the rich’,gun owners,big food ,ect.

      1. Last I checked, very few are calling for wars against or deporting big oil and gun owners.

    4. You know who else had a dumb hair situation going on?

      1. My 9th grade self?

        1. Me, from 7th grade through 12th grade?

          1. Ya me too…

          2. I refused to comb my hair until I was in my mid 20’s.

            1. I can assure that it probably looked better than my adolescent grooming

              1. It gave me that “devil may care” look that the ladies like.

      2. Basically all of the 1980s?

  16. Cocktailz, Yokels, and Cucktarians, oh my!

    1. Cosmuckleolkletarians, unite!

      1. You know who else gave their political movement a name that was frequently truncated because the full name was too long and somewhat hard to pronounce?

        1. Komsomol?

        2. FINMA?

          OK, so it isn’t a “political movement”… but how many people want to say, “I saw the latest guidance from the Eidgen?ssische Finanzmarktaufsicht”?

  17. “However, through a series of experiments, I find that exposure to a piece of negative political information persists in shaping attitudes even after the information has been successfully discredited. A correction?even when it is fully believed?does not eliminate the effects of misinformation on attitudes.”

    The effect she’s talking about has always been there–and so have the “serious concerns about citizens’ ability make fully informed decisions.”

    So, two points:

    1) People rarely, if ever, make “fully informed” decisions. We’re subject to perspective, and new information becomes available every day. So we live in a world of imperfect and partial information. We tend to focus on a few things that are important to us.

    2) The decisions people make about politicians are generally based on qualitative criteria. Who’s to say that the judgments people make using subjective and qualitative criteria are wrong? How are those judgments being falsified?

    1. KS: Her point is that lying is an effective way to influence the “subjective and qualitative” decisions about voting for a politician.

      1. Like Sanders,Hillary,Bush,Christie,.You screwed the pooch Ron and let the mask fall.

      2. Those subjective and qualitative realities were already there in people. Those people we’re talking about are market forces.

        It seems like she might be thinking that sellers are dictating terms to the market of ideas, when it’s really the subjective and qualitative considerations of the market that are dictating terms to sellers.

        If it’s those qualitative and subjective considerations that are persisting despite Trump’s arguments being debunked, then why give so much agency to Trump’s lies?

        Yes, people will cite bad data to justify their preexisting qualitative preferences–but their positions often aren’t driven by quantitative considerations. People believe that God created the world and then sacrificed himself for them personally–for qualitative reasons. If they persist in that belief despite science showing them how the world was actually created, it’s because science hasn’t addressed the qualitative reasons for those beliefs. And if religion is an adaptation, then there may still be good reasons to persist in that belief.

        Perhaps she’s talking about what is happening, and I’m talking about why. Regardless, I think she’s putting the cart before the horse. She’s discovered that the market of ideas isn’t simply a quantitative consideration–I suspect libertarians have known about that at least since Smith wrote Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759.

  18. Point 2) needs some elaboration.

    Assume Trump says something about Syrian refugees that isn’t true. Do the people who hear it and support Trump do so a) Because of Trump’s bad statistics? Or b) do they support Trump because they qualitatively don’t like Muslims, qualitatively fear terrorist attacks, qualitatively prefer safety to helping asylum speakers, qualitatively . . . etc.?

    Maybe the reason people’s beliefs persist despite being debunked is because they didn’t believe because of the quantitative statistics in the first place. Maybe people believe in things for qualitative reasons. For instance, maybe people don’t “believe” in global warming because they qualitatively don’t like socialist and authoritarian solutions–and who’s to say those people’s qualitative preferences are both falsifiable and wrong?

    There is a gigantic hole in modern intellectual discourse where an understanding and respect for people’s qualitative criteria for decision making should be. I’d go so far as to suggest that quantitative considerations are actually qualitative in nature–because whether more of something is better or worse is situational.

    1. Exactly. Somebody who responds positively to “Messicans are all welfare queens” is not going to do a 180 when you point out, all factual and shit, that in fact on 70% of the immigrant family are on welfare.

      What Trump has also been benefiting from is, well, the news. He says “Mexicans are sending their criminals”, and bang, there’s a high-profile killing by an illegal. He says “Don’t let these Muslim migrants in” and bang, next thing you see is reports of a sexual assault spree by Muslims in Europe.

      He overgeneralizes and exaggerates, but he very rarely says something with no basis whatsoever in reality. The news constantly gives partial confirmation to his claims, which is processed by most people as just plain old confirmation.

      1. “The news constantly gives partial confirmation to his claims, which is processed by most people as just plain old confirmation.”

        And he’s confirming their preexisting qualitative preferences.

        He also benefits from being one of the only people willing to say the stuff he says on camera.

        In some ways, it’s like the Attitude Era in wrestling. When Ted Turner decides to take on Vince McMahon, McMahon realizes that he can go raunchier than Turner can and hilariousness ensues.

        It’s the same kind of thing with Trump. The PC brigade has been so successful that even comedians are afraid to say anything untoward on camera, so when The Donald goes after Mexicans and Muslims, he doesn’t have much competition. And then the weak imitators in the Republican field just come across as “Me Too!” guys. They’re not even sure what the rules are anymore.

  19. Trump bullshits, he doesn’t “strategically spread false information.” To the extent that his bullshit has staying power, it’s the result of the credibility vacuum created by establishment institutions who routinely use lies or tricks to try to control thought, because they’d rather try to force the facts to fit the narrative than adapt their narrative as they better understand the facts.

    Look at Europe — now police and media in multiple states are shown to have routinely engaged in coverups of attacks being perpetrated by migrants, in order to prevent “hate crimes”. Obvious bullshit, since in some cases (where they knew of attacks last year and provided no warning for the same event this year) their lies actually enabled hate crimes against women. Their true goal was to prevent the populist right from acquiring political power from the various flavors of left-to-center that dominate the establishment.

    Now, it doesn’t matter what they say, it won’t be believed, because “everyone knows” that media and the state lie, especially when the lie is to the benefit of Muslims. It will become easier and easier to spread lies about the migrants now, because 1) it speaks to what people already suspect is true, based on their experience and the few cases where the truth got out, and 2) because the people with the most desire and capacity to refute it have lost all credibility.

    1. You know who else was concerned that outsiders would take over the country?

      1. The trans-Jordanians in 1946?

      2. Anyone facing the prospect of foreign invasion? If you were thinking “Hitler”, I think he wanted to be the outsider doing the taking over of other countries.

      3. Native Americans?

      4. The Poles?

  20. Trump has taken lying to a new form:

    http://www.politifact.com/pers…..ants-fire/

    1. I’ve read your posts,your not the one to talk about lying.

    2. Yet, on the Clinton Scale, he hasn’t even gotten to double A level.

      1. Which Clinton?

        Hil-dogs big lie was about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

        Bill’s was about a BJ from an intern.

        Their body of work is nowhere near that of Trumps and he is a relative newcomer to campaigning.

        1. Which Clinton?

          Yes.

        2. Hil-dogs big lie was about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

          That’s not even on the C-list of her lies. Entire issues are surrounded by clouds of Hillary lies.

        3. Hil-dog’s big lie was that “Libya is an example of smart power at its best.”

          I suppose, however, that the veracity of that statement depends upon the definition of “smart power”. If the objective of smart power was to cause Libya, Mali, and Syria to descend into an utter chaos of death and destruction, I suppose her handling of the Benghazi situation was just fine.

          Another big lie of Hil-dog’s team was that the Benghazi fiasco was all cause by YouTube video that had a few hundred hits.

  21. Fascism doesn’t have one agreed upon meaning. What is and is not “fascism” and what is the essence of fascism is the subject of endless debate. There are,however, two aspects of fascism that pretty much everyone agrees upon. They are a commitment to a total state domination of society and the use of violence against political opponents for political ends.

    Trump can fairly be called a liberal on a lot of issues and he is certainly been a part of more than his share of crony capitalism. All of those legitimate criticisms of Trump mean that he is not a Libertarian or really even an economic conservative. They mean he is a Democrat on par with someone like Dick Gepheart or Bill Clinton after the 94 election gave him religion. Whatever the hell he is, he is not a totalitarian by any reasonable definition. And maybe I missed it but I have not seen any Trump brownshirts out knocking heads at Cruz or Jeb Bush political events.

    The irony of all of reason’s pants shitting about Trump is that there really is a political movement that demands total commitment to the cause and to the state if it ever takes power and ruthlessly uses violence against its opponents for political ends. That movement of course is radical Islam and reason seems bothered by it and unconcerned about the prospect of importing more adherents to it into the country at government expense.

    1. Orwell talked about this in 1944. The term isn’t useful for much, but in its general handwavy definition, it applies to Trump as well as anything.

      http://orwell.ru/library/artic…..lish/efasc

      1. There isn’t a single position Trump takes that hasn’t been advocated by at least one or more major political figures in this country over the last 30 years. Populism is not fascism. And being a populist is about the most you could say about Trump.

        Trump is not the best candidate but he is far from the worst. Hillary and Sanders both support effectively repealing the first two amendments of the BOR. How is Trump in any way worse than Chris Christy or Jeb Bush? I don’t see it. And in the case of Christy, Trump is better for no other reason than he supports the 2nd Amendment.

        Reason is just butt hurt because Trump’s popularity puts complete lie to their fantasy that anything short of open borders is doomed to lose at the national level. Trump puts complete lie to that and also win or lose has put actual efforts to control the border on the table. And as a result, Reason and a good number of its readers have gone insane and convinced themselves Trump is the new Hitler.

        1. There isn’t a single position Trump takes that hasn’t been advocated by at least one or more major political figures in this country over the last 30 years.

          I’m imagining a hippogriff of George Wallace, Roman Hruska, and Maxine Waters.

          1. Except that he shares no views I am aware of with any of those people. Does Trump support racial segregation? Is that the new paranoid delusion?

            1. How many hits to the head did you get?

              1. Did he? If not, why are you talking about Wallace?

                1. Hmmm, I’m guessing 15 or 16. Depends on the severity and angle. Affected verbal comprehension.

                  /scribbles on pad

                  1. Since you can’t seem to answer a question or follow the argument old man, yeah, that is probably a good guess that is what happened to you.

                    Too bad you can’t remember and apparently have no friends or family around to tell you.

                  2. I am pretty sure he is mentally ill.

          2. +1 for use of “hippogriff”

        2. You’re too stupid to know Trump is far more dangerous than a regular GOPer like John Kasich. 25% tariffs and taking oil from the Middle East to pay for walls?

          He is probably lying about that too though.

          1. Oh noes. I also hear he is going to totally fuck up the health care system and leave every employer in the country unable to calculate labor expenses past one year while he sits on his ass and waits for four years to implement it.

            In fairness shreek, you make a legitimate criticism of Trump. His views on trade are idiotic, though sadly not unheard of or any different than those of Bernie Sanders, who you will likely be voting for next fall if the Hilldebeast gets indicted.

            There you are Reason, you are so fucking stupid on this issue you make Shreek sound reasonable and informed.

            I hope you are proud.

            1. Trump vs. Sanders is one I will sit out – unlike yourself.

              1. You will vote for Bernie. You know you will. But I don’t think Trump could get his trade stuff through Congress. So I don’t really worry about it. But his views are a huge reason why electing him is a bad idea.

                Too bad reason has lost its collective mind so much they can’t seem to argue that.

                1. No holds barred “debate” featuring shrike v. the jacket!

                  There is more emotion and feelz permeating and undergirding Nick’s rant in this one article than in any 100 of shrike’s posts.

                  Am I exaggerating?

      2. I think the dude that came up with it should get the last word:

        http://legacy.fordham.edu/hals…..ascism.asp

        Warning – weird and long.

    2. I think fascism has to do with nationalism, autocracy, strength through unity, and using the state to force individuals to sacrifice their civil rights–specifically–for strength through unity.

      The commitment and total domination of society is more of a totalitarian thing, which can be fascist or communist. To me, the difference between totalitarianism (like Nazi Germany and North Korea) and authoritarianism is that where authoritarians seek to control what people do, totalitarians are also obsessed with what people think.

      Pinochet didn’t want people to be communists, and thought believing in communism meant you were likely to misbehave, but he wasn’t obsessed with making every single person in society believe the same exact things. It isn’t enough to behave in North Korea; they indoctrinate you, and you have to believe it in your heart. Some people argue about whether the feelings people have for their leaders, mourning someone who starved them to death, for instance, is actually genuine. In mature totalitarian societies, I don’t think people can tell the difference between their own genuine and phony feelings and thoughts anymore.

      1. Fascism is anti democratic and an outgrowth of the French Revolution. I don’t believe that you can fairly call something fascism unless embrace the total state.

        Regardless, even if you disagree, you still are left with the requirement for political violence. Trump is not a fascist by any reasonable definition. Populism is not fascism.

        1. Fascism is more a natural progression of late 19th Century Progressive thinking – that the only way for society (the state) to advance was through direction by bureaucrats and ministers that were educated to do so. Of course, this requires individuals and entities give up their independence in the name of a greater, more advanced society – National Socialism.

          1. It was certainly all about using the government to force people to make sacrifices for the common good.

            Fascists want the government to force you to sacrifice your civil rights, and communists want the government to force you to sacrifice your property–but they’re both about using the government to force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good.

            And, yes, that is also the definition of progressives as far as I’m concerned. A progressive is someone who wants the government to force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good. They may not be as extreme as fascists or communists, but not being as extreme as the fascists or the communists doesn’t mean there are any fundamental differences between them and the progressives.

            Progressives have a word for individuals who are unwilling to sacrifice their rights or property for the common good–they call us “selfish”, which is what they also mean by “capitalist”. Incidentally, fascists and communists were and are fundamentally hostile to capitalism, too.

    3. Re: John,

      Fascism is the political ideology that holds that the individual should always be subordinated to the State, with only nominal rights grated, and that the State is the ultimate owner of all means of production albeit the State has discretion in granting certain individuals with the right of usufruct.

      That pretty much describes almost all world states since 1918, by the way, including the U.S.

      1. I disagree. You have to really twist those words to think the US government is the primary owner of the means of production or that the individual’s rights are always subordinate to the states. We have hundreds of court cases where the government has lost and been restrained from doing something because of individual rights. There may not be enough of them for yours or my taste, but the fact that they exist at all is pretty conclusive evidence we are not a fascist state.

    4. Fascism doesn’t have one agreed upon meaning.

      That’s true. When I hear it used by cosmotarians and liberals, I usually consider it as an endorsement.

  22. This is already the best thread of the year. I assume it will soon become the worst thread of the year. Kudos, Bailey.

    1. You know who else wrote the best thread of the year?

      1. Charles Dickens?

        1. Sir Toby Belch?

        2. +1 It was the Best of Threads, It was the Worst of Threads…

  23. Nothing trump is doing is different than previous politicians except his attitude. He’s not telling anymore blatant lies, or proposing any more unworkable plans. Yet, I doubt you would have walked out of a speech at the freedom rally given by Clinton or Bush. You need to examine exactly why Trump makes you so much madder than every other lying politician.

    1. Because he might win.

      1. I think it’s more his deviation from accepted political patterns. Change freaks people out, and Trump is signaling a big change from the focus group tested non-offensive style of rhetoric currently the norm.

        1. I agree that his style is freaking out the status quo, but only because it has been so successful, at least so far.

          The people that are scratching their heads over his popularity must be worried that a) they don’t really have any clue what the ‘rest of the country’ thinks at any given time, b) are worried that, geez, these yokels/rednecks/trailertrash/illiterates are dangerous!,and/or c) if he wins how can I justify my existence as an expert commentator on matters political?

        2. You know who else strayed from the norm of non-offensive political rhetoric?

          1. James Callendar?

    2. You need to examine exactly why Trump makes you so much madder than every other lying politician.

      That, my friend, is the interesting question.

    3. Monsanto is not happy with Trump?

  24. A correction?even when it is fully believed?does not eliminate the effects of misinformation on attitudes.

    No shit. Another take on this is: “Oh, and *now* my attitude includes not trusting the source(s) proven to be liar(s).”

  25. Who’s with me to 1000+ comments before sundown?!!!!!

    1. I think the campus pc article will kill this one.

    2. You know who else achieved a significant numerical milestone?

      1. Your mother?…

    3. You know who else … hey, I don’t think I have one for this?!??!??!

      1. You know who else got stumped by a reptile?…

        1. You know who else took actions that dismayed the Swiss?

          1. John Calvin? (Some Swiss anyway).

        2. Plucks off Mr Lizards tail! There you go stumpy.

  26. “The second process through which misinformation creates belief echoes is driven by our brains’ instinct to create plausible causal narratives. In the few seconds after participants read about the accusation, their minds automatically went to work recalling facts that matched that narrative … After they learned that the misinformation was false, those memories remained, and they could continue to affect attitudes.”

    For anyone that did further research, did she test against situations were the accusations weren’t plausible based upon well known facts? For example, instead of a false story about Bill Clinton and a sex scandal vs. one about Hillary Clinton and a sex scandal.

    1. For example, look at people’s reactions to the UVA rape story. Many took a handful of seconds to conclude it was false, and others are still claiming it was essentially true. Its a lie that is creating belief echos to this day.

      On the whole, it strikes me as a better hook to hang a story about disinformation on.

      1. Actually, that’s a very very good example. It’s also a better event to do a study on. It’s not a matter of opinion in the Jackie case that her accused victimizer doesn’t exist and that no party was held in the house she claimed it was. Figuring out why people still believe would be very helpful in figuring out how to distribute facts in the future.

        1. BTW, UVA Jackie’s real name is Jackie (short for Jacquelyne) Coakley. Since she’s not a victim, there’s no reason not to use it.

      2. There are a ton of good stories like that. The Central Park jogger story is another one. There is some real validity to this idea. Too bad Reason has decided to misuse it by feeding its Trump frenzy.

    2. For example, look at people’s reactions to the UVA rape story. Many took a handful of seconds to conclude it was false, and others are still claiming it was essentially true. Its a lie that is creating belief echos to this day.

      On the whole, it strikes me as a better hook to hang a story about disinformation on.

    3. Agreed – telling obvious “whoppers” is very different from “lying with a straight face” -Trump is Huck Finn.

      1. Well I’m not painting his damn fence!

  27. The solution is not ‘ignore him’. They tried to do that to the Nazis and it didn’t turn out well. Instead he must be challenged at every turn with the understanding that his supporters want to believe the lies. Why? Because they are spoiling for war. You can hear it in the cheers when he says, “Bomb the hell out of ISIS!” and “I saw thousands dancing in the streets!” and “Take his coat!” Simply by pointing out the parallels to Hitler goes a long way to defusing his power.

    1. You know what else was tried against the Nazis?…

    2. You know who else benefited from attempts to ignore the Nazis?

      1. The Swedes?

      2. Gloria Swanson’s paramour?

    3. Or you know, you could address the issues his supporter care about in a reasonable manner. Maybe 10,000 refugees imported and maintained on the taxpayer dime who can’t be vetted or even confirmed to be from Syria isn’t the hill worth dying on. If no one will touch the middle ground, people are going to go to the extremes.

      1. You know who else went to extremes?

        1. William Joel?

      2. His supporters don’t care about the 10,000 refugees coming into the country. That is another lie. They would rather see them bombed into oblivion. And if any escape and seek refuge they want to bomb them too. That is how the ‘Trump supporter’ thinks. “Bomb them too!” “Yeah!!!” “And their families!” “Yeah!!!!”

        1. Every last one of them eh? No ten or twenty percent that could be peeled off by having another full throated option. No one in the slightest bit concerned about events in Europe being repeated here.

          1. The problem with Europe is that they don’t have free speech. As a result anyone who spoke out against the mass influx was charged with ‘hateful rhetoric against an ethnic or religious minority’. That is not our problem. We can safely vet them. Will one or two slip through? Unlikely but still it’s like the drug war: drugs are dangerous but sealing off the borders to them will only make things worse and escalates the violence. Which is exactly what the Trumpsters want.

            1. How will not importing refugee using tax payer money create more violence over here? The drug war is about preventing people from getting a product they want. This issue is much closer to Obamacare in it is about forcing people to fund something they don’t want to.

              Hell it’s not even really comparable to our normal Mexican immigration issues, as we are not the first choice or first stop unless we willingly foot the bill.

    4. Challenging him is nice, but it also requires some sort of credible alternative — Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton fail pretty hard, so if he wins the GOP primary, it’s very possibly all over.

      1. Credible alternative: The Constitution of the United States. Laugh all you want:

        1. Is it running? Can I do a write-in?

        2. Does the Constitution have a clause that says “an no big meanie like Donald Trump can ever be President”? Did I miss that part?

          1. Hahaha. Laugh all you want.

  28. Thanks for ruining the Godwinning in the comments by putting the Godwin in the actual article.

    Anyway, what’s this bit about not discussing the false accusations, even to refute them, because people can’t handle the truth?

    Do we really want a situation where the only people mentioning the accusation are those who believe it?

    What about someone who’s looking in good faith to see if the charges are true, so he looks the matter up, and most of the mentions of the charges are from people who are trying to spread those charges?

    If the problem is that a false charge creates an emotional effect which cannot be countered by mere facts, then dial up the rebuttal so that it creates a counteracting emotional effect.

    Say, “Donald Trump [or whoever] is a [bleep] [bleep] liar and he has a tiny dick – is he the kind of short-dicked liar you want in the White House?”

    At worst, it will just make people turn off and ignore both the accusation and refutation.

    At best, it will wake people up to examine the charges, because they suddenly got interesting.

    1. “Escalate, don’t capitulate”, amirite?

      1. I can’t guarantee it will work, but it sure sounds like more fun than the other way.

  29. 307+ comments and counting… Do I dare even look at the shitshow above? Nah, I think I’d rather find some actual work to do instead.

    1. Its actually quite entertaining. A master class in mock-Godwinning (“You know who else . . . ).

      1. I don’t know what Reason thinks it is accomplishing by writing this stuff. I mean Jesus even Shreek manages to make legitimate criticisms of Trump. And Reason does this horseshit. I don’t think it is click bait since any Trump story is going to generate page views. I really think Trump has caused the reason staff to go a bit nuts.

    2. You know who else dared look at a shitshow?

      1. Subscribers to German scheisse porn websites?

          1. *Narrows gaze*, this time without second-guessing myself…

  30. (I am not saying that other politicians don’t lie; of course they do. It’s just that Trump is the most enthusiastic political liar to come along in some time.)
    If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period!

    1. I never had sexual relations with that woman

      Read my lips, no new taxes.

      The list goes on and on. And the Bailey has the nerve in the comments to wonder why pointing out other lies is a defense of Trump. Is Bailey that dumb or just mendacious? It is not a defense of Trump. It is a refutation of the idea that there is anything special or different about Trump. Bailey has to know that.

      1. Monsanto mindset.

      2. The attack on the consulate in Behgazi was the result of an internet video.

        1. You mean, like with a cloth?

        2. Good thing that wasn’t an example of a big lie or anything.

  31. In 50 years — hell, in 5 years — will we be looking at articles like this one from the camps thinking, “my God, Reason was right on the money with their Trump coverage and we were so blind as to not see it!”

    Or will we be looking back at this as an example of how insane and blinkered media responses are to the rest of the country?

    I know where my bet’s going.

    1. Me too. We need to have a debate between the staffs of Reason and National Review. The topic should be

      “Trump, America’s Hitler or a secret Hillary mole sent to destroy the Republican Party and further liberal politics?”

      Both staffs seem to utterly convinced of their respects halves of that assertion.

  32. This thread is Ron’s revenge for that time one of you said that he dressed like a lesbian minister.

    Nicely done, Ron.

    1. What is wrong with dressing like a lesbian minister? I am not sure Ron would take that as an insult.

  33. Nobody’s asked the real question: if you would go back in time and kill Hitler, shouldn’t you kill Trump in the present.*

    *Purely a thought experiment, not a recommendation, for those Obama DOJ people reading comments sections for blasphemy**

    **Which incident reason conveniently forgets when comparing future candidates to mass murderes

  34. Yes Trump is a fascist and anyone who disagrees is either in denial or a fascist themself, like John.

  35. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    Open This Link For more Information………

    ??????? http://www.Wage90.Com

    1. You know who else attracted supporters by promising greater financial security?

  36. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $17900 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out

    +++++++++++++++++ http://www.Wage90.Com

  37. Ronald Bailey? More like Ronald McDonald. By comparing Tump to Hitler you sound like one of the euro socialist punks whop don’t live in the US, don’t vote in the US, and get your info from SJW Tumblr kids that need a safe space. You’re truly disgusting as a writer and it was a pleasure having such an ignorant target to rant about this evening. Keep up the good work moron because with the material you provide I know just where to go when I need a punching bag.

  38. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

  39. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $17900 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out

    +++++++++++++++++ http://www.Wage90.Com

  40. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $17900 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out

    +++++++++++++++++ http://www.Wage90.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.