Election 2016

Trump: 'I Love The Poorly Educated.' So Should the Other Candidates.

If you're wondering why Trump is connecting with GOP voters (and why Sanders is with Dems), you're part of the problem.

|

In the wake of his big (yuge is tired, my friends) win in the Nevada caucuses, Donald Trump uttered one of the great lines in recent political memory: "I love the poorly educated."

That line is already being parodied, mocked, and scoffed at by everyone in the know, but it also exemplifies how Trump is taking on all comers and simply kicking their ass.

Indeed, according to CNN's entrance polls, Trump even easily won among Latino voters despite espousing nothing but contempt at Mexicans and others for coming here and taking our jobs and bringing crime and drugs. He got 45 percent of the Latino vote as opposed to just 28 percent for Marco Rubio and 18 percent for Ted Cruz, the second- and third-place finishers (and who also happen to be Hispanic). Trump also pulled 42 percent of the non-white vote, compared to 29 percent and 21 percent for Rubio and Cruz.

But back to the poorly educated. Here's Trump's line in context:

We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. We're the smartest people, we're the most loyal people, and you know what I'm happy about? Because I've been saying it for a long time. 46% were the Hispanics—46%, number one with Hispanics. I'm really happy about that.

So I'm very proud of you, this is an amazing night. I love the country, I love the country. 

No recent candidate has been more divisive than Trump, who couldn't get more than five minutes into announcing for president without going off on rapist Mexicans and building walls, beautiful walls. Yet he's also inclusive in a way that virtually no other candidate is (with the exception of Bernie Sanders, who I'll get to in a second). Trump has his villains, for sure, but they're never in the room he's addressing. They are always outsiders, and usually far, far away in places like China or Russia or Mexico—unless they are people like Jeb Bush, whom he dresses down to their faces, which is itself an act of solidarity with the audience. Watching Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or George Pataki get slapped around by Trump is like watching Moe Green get hassled by Michael Corleone. Even if you like Moe Green, you want to see him get roughed up by a master.

Trump "loves" the poorly educated without qualification, just as he loves the rich and the poor, the naked and the clothed, the fat and the skinny. Last night in Vegas, he was channeling Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman and the universal oversoul of the American family. As long as you vote for him, it's all good. He will look out for you and your interests. He's happy that he won the Hispanic vote, because it proves that we're all on the same side—his side—and we're all in it together.

It's easy to be cynical about this (and to be frankly terrified of a Trump presidency), but Trump is the least cynical politician in the 2016 race.

He may be unprincipled, unphilosophical, and all over the place, but nobody doubts that he believes everything he says, at least at the moment he's saying it. And he's willing to thank every goddamn person who votes for him, no matter how big or how little, because he's in the service industry and that's what you do in the service industry. When he says he loves the country, it's not like when Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz says it. You know that deep down, they absolutely hate lots of things in America and about America. They know that too many of us are greedy or lazy, too white or too brown, too fat or too skinny, too racist or anti-abortion or pro-abortion or soft on the gays or tough on guns or whatever. At the very least, as Hillary Clinton put it in an early debate, if you're a Democrat, you hate the Republicans, right? And vice versa. They—the regular party types—are the haters.

Trump doesn't give off that vibe. Because if you're talking with him, by definition you agree with him, and everything is going to be all right. We can work things out, make a good deal for everyone, trust me. Even the poorly educated! When was the last time that an American politician acknowledged the poorly educated as something other than a tumor on the body politic that needs to be eradicated, much less thanked them?

Which brings me to the other establishment irritant in the 2016 election: Bernie Sanders. Because of the Clinton machine and the stacking of the Democratic deck against insurgents via super delegates, it seems unlikely that Sanders will knock off the former secretary of state. Indeed, his policy agenda may not even make it into whatever slate of issues the Democrats pretend to care about for very long. Hillary is running as Barack Obama's third term, after all: She'll stick with Obamacare (it used to be called Hillarycare!), she's good with Dodd-Frank, and droning Muslims and all that. She's also not addressing the one thing that makes Sanders interesting to Democrats.

"The American people are saying, 'No,' to a rigged economy," Sanders has said. As Glenn Beck has put it, Sanders "is right. people are tired of this rigged system. We have a corrupt capitalist system right now." At the same time, Beck points out that Sanders' solution, which is long on class warfare and short on anything other more free stuff for more people, regardless of wealth or work status, alienates most Americans. We don't want free stuff so much as we want a legit shot at earning our way, argues Beck. And we want someone to put a stop to the "rigged economy."

Beck is a prominent anti-Trump voice, even contributing to National Review's attack package on the billionaire and edorsing Ted Cruz as an alternative. I think he is generally accurate about Sanders' appeal and its limits. Trust in government is already at historic lows; putting the government in charge of more things, as Sanders wants to do, is no way to win hearts and minds.

What Beck and other Trump critics miss is that Trump is essentially sending the same message as Sanders: The Donald feels your pain. More than that, he feels your anger, your resentment, your sense of losing through no fault of your own—The Donald also feels this too. More than that, he loves you. He's proud of you. And he's going to make things right for you, through a mix of great deal-making and ball-busting and force and whatever it takes. Because you, my poorly educated friends and my highly educated friends, the young and the old—you're all part of America and nobody loves America more than Trump. He wants to make it great again, after all, whereas all these other candidates do is bitch and moan about how awful this type of person is or that type of person is.

It was an uintentional laugh line when Hillary Clinton, earlier this year, said she wanted to talk about "love and kindness."  Her entire career is a testament to low-grade paranoia and the "politics of personal destruction." The most common sense of her, according to Gallup, is "Dishonest/Liar/Don't trust her/Poor character." People may not like Trump either—he's the only candidate with even higher negatives than Clinton—but they're more likely to believe that he will do what he says he's going to do.

And they are more likely to believe him when he talks of love and kindness, too. Because he actually says it from time to time too.

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.

264 responses to “Trump: 'I Love The Poorly Educated.' So Should the Other Candidates.

  1. One can like a man but hate him as a King.

    1. I’m impressed,do you have a news letter sir?

      1. No, but I like your dogs, bro.

    2. “One can like a man but hate him as a King.”

      Yes, but can you dislike a man but love him as a King? That’s the relevant question regarding Trump.

      1. We have no “kings” = we have overly-glorified, temporary-employed political-laborers

        part of the problem with this election is the broader problem with the reification of the office of the presidency. No one seems suited for it because we’ve allowed it to become “too important”.

        The solution is not to find living gods for the throne – the solution is to strip the throne of its trappings of omnipotence.

        These are politicians and they are all generally scum. We should simply seek out the least noxious among them.

        1. “No one seems suited for it because we’ve allowed it to become “too important”.”

          um, er…just…wow. I may have to spray-paint that on the side of my car.

          1. … and notice how many candidates put others down as “too inexperienced to be President”????
            Think a millisecond or two…

            The only way to Become Experienced At Being President is to ALREADY Have BEEN President, so the only people Qualified on THAT “logic” are Presidents running for a Second Term.

            D’oh?

            Critical Thinking is Dead.

  2. The poorly educated outnumber the highly educated. I know many people with high school degrees that are infinitely smarter than people with Master’s. Every terrible policy in this country has been enacted generally by groups of the highest educated people in the country. Trump may the worst (I honestly don’t know, because his presidency could pretty much entail anything), but he is striking a chord with a majority of the country who has no say and is constantly berated and shamed by the elite.

    1. Every terrible policy in this country has been enacted generally by groups of the highest educated people in the country.

      It’s amazing – for all the money and time spent on expensive schools the people that come out of it lack what they really need, wisdom and perspective.

      1. The wise do not wish to spend their time in the snake pit. The greedy and the power mad do.

      2. “Politics is the mindkiller.”

        1. Little death? Check.
          Brings total obliteration? Check. eventually.

    2. “I know many people with high school degrees that are infinitely smarter than people with Master’s.”

      I know a lot of people on both sides of that divide. Indeed, most of my older male relatives never finished high school. The one’s I know with Master’s are smarter. However, being smart doesn’t make you less prone to bias and often people with an advance degree live in a bubble. So, it’s not a case of intelligence and/or education, but a case of awareness.

      1. I concur. My smartest friends do happen to be higher educated. I’m just saying that higher education is an increasingly small aspect of what makes someone intelligent and rational.

        1. Education imparts knowledge not intelligence. Unfortunately, you have to be born with the latter. For Now.

  3. If you’re wondering why Trump is connecting with GOP voters (and why Sanders is with Dems), you’re part of the problem.

    Someone tell Suderman and all the other pants-shitters at Reason.

    1. Have any of them ever actually wondered why Trump is so popular with gullible partisans? Most of what I read focuses on his authoritarian and inconsistent stances.

      1. Perhaps its derivative. They see the rise of Trump and are freaking out and can’t get beyond their panic. It’s easy to understand the rise of Trump and once you understand it you can sit back and say, yeah, I get it. Same with Bernie.

        But because they don’t seem to bother to that, they shine a poor light on themselves, casting themselves as the same elitists that the people that support Trump and Sanders despise.

        1. Again, it’s not clear that any reason writers fail to understand why Trump/Sanders resonate with the great unwashed. They just point out that their policy positions are inconsistent or unachievable.

          And you might think that you sound clever by appropriating the pants-shitting panic language we use to describe nativist Islamophobes around here, but it really kind of makes you sound defensive of a guy that nobody should defend.

          1. Libertarian moment.

          2. Cool story. You’ll have to point out anywhere I have supported either Trump or Sanders. While you do that, I’ll point out that I think you – like everyone here – are smart enough to know there is a big difference between understanding why a candidate is popular, and actually supporting that candidate. But maybe I’m wrong.

          3. That was brilliant Hugh, brilliant.

      2. “Have any of them ever actually wondered why Trump is so popular with gullible partisans? ”

        Why is Hillary Clinton so popular with gullible partisans? And does it matter? Neither one can win by relying on gullible partisans. They have to get a significant part of the middle to vote for them.

    2. P T Barnum could tell you why Trump is connecting with the voters. So could a lot of the people on Madison Avenue. Taco Bell doesn’t actually have to believe their product isn’t garbage to convince millions of customers to give them money predicated on the belief that it isn’t. (Yes, I do eat Taco Bell. It’s pretty good cheap fast food, but I ain’t kidding myself that it’s not garbage or that it’s authentic Mexican food or that it wouldn’t be healthy to eat every day.)

      Back when the story about the Pope dissing Trump broke, somebody asked Trump for his reaction on what the Pope said about him before Trump knew what the Pope had said. Trump’s response: If the Pope said something nice about me, I like him, if he said something bad about me, I don’t. That’s how much Trump loves people – it’s a direct correlation to how much they love Trump. Is that a matter of rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies or a narcissistic personality disorder? Seriously? The guy puts his name in huge gold letters on his properties. Trump doesn’t love people, Trump loves Trump and Trump loves people who validate his love of Trump. “I know your anger, I know your dreams. I’ve been everything you want to be”, right, Donald?

    3. You’re right. Five months ago Reason was telling you all the reasons why Trump had no chance.

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..-polls-hes

      Number 4 on the list in that article was “shooting from the hip will only get you so far.”

      What back then was shooting from the hip and cynicism is now, I guess, telling like it is and what the people want to hear.

      1. Finally, a comment by Jackand Ace I can agree with!

        1. Broken clock…

          1. One note dyed-in-the-wool statist.

      2. Reason weren’t alone in that, at least give them the break that 100% of other media were saying exactly the same things.

      3. Nice Jack. Trump is no different from Rush Limbaugh as far as shooting from the hip goes. He’s telling them things they want to hear. His validating their anger. It’s fitting that the Republican base, after two terms of Obama, emerge from the mountaintop with an orange faced carnival barking baboon. The pendulum of stupid has swung way back to the right.

    4. It’s obvious why Trump and Sanders are popular. They’re not part of the establishment. The establishment which has been in power forever and who is to blame for every single fucked up problem we have today. It’s just inevitable that even the lowest intellects in society are eventually going to figure that out. These people, most people in fact, are completely powerless, and they’re just trying to find a way to lash out against that powerle. Therefore the Donald and the Bern. What’s unfortunate is that by the time enough people rebel against the establishment, the establishment will have already destroyed any semblance of liberty, along with the economy.

      1. Nick’s fever dream is that this will result in the great awakening. Magic 8 ball says highly unlikely when given the alternative, pain-free solution.

        1. Unfortunately, when you piss off a mob enough, they tend more towards smashing windows and setting cars on fire than they do doing anything constructive. Thus, you guessed it, the Donald and the Bern.

          1. So you’re saying Canucks don’t like winning the Stanley Cup?

          2. I hate that so many people now are called “the *their_name.” Why is this a thing? Thanks Obama.

      2. Well said, Hyperion.

      3. What’s unfortunate is that in the mad rush to tear down the Establishment, angry voters are turning to candidates who will make things considerably worse.

        1. That’s the whole point of the status quo being upended, though. It’s rarely, if ever, a clean break to something better. It’s typically messy and can break apart society to its foundations. I’ve never read “The Fourth Turning,” but from what I’ve heard about it, the basic ideas are being played out right now–a sea change in the civic consensus that is marked by increased social upheaval and anxiety until a new consensus is found. It’s why the Boomers have dominated our culture for 60 years and why the Milennials will do so for another 60, because they’re trying to sort out what the new cultural narratives will be.

          Will it be result in a full-blown civil war like the 1860s or a low-grade one like the 1960s? Will it result in increased government authoritarianism like the 1930s? These are a lot more likely than a George Washington type becoming our national figurehead and putting us on the path to a liberal republican society

  4. I remember when I was 19 or so during a really really busy night at work (in a kitchen) I asked my coworker Jaime (middle aged brazilian dude) how he could have so many orders he ran out of space to put pieces of paper, and he said when he was a kid he had to walk an hour each way to get water, so this was easy. thinking about “south america” as one entity is just incorrect, but to generalize, if those are the living conditions you’re used to maybe someone calling you a useless lazy bum doesnt mean all that much.

  5. I remember when I was 19 or so during a really really busy night at work (in a kitchen) I asked my coworker Jaime (middle aged brazilian dude) how he could have so many orders he ran out of space to put pieces of paper, and he said when he was a kid he had to walk an hour each way to get water, so this was easy. thinking about “south america” as one entity is just incorrect, but to generalize, if those are the living conditions you’re used to maybe someone calling you a useless lazy bum doesnt mean all that much.

  6. have so many orders *and not get pissed*

  7. “He may be unprincipled, unphilosophical, and all over the place, but nobody doubts that he believes everything he says, at least at the moment he’s saying it.”

    So he’s a psychopath.

    1. So are his supporters, apparently.

      1. Case in point?

    2. Psychopaths are incapable of empathy. There hasn’t really been a reason to believe that Trump is incapable of empathy. There isn’t even a good argument that he is a serial liar. He seems to be a real average Joe of an American. No strong principles, subject to changing his mind depending on the situation and what good argument he heard last.

      1. Aside from the fact that he’s a serial liar.

        1. And that he’s incapable of empathy.

  8. As for Moe Green, he should have been high-fiving Fredo for nailing cocktail waitresses two at a time, not slapping him around. Fredo was weak, and being with two women at the same time takes strength.

  9. Especially to the left wing media, which is most of them, but to everyone in journalism generally: Quit your goddamned bitching about Trump. If you have been doing your fucking job for the past 100 years Trump would still be just a reality TV star and we wouldn’t have the lying, villainous trash we have for a political class.

    1. “Stop criticizing MU HERO!!11”

      1. “Stop criticizing MU HERO!!11”

        …and woosh goes the point.

        1. Maybe Cytotoxic’s hero is the lazy, lying press?

        2. This happens so often he has a reverse mohawk.

          1. You joke, but his mom really does cut his hair like that.

            1. It de-emphasizes that he has a point.

              The only point he ever has.

              The one on top of his head.

    2. Oh, but the media is doing its job. Trump sells and they’re selling Trump. They just can’t wait to report on the next thing Trump’s going to do or say or what somebody else has done or said in reaction to what Trump has done or said. Right up until he gets the nomination and then they’re suddenly going to develop an interest in his past, his racist dad, his shady dealings, his mob connections, his bankruptcies and how many investors he’s screwed, his past positions on the issues, all the lies he’s told about so many things, the lack of substance to his rhetoric – oh, so many things they’re suddenly going to discover about what a horrible person Trump is. Trump knows the media sells whatever sells eyeballs and he thinks he’s got them bullied into selling what he’s selling – but that’s the New York press and their New York values (NYC being not just the center of the universe but the entirety of the universe). When the shit starts getting serious Mr. Trump may find that there’s a world of serious players beyond New York City and they take seriously stopping people like Donald Trump from screwing with their world.

      1. “Right up until he gets the nomination and then they’re suddenly going to develop an interest in his past….”

        Where you been? The media do that with every Republican nominee. The difference this time is, Trump is able to hit back at the media instead of cowering in front of it. His attitude of “Yeah, I did it, so what?” has done well by him so far.

        1. Unless he’s managed to keep some really, really, really terrible things under wraps I think “the press digging into his past” is a briar patch he can’t wait to get tossed into.

    3. If you have been doing your fucking job for the past 100 years Trump would still be just a reality TV star

      Don’t disagree, but if you think Trump or Sanders is the solution…we’re fucked.

      1. Symptom not solution.

      2. I meant in no way to defend Trump. I am not a fan. Anyone that thinks eminent domain is peachy and that the states should not have back the immeasurable amounts of land that the FedGov owns can go get stuffed as far as i am concerned.

        My gripe is with the bootlicking, water carrying press. Now they want to bitch about a monster that they had a large hand in creating. Fuck them.

        1. Interesting point!

    4. It never seems to be the voters’ fault. Unless it’s a prog getting elected.

  10. Probably the most vile characteristic of so many highly educated people today, particularly within the Saul Alinsky New Left, is their open and undisguised contempt for those with less education. Education is certainly extremely important and worthwhile and something to strive for, but in and of itself doesn’t make one a superior individual. In the grand scheme of things, it’s not as important as how you treat others and how you conduct yourself and live your daily life.

    This didn’t matter quite so much back when the Obamites of the world were content to simply look down upon their perceived inferiors. However, now that isn’t enough to satisfy them. They’ve reached a frightening new stage in their moral devolution where they’ve decided that their inferiors have to be punished in every way imaginable. You’re a West Virginian making 20 grand a year mining coal? Unacceptable, we’re going to destroy your job and take away your livelihood for the “better good”. You like hunting and living off the land? Unacceptable. We’re going to make your life as miserable as possible until you learn your proper place and become sufficiently dependent upon the almighty government. It’s endless now, and it’s getting worse all the time.

    1. People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together. In this situation, for the intelligentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge.

      Thomas Sowell

      1. Sowell is a national treasure.

      2. LOL, the only problem with that comment was the “do not have one-tenth” portion. Try have substantially less than 1%. Everyone knows some useful fact that you don’t.

      3. I was unaware of that one. That is fucking gold.

        No wonder they hate him so much.

        Will we never have a Sowell at the helm? Of course not. As I noted above wise people have no desire for power. It is a soul draining snake pit. Better to teach, write and spend time with family.

        1. And of course, by teaching Sowell actually contributes to society

  11. But it’s the government who is doing the educating (and doing so quite poorly), so it’s really a jab at the government, not the people.

  12. (yuge is tired, my friends)

    Citation goddamn needed, my friend.

    1. If yuuge is tired then Libertarian Moment is comatose.

      1. “If yuuge is tired then Libertarian Moment is comatose.”

        Well, I’m not sure they’re correlated, but I tend to agree that both are true.

    2. I’m beginning to think that pants-shitting articles about how terrifying Trump is are getting tired.

      1. How many articles have there been about how terrifying Hillary and Bernie are?, because I can think of quite a few reasons how that could be true.

        1. Hillary is the worst candidate out there, but it’s pretty much “What difference at this point does it make?”.

        2. Both Hillary and Bernie are exponentially worse than Trump. Riven is right, the ‘oh shit, don’t vote Trump!’ is getting tiresome and a little ‘protest too much’.

          I wonder how many of those authors are going to wish they could vote Hillary if she ends up in jail.

          1. It’s election season, time for libertarians to virtue-signal about who they’re not going to vote for.

  13. Dream on ? :

    “In your dream, Donald Trump is not a fraud,
    In your dream, Sanders is not a fraud,
    In your dream,all the rest are not frauds,
    In your dream, Obama is not a fraud,
    In your dream, Reagan was not a fraud,
    In your dream, all the rest were not frauds,

    In your dream, the constitution was not a scam,
    In your dream, the Supreme court is not a scam,
    In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam…….”

    Lyrics excerpted from:

    “Dreams [Anarchist Blues]”:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoUtXrTU

    Regards, onebornfree.
    onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom

    1. YO HO HO AND A BOTTLE OF JOO STEAL MELTING MAGIC ARRRGGGGGH

    2. JET FUEL CAN’T MELT TRUMP’S HAIRRR YARRR

      1. Bravo Citizen X, Bravo!

  14. Speaking of the poorly educated, I got their $15 per hour right here…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuzG_VItOTg

    they really do need to learn to love their new robot overlords

    1. I thought that was the clip you were going to link to. We could well be on the cusp of the robot revolution.

      Or, it’s 20 years away…. and always will be.

      1. I keep seeing those and thinking the real revolution will take off like a rocket if they manage some major innovation in power supply.

        1. Thing is for wharehouse work they don’t really need a major innovation in power supply just have them walk over to a battery hot swap station every 20 minutes or so and they get a freshly charged battery in 2 minutes or less. Sure the batteries themselves might take a couple of hours to charge, that is just a matter of buying excess batteries.

  15. OK who’s ready to round them up some muzzies and mexicanos.

  16. Blue collar non-college graduates who felt abandoned by the Democratic Party was what the Reagan Democrats were all about. And that’s Trump’s core support. Reagan Democrats thought the Democratic Party had become all about minorities and welfare and had little consideration for the blue collar, middle class.

    These days, the same demographic has become convinced that the Democrats care little for anyone except gays, Black Lives Matter, etc.–which doesn’t have much to do with the concerns of the blue collar, middle class. Trump probably does even better once Democrats can vote for him in the general election.

    Fun to see the progressive’s narrative about the racial and class divisions of America blow up in the Democrats’ faces. Progressives setting whites against Hispanics, blue collar workers against the middle class; it’s just not working with Hispanics. Third and fourth generation Mexican-Americans don’t necessarily identify with illegal aliens–and how racist is it of progressives to assume they would?

    Turns out blue collar, middle class Hispanics think a lot like blue collar, middle-class Italians, like blue collar middle-class Irish, etc. I don’t know what the solution to that “problem” is for progressives, but if they don’t stop screaming about homophobic rape culture, how much they hate nuns and Catholics, and about how blue collar workers “didn’t build that”, then they’re going to chase a huge chunk of their core constituency into the arms of Donald Trump.

    1. Trump has the highest negatives among Latinons.

      1. In Nevada, a third of them registered Republican and voted for Trump by a 2-1 margin over his Hispanic competitors.

        That’s not a poll. That’s an actual result.

        Which poll are you talking about?

        Do you have a link? Or am I supposed to ignore caucus results just because you say they’re invalid?

        1. It’s pure bullshit that most latins don’t like Trump. Pure.Bullshit.

          1. Interestingly, I think there’s a difference between latinos that are citizens and those that aren’t.

            1. Big difference. And the citizens are the ones who can vote.

            2. “Interestingly, I think there’s a difference between latinos that are citizens and those that aren’t.”

              I think you nailed it.

    2. “Turns out blue collar, middle class Hispanics think a lot like blue collar, middle-class Italians, like blue collar middle-class Irish, etc.”

      Nailed it.

    3. Which is why Trump would easily defeat Clinton in a general election matchup. He connects with the people. Clinton seems to be putting on an act.

    4. Ken, you nailed it again!

  17. Indeed, according to CNN’s entrance polls, Trump even easily won among Latino voters

    Wow, what a shock. That is if you aren’t paying attention, or you ‘think’ you know something merely by sitting in your arm chair and imagining how things ‘should be’. I’ve mentioned here several times that I know quite a few latin immigrants and they pretty much all love Trump. I don’t know why and I don’t even care to try to find out, because like most other things in life it probably makes very little sense at all to anyone who actually thinks about things.

    So the talking heads can pontificate about what those weird brown people are ‘supposed’ to think or do all they want, but a little time spent in the field will likely show something completely unexpected.

    Democrats take this shit to a completely higher level. They KNOW exactly what all minorities think and one of the things they universally think is that they all owe their pure allegiance to Democrats. That shit is infuriatingly condescending. I’m starting to think that cosmos are just some flavor of Democrat lite.

    1. I’m starting to think that cosmos are just some flavor of Democrat lite.

      You’re just starting to think that? I thought the whole narrative was that KKKOSMOS and proggies both express opinions you disagree with, so that makes them indistinguishable.

      1. Lots of libertarians express opinions I disagree with, Hugh. So if that were true…

        1. WHYCOM YOKELS PANTSHIT?

          Did this animist do it right?

      2. If your chief problem with progs is their sneering condescension or outright hatred for your type of people, then cosmos might as well be progs. But if you’re looking on a functional level, not so much. I think you can guess which Trump supporters are more concerned with, though.

    2. Latinos are very familiar with the concept of “Caudillismo.” Trump is the latest gringo version of a Caudillo. No program is necessary or legislative plan, just presenting the image of invincibility.

      1. I think you’ve tapped the reason why the latins love him so much. It’s the alpha male machismo thing.

  18. “When was the last time that an American politician acknowledged the poorly educated as something other than a tumor on the body politic that needs to be eradicated, much less thanked them?”
    Off the top of my head, in the 2012 race when Santorum mocked Obama for suggesting education was a path out of poverty and told people not to send their kids to institutes of higher learning.

  19. It’s like he’s TRYING to derail his own campaign. Didn’t happen with “I could kill someone”, didn’t happen with “There will be compromises / I’ll work with the other side”, and I don’t think it’ll happen even if “I love the poorly educated” becomes the most viral meme this year.

    1. Obama waltzed into the presidency after showing his open contempt for half the country. People are very good at not hearing what they don’t want to hear.

      1. That was about being sick of the Iraq War.

        1. I think Ken is correct on that.

    2. So what you are saying is that Trumps candidacy is basically the political equivalent to Springtime for Hitler? He does every and anything he can think of to be a flop and everything he tries serves to turn it into a huge success?

    3. How does announcing affection for the poorly educated hurt his net voter appeal in any way? I say net because the concept is offputting to the intellectually sniffish but these people wouldn’t vote for him anyway while the “poorly educated” are pleased with a candidate who doesn’t think of them as pond scum.

  20. Was I supposed to get anything from Nick’s long ass pontificating other than ‘a bunch of people are retarded and want to be soothed by a strongman?’

    1. I’m starting to come to Reason more for the commentariat than the contributors. Oh, and Stossel.

  21. The Democrats openly mock those with lower levels of education, yet those same voters still reward Democrats with their votes.

    1. The people who support them for doing that are generally feeding on the taxpayer.

      Parasites hate the uneducated for getting in the way of their bloodsucking.

    2. Some people are happy to have the Lord of the Manor take care of them.

  22. he believes everything he says, at least at the moment he’s saying it.

    Trumpty Dumpty it is, then.

    1. But 97% of scientist agree, there’s a consensus!

      1. And another thing about that ‘97% consensus’ nonsense.

        All it means is there’s a ‘general consensus’ among said group.

        Doesn’t make it true, accurate etc. In this case, most of the people that apparently make up the 97% aren’t/weren’t even climate scientists or specialist or experts. It’s like adding corn syrup to maple syrup to dilute it and still claim ‘100% pure maple syrup.’

        I’m surprised this is still peddled.

        1. The left will stick with a canned talking point forever, no matter how debunked it is. Truth and facts matter not in the least to them, it’s all about furthering the agenda.

      2. 97% of scientists willing to openly take a position without fear of retaliation agree with the progressive viewpoint.

  23. Just as I never understood all the praise Obama got for his rhetoric and speaking skills in 2008, I really don’t understand how any person could listen to Trump and think he’s a strong, no-nonsense, skillful leader. I’m not even talking about his content – though 90% of what he says is about how much other people like him, so you should too – but his mannerisms and the sound of his voice. He sounds like such a whiney, thin-skinned shitheel whose entire sense of self-worth is bound in what other people think of him.

    1. Doesn’t say much for the competition, either.

  24. The Trumpen Proletariat

  25. I think most of these pants shitting articles here about Trump stem from one scenario. Visualize this:

    *cocktail party in DC, all the cosmos and their DC liberal counterparts are there*

    DC liberal: Hey, you going to vote for Trump, aren’t you!

    Cosmo: *terrified look, face pale, hands trembling* Umm, uhhh, umm, I mean no! Hell no! I hate Trump! In fact, I hate him more than you do! He’s …. Hilter! He’s worse than Hitler!

    DC liberal” *looks skeptical* Well, how many stories you write so far in that Reason magazine about how much you hate Trump?

    Cosmo: Umm, like zillions! And in fact, I’m working on another right now! Every time I even hear the word Trump I shit my pants and write another!

  26. Why is it that all reason articles portray Cruz as some sort of lunatic, awful monster but Sanders as correct about a lot of stuff but wrong on some policy issues. You are never going to convince leftists that they should work with libertarians. Laissez-faire capitalism should be the main goal for people who call themselves libertarians. Trying to appeal to socialists is both mind numbingly stupid and bound to fail.

    1. Because cocktail parties, duh! You’re late to the cocktail party!

      1. So at these cocktail parties, whose cock goes into whose tail?

      2. I guess it’s the only reason why Welch and Gillespie get to appear on MSNBC. Also, for MSNBC to appear “fair and balanced.” In many ways, the “establishment” libertarians have failed just as hard or harder than the conservatives have to defend capitalism against leftist criticism.

        1. I don’t think professional libertarian pundits/writers care. The popularity and fun is over on the progressive side atm, so of course that’s where they’re going to marginally align themselves.

        2. Fools! Clearly legal pot is a more vital liberty interest than shrinking government and unfettering the economy!

          The left passed into law the concept that forcing people to buy a product, from extremely well connected corporations, is a legitimate function of government. And then the left calls libertarians fascists.

          solution: Talk about pot legalization and Gay Marriage as a libertarian moment. This will (not even kind of) fool the left into thinking we have common ground.

          1. Don’t forget how open borders welfarism and state-subsidized refugees are somehow vital to Libertarianism.

    2. But Bernie means well. He’s just misguided and soooooo good on pot.

      1. Just as long as you don’t need 27 different kinds of pot.

      2. He’s “good” on pot because he knows he can tax the shit out of it to fund his free shit programs.

        1. And then when people grow their own to avoid the taxes, he’ll have no problem sending black-clad goons to kick down their doors in the middle of the night to make them pay their “fair share.”

          1. And we’d probably get a reason article telling us how well-intentioned it was.

            1. And we’d probably get a reason article telling us how well-intentioned it was.

              Yes, Reason is well known for writing about the good intentions of police.

              1. Fair point. Though the police brutality articles seem to be less frequent than in the past. And I don’t think it’s because cops are becoming friendlier.

                1. Well, I would certainly agree that no one has truly picked up Radley Balko’s beat since he left he magazine, but honestly I think Reason‘s reporting of late has been very superficial in general. They don’t investigate much and just spend their time commenting on other people’s stories.

                  1. But there damn sure is a Libertarian Moment taking hold in our country! If anything, this election cycle proves how much self-proclaimed libertarians have utterly failed to change the country. Sure, reason might point to Gallup polls and the like, but there is a huge gap between what someone might answer to a pollster and what they believe. Anti-capitalist sentiment has not been this high in ages. But hey, some states legalized weed so it all balances out.

  27. If Team Red wants the White House, then they need to get Cruz and Rubio in a room tonight and get one of them to drop out pronto.

    1. Normally I would agree with you.

      However this is no normal election.

      The problem with saying anyone couldn’t win the general this time around is that you have to look at who the competition is going to be.

      Normally I would say Trump couldn’t win the general because he is just so over the top divisive and unpresidential
      Normally I would say Cruz can’t win the general because he is such a ridiculously over the top socon
      Normally I would say Rubio can’t win the general because he is the very epitomy of a big government Neo Con.

      Then I look on the other side of the ledger and I see HIllary, the single most corrupt and unlikable public official this country has seen in decades and an open Socialist in Sanders. Normally I would say neither of them has a shot at winning the general.

      In the end we have a race that is down to 5 people who realistically would stand no chance whatsoever in the general election of a normal election cycle which means that whichever 2 come out of the primaries really CAN win the general election solely because their opponent is so bad.

      1. Then I look on the other side of the ledger and I see HIllary, the single most corrupt and unlikable public official this country has seen in decades and an open Socialist in Sanders. Normally I would say neither of them has a shot at winning the general.

        Also factor in, Trump is getting way more votes in the primaries than either Romney or McCain got. The GOP lost those 2 elections because the candidates were ones who did not at all motivate the GOP base. That’s not the case this time, whether anyone likes it or not or it’s good or bad for the country, Trump has people fired up and he’s like a juggernaut right now. I don’t see the same enthusiasm for Hillary.

        1. ” I don’t see the same enthusiasm for Hillary.”

          There’s no enthusiasm for Hillary. She’s the classic “it’s my turn” candidate.

          1. She’s Bob Dole, but with felonies.

            1. That’s some good stuff there Jimbo. Did you coin that? That deserves a hat tip.

    2. No matter if either of them drops out right now, Trump is going to stomp the one remaining.

  28. Has any poll taken into account the state-by-state view of Trump? I know he’s disliked but is it distributed evenly or largely in states that a Republican couldn’t win anyways?

    If he’s doing this well with minorities, particularly Hispanics, he could very well win the crucial swing states. (I think Hillary lost to Bernie among Hispanics in Nevada)

    1. I’m not sure the picture is that good for him. He probably does much better than any Republican candidates for the last 20 years in New York. But he still has no chance of winning the state. (Or put another way, if it ever looks like New York is “in play”, Hillary is toast).

      1. You’re right, but I’d count New York as a state that “Republicans couldn’t win anyways.” If he won that it probably wouldn’t be necessary to look at the rest of the country.

        In states like Nevada, Florida, and New Mexico Democrats depend on minority turnout, if he could pull in Bush numbers I think he’s got a good shot. (That might be a big “if” though, I just haven’t seen any data on it)

  29. The fundamental assumption behind libertarian ideology is that the individual know what is best for themselves better than anyone else. That is why freedom is necessary and a moral imperative. When you deny people freedom you are denying them the ability to do what is best for themselves and inserting your interests over that.

    A culture that is credential driven will never value freedom because it will inevitably conclude that those without credentials don’t know what is best ft themselves.

    So when libertarians buy into the class war and don’t value or ridicule those they consider beneath them, they hurt the cause of freedom.

    For this reason, this was by far the most libertarian friendly thing Trump has ever said and indeed any candidate has said in a long time.

    1. But… God gave me free will so that I could take yours away!

    2. Well said, John.

      1. Does the truth render you speechless MJ? Do you love snobbery more than freedom?

        1. What is the truth that you supposedly shared?

          I believe in freedom, and that means people – whether educated enough they wrote up a ten-page case for Hillary or dumb enough that they vote for a guy with an inspiring hat – don’t have the right to boss me around, Tony.

          1. No one said they did But if you are so sure you know who they should vote for, why even given them the vote. Why don’t we just put people like you in charge as their benevolent overlords?

            And since you know how they should vote, what else do you know better than they do? You clearly consider yourself to know better than these people, it makes sense then to let you make decisions for them.

            You claim to believe in freedom but since you also believe that top men freedom loving people like yourself know what is best for people, I am not sure you should believe in freedom. You don’t believe in freedom any more than Progs. You just believe in giving the proles a longer liesch.

            1. I feel like we should frame your responses when they have absolutely no connection whatsoever to what the person said.

              1. It has everything to do with it. See my response below to Sugar Free. It is one thing for me to say “you are wrong’. Everyone is entitled to do that. It is quite another thing for me to say “you are wrong and people like you should not be able to effect that opinion in government.” There you are saying that some people are smarter and more enlightened than others and should be charge of government and those who are not should not get say.

                You think it is different because you think politics are different and your assertion to “know better” really is better. You miss the point. There is nothing special about politics. People either are all equal or they are not. Once you buy into the idea that there are certain people who know better and thus should have more of a voice than others, you are not different than a Progessive. You just have different views of what paradise looks like.

                1. Then how are you any different, or anyone else for that matter? Everybody has political views and believes their political views are the right ones. If you’re going to say that freedom and oppression are morally equivalent because people who believe in freedom want to see it enacted, the same as people who believe in oppression, then there is no moral high ground whatsoever.

                  I never took you for a nihilist.

                  1. That is because I am not. The point is that there is more to freedom than freedom of action. In terms of freedom of action, I was more free when I was 12 than i am now. I had very permissive parents, and outside of school did almost anything I wanted without a care in the world. Today I have all kinds of responsibilities and have much less chance to indulge myself than I did when I was 12. Was I more “free” then? Hell no. The reason for that is because though I had freedom of action, I didn’t have personal sovereignty. I was only as free as my parents let me be. If they had ever changed their minds, the rules would have changed and there was nothing I can do about it. Now, I may have more demands and responsibilities but those things are mine and not indulgences given by my parents.

                    Yes it sucks people don’t value freedom and vote in ways that restrict it but the alternative to that is worse. The alternative is to take away their sovereignty and voice in their own government. Sure, they and us will have more freedom of action. But we won’t be anymore free than I was at age 12. We won’t be free because we have chosen to be free. We will be free because some benevolent overlord has allowed us to be free. And that is not even taking into consideration the fact that no overlord remains benevolent for long.

                  2. Understand I am not saying we shouldn’t have constitution and agreed to restrictions on government. We can and should. I am saying those restrictions have to in some way be created by and dependent upon some form of representative government or we are not free. We are just slaves with nice owners.

                    1. So what is to be done, then? Representative government can lead to tyranny and oppression just as monarchy or oligarchy can. If 75% of the people voted to raise taxes on the other 25%, would it be wrong to call them thieves just because there are so many of them?

                      The problem with your argument is that it ultimately serves some interest or another, at the expense of others. We shouldn’t sneer at this group of people, but we should sneer at this other group of people, with the differentiation between the two being largely a matter of personal preference.

                      I don’t think the average person is stupider than me, or that I should condescend to them, or even really that they are personally evil despite supporting policies that I find to be morally objectionable. But that doesn’t change the fact that they want to take some measure of my freedom away.

                    2. What is to be done? Understand that no government is ever going to be perfect and even if it could be perfect we likely don’t know enough to recognize it as such.

                      Tyranny is tyranny because it infringes on the sovereignty of the individual. That can come in two ways; it can take away the person’s freedom of action or it can take away their ability to have a voice in the rules that govern their society. A benevolent tyranny is still a tyranny.

                      So, any proposed “solution” that involves taking away other people’s voice in government is not a solution. It is just creating a tyranny that fits our tastes. That is my point.

                    3. It is just creating a tyranny that fits our tastes.

                      Is that not exactly what every politician and most propositions do?

                      Hell, even the concept of representative democracy leaves so many details unspecified that could radically alter the outcome. Redistricting can swing a state from one party’s control to another; which is more representative?

                      Government is as much about process as representation.

                    4. It is hard Kbolino. The root of the problem is we are stuck living with each other. And we will never be free unless those around us respect freedom themselves. Basically, you are only as free as your society is.

    3. The fundamental assumption behind libertarian ideology is that the individual know what is best for themselves better than anyone else.

      I deny that on its face. There are some really stupid people out there that a brain-damaged baboon could do better with their life choices than they have done. Interestingly enough, many people outside of libertarianism can see this and that’s a big part of the reason they act the way they do.

      That’s not why libertarianism is correct. It is correct because even if that person is completely incompetent to manage themselves, I have no moral authority to stop them, save any aggression they do against others. I look at their mind-numbingly stupid actions (like voting for Hillary or Trump) and will tell you that even if I know I could do better, I cannot do so without violating their right to not be aggressed against.

      But, more importantly, you would be right in saying that the vast majority do much better with their lives than I ever could. So, while it doesn’t always work in the specific, it works in the general. Abusus non tollit usum.

      1. I.am perfectly capable of managing my life. To the extent you don’t like mine or anything else’ choices it is because you are not me.

        Where do get off saying people are stupid? The only way you can judge that is if you know you are smarter and know better yourself.

        Sorry but you can’t be an elitist and love freedom. The two things are incompatible.

        1. I.am perfectly capable of managing my life.

          I’m sure you are.

          Where do get off saying people are stupid?

          The historical record. Trump won Nevada.

          The only way you can judge that is if you know you are smarter and know better yourself.

          When you watch a person make the same mistake over and over again, it becomes difficult to come to another conclusion.

          Sorry but you can’t be an elitist and love freedom.

          I said a brain-damaged baboon knows better than some people how to run their lives. I still love freedom because I didn’t give the gift and I don’t have the authority to take it away.

          Do you seriously deny that you couldn’t make a better choice than someone who votes for Sanders? Because if you do, then you’re just as “elitist” as you claim I am.

        2. You can be elitist and love freedom very easily. All it takes is that you be smart enough to recognize that no one can be smart enough to make other people’s decisions for them. I think most people are absolute fools. I also think I have absolutely no right to tell them what to think, do or own.

          1. I think most people are absolute fools. I also think I have absolutely no right to tell them what to think, do or own.

            If you know better, why don’t you? The only way the second sentence makes any sense is if you don’t know better and thus run the risk of doing harm.

            All it takes is that you be smart enough to recognize that no one can be smart enough to make other people’s decisions for them.

            If you are not smart enough to make decisions for them, how then can you claim to know they are fools? The only way you can know they are fools is if you know what is the right decision and thus can conclude they are making the wrong ones.

            Once you admit you know better than someone such that you can say with absolute certainty they are fools, you have given away the game.

            1. If you know better, why don’t you? The only way the second sentence makes any sense is if you don’t know better and thus run the risk of doing harm.

              Wow, you must be a Utilitarian. Can you really not fathom that I won’t use force-of-arms against certain people only because I cannot morally do it? I mean, if the God who gave us free will watches us idiots do evil and stupid things with it all the time and still allows us to keep doing them, then for me to stop other people from doing their own stupidity means that I think I’m smarter than God!

              1. . Can you really not fathom that I won’t use force-of-arms against certain people only because I cannot morally do it?

                Of course I can. What you can’t seem to fathom is that there is a reason why that is true other than you pulled it out of your ass and like it. Why can’t you use the force of arms to make people behave? That is so sacred about that? What if you know you are right and doing it saves them and everyone else from all of this harm?

                The answer to that argument is not, as you seem to think, “even if it does prevent harm I have no right to do it”. That is just begging the question. That is not an answer. The proper answer is that the question is wrong. It assumes that I have the knowledge to know what is “harmful” from their perspective to such a degree of certainty that I am allowed to step in and put my judgement over theirs. And that is not and never can be possible because I don’t and cant ever know with moral certainty what is in their best interests. Therefore, when I do step in, I am doing nothing but substituting my interests for theirs.

                Stop thinking in platitudes and think about why the assumptions you are making are true.

                1. What you can’t seem to fathom is that there is a reason why that is true other than you pulled it out of your ass and like it. Why can’t you use the force of arms to make people behave? That is so sacred about that? What if you know you are right and doing it saves them and everyone else from all of this harm?

                  I already told you, apparently you didn’t listen. God made us free. God has authority over us as the Creator. God is smarter than I am and doesn’t use force to make us act good or smart. Ergo, as I neither have the authority to make the idiot obey nor am I as smart as the one who would know perfectly how to act, then I will not act in such a way as defies God’s methods. If I were to use force-of-arms against even the stupidest of us, I would be telling God that he is wrong and I’m smarter than he is. We like to call that attitude “hubris”.

                  The answer to that argument is not, as you seem to think, “even if it does prevent harm I have no right to do it”

                  Don’t try to put words in my mouth, you aren’t very good at it. I may, indeed, be able to prevent a person from harm by using force against them. But, as I am not a Utilitarian, I cannot do so as I have no authority to do so. You seem to think that if “A” results in a better outcome than “~A”, then “A” should be done. No. It’s also not begging the question.

                  1. I already told you, apparently you didn’t listen. God made us free. God has authority over us as the Creator. God is smarter than I am and doesn’t use force to make us act good or smart.

                    And yet you seem to think you have some special ability to know who is and is not an idiot. Has it ever occurred to you that since you are not God, you cannot make a definitive statement about that?

                    Do you think God gave you some magic ability to tell who is an idiot? I doubt it. You think you know who is an idiot and that is nice and you are probably right. What you do not know and can never know, since you are not God, is if you are right with the kind of certainty necessary to allow you to override their personal sovereignty.

                    sorry man, you are not as bright as you think you are. Has it ever occurred to you that the “idiots” think the same about you? What makes you do sure you are right?

                    Again, without humility, there can be no freedom.

                    1. And yet you seem to think you have some special ability to know who is and is not an idiot. Has it ever occurred to you that since you are not God, you cannot make a definitive statement about that?

                      If God tells you, ‘Hey, little human, don’t do ‘A'” and then you see all the people who do ‘A’ have bad outcomes, that’s as close to metaphysical certainty as you can get that doing ‘A’ is stupid.

                      Do you think God gave you some magic ability to tell who is an idiot?

                      Well, he did give us reason, so yes, that’s kind of magic.

                      What you do not know and can never know, since you are not God, is if you are right with the kind of certainty necessary to allow you to override their personal sovereignty.

                      No, what you don’t understand is even if I had that certainty, I still wouldn’t have the authority to use it. And if I did have the authority, I still wouldn’t use it as the one who does have this doesn’t use it!

                      Has it ever occurred to you that the “idiots” think the same about you?

                      Abusus non tollit usum.

                      What makes you do sure you are right?

                      Well, to be obtuse, I am sure about that which God said. Therefore, I am absolutely certain about that.

                      Again, without humility, there can be no freedom.

                      ahem

                      Stop thinking in platitudes and think about why the assumptions you are making are true.

                2. Sorry but you can’t be an elitist and love freedom. The two things are incompatible.

                  And

                  Stop thinking in platitudes and think about why the assumptions you are making are true.

                  Now, I’ll just let you argue against yourself!

                  1. That was not a platitude. That was a conclusion based on two paragraphs of argument above.

                    1. That was not a platitude. That was a conclusion based on two paragraphs of argument above.

                      You were assuming that if I could use force to prevent harm then I must use it. That’s a Utilitarian argument and I’m not a Utilitarian. I was showing you why it’s wrong (that God could do it but doesn’t.

              2. then for me to stop other people from doing their own stupidity means that I think I’m smarter than God!

                You apparently think you are smarter than God or you would not be so certain these “stupid things” are so stupid. You think voting for Hillary is stupid. That is nice. Conservatives think using drugs is stupid. Just exactly why do either of you have any monopoly on the truth?

                1. You apparently think you are smarter than God or you would not be so certain these “stupid things” are so stupid.

                  You must really think that God would necessarily limit stupid behavior. It seems to me that you know how God would act, and he would act just like you do! I’m much more uncertain as to why he acts in the way he does, though I know his word quite well. After all, he’s smarter than I am. You apparently think that if God didn’t specifically say “A is stupid” then it isn’t… though if you carefully read through the Bible you might realize that he did indeed tell his people not to do many things, and it appears that he did it because it was stupid to do A.

                  You think voting for Hillary is stupid. That is nice.

                  Either that or evil. After all, if we are speaking functionally, then that decision is just self-destructive. If we are speaking morally, then it’s just insane to defend her “morals”.

                  Just exactly why do either of you have any monopoly on the truth?

                  Veritas Liberabit Vos. I guess God said it before me!

                  1. ace,

                    If you are so certain in your knowledge of what good and evil is and what smart and stupid and since you clearly mean well, ask yourself how it is that you sin. You don’t mean to sin. You do your best, yet you still do it. You just can’t help yourself. Why is that?

                    Perhaps, it has something to do with the fact that your knowledge of what exactly good and evil and smart and stupid as they appear in the actual world isn’t quite as good as you think they are. You can’t know with perfect certainty what a “good” action or a “smart” action is because if you could, you would never sin. And the last guy who never sinned died a couple of thousand years ago.

                    1. If you are so certain in your knowledge of what good and evil is and what smart and stupid and since you clearly mean well, ask yourself how it is that you sin.

                      I don’t know all things. Even if I were to know all things, I still would do evil as I am not “good” (in the way Christ defined it). It is a fallacy that perfect knowledge would rid us of sin. You are assuming that which cannot be assumed.

                      Again,

                      Stop thinking in platitudes and think about why the assumptions you are making are true.

                    2. It is a fallacy that perfect knowledge would rid us of sin. You are assuming that which cannot be assumed.

                      Why is it a fallacy? To say that it is not is to say that even if you knew something was wrong, you would still do it. That is not how sin and evil work. Sin and evil work through rationalization. We reason ourselves into thinking what is evil is actually good. And we do that by selectively perceiving only those things that support our desire to believe our actions are good.

                      If we really knew what God knows and could perceive the world like he does, I find it difficult to believe we would still sin.

                      I don’t see how you can reconcile a belief in an omnipotent God with your belief that you have the ability to have judgmental certainty about other people. We are all equal before God. I think you believe that but you seem very unwilling to really accept it and accept the fact that in the grand scheme of things you are no better or worse or smarter than those “idiots” as you call them. You might be more clever but you in no way possess enough wisdom or real perception to make you in any way superior to them or give you any kind of claim of knowing what is good or bad for them. Only God knows that.

                    3. Why is it a fallacy? To say that it is not is to say that even if you knew something was wrong, you would still do it. That is not how sin and evil work.

                      I have known ‘A’ is wrong before and have done it anyway. Ergo, your entire assumption is wrong.

                      If we really knew what God knows and could perceive the world like he does, I find it difficult to believe we would still sin.

                      Once upon a time God made a being that could do everything perfectly. His name was Lucifer. That’s as close to what you postulate that I can see. So you see, we don’t just need the knowledge or wisdom of God, but also his character. But of course, this is impossible this side of the 1st death (and I’m not sure how it works afterward).

                      I don’t see how you can reconcile a belief in an omnipotent God with your belief that you have the ability to have judgmental certainty about other people.

                      Well, I can judge what is sin because God told us. I can judge what is stupid because of what God told us and because of reason. But I cannot exactly judge (sentence) the human because I’m not God. I can tell you that stupidity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I can also tell you that knowledge is not really important when it comes to salvation and may inhibit it.

                      Don’t confuse stupid and evil. Don’t confuse judging stupid or evil behavior with judging people.

                    4. I have known ‘A’ is wrong before and have done it anyway.

                      Oh really? You mean to tell me you didn’t engage in any rationalization about that? You never told yourself it didn’t matter that it was “wrong” and thus wasn’t wasn’t wrong? Or that whatever you were doing wasn’t justified? Sorry I am not buying that. Maybe you are the ubermensch but I seriously doubt it. You engaged in some form or rationalization or you wouldn’t have done it.

                      Once upon a time God made a being that could do everything perfectly. His name was Lucifer.

                      That is utter nonsense. Lucipher didn’t and doesn’t know what God does. if he did, he would be God.

                      So you see, we don’t just need the knowledge or wisdom of God, but also his character.

                      The two are inseparable such as to be two sides of the same thing. Sorry but your “character” is a product of your wisdom and knowledge and vice versa. They can’t be separated like that.

                    5. Oh really? You mean to tell me you didn’t engage in any rationalization about that?

                      Nope. I’m not going to lie because “…the LORD looks at the heart”.

                      You engaged in some form or rationalization or you wouldn’t have done it.

                      think about why the assumptions you are making are true

                      That is utter nonsense. Lucipher didn’t and doesn’t know what God does. if he did, he would be God.

                      I’m not sure he did, I’m not sure he didn’t. Your assumption that “it’s all knowledge” is certainly just an assumption, and one that looks like the evidence doesn’t support.

                      The two are inseparable such as to be two sides of the same thing. Sorry but your “character” is a product of your wisdom and knowledge and vice versa.

                      God is not good because he’s wise or smart, though the opposite may indeed be true. You are arguing from assumption and when I give evidence otherwise, you say it isn’t true. It’s hard to argue against that, because I’m not sure it’s falsifiable.

                    6. . I can tell you that stupidity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

                      No you can’t. For that to be true you have to assume the circumstances don’t change. If the circumstances change what is fails one time will succeed the next. And you cannot claim knowledge of the future or all of the knowledge the person you are observing has. So you can’t say them trying the same thing is “stupid” with perfect certainty. You can only guess.

                      I can also tell you that knowledge is not really important when it comes to salvation and may inhibit it.

                      No kidding. Why is that? It is because human knowledge is utterly imperfect.

                      Don’t confuse stupid and evil. Don’t confuse judging stupid or evil behavior with judging people.

                      If you don’t want to judge people, which I agree you shouldn’t, then what real effect does your judgement of their behavior have? you can’t judge them or use their behavior to assert any kind of moral superiority over them. Moreover, if you can’t judge people, what makes you think you can really judge behavior? The behavior can only be judged to the extent you know the circumstances around it. And your knowledge of that is incomplete at best.

                      You do realize pride is a mortal sin for a reason? It is because it causes people to think like you do and start thinking they have some kind of claim or right and wrong that others don’t have. Sorry, we are all equally deficient compared to God.

                    7. No you can’t. For that to be true you have to assume the circumstances don’t change.

                      I said “the same thing”, not “a slightly different thing”.

                      No kidding. Why is that? It is because human knowledge is utterly imperfect.

                      Actually, you’re entirely wrong here. It seems your concept of God is “he who is perfectly smart”. But if that were so, wouldn’t it be the smartest of us who were closest to him? And as knowledge has very little to do with it, then that seems to be wrong.

                      If you don’t want to judge people, which I agree you shouldn’t, then what real effect does your judgement of their behavior have?

                      Oh, believe me, the prideful/sinful part of me wants to judge people. Only by God’s grace am I even know struggling to keep that down. But, judging others’ behavior is very important, even if only to keep from making the same mistakes or sins. But it’s also a good way to witness to them, show them that God is telling them not to do that self-destructive behavior.

                      what makes you think you can really judge behavior?

                      By God’s grace and reason. “Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!”

                      You do realize pride is a mortal sin for a reason?

                      Yes, and it’s alive within all of us. It’s what makes perfect knowledge so dangerous, and seems to be how Lucifer fell.

                    8. Sorry, we are all equally deficient compared to God.

                      Morally, yes. In terms of intelligence, close enough to true. After all, given no Divine help, I’m no more useful than a rock.

                      But, God gave use reason and his Word. I can trust his Word completely, and trust my own reason much less, though still quite a bit if the results are good and match his Word.

                      “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, yes, but even the smart Agnostic or atheist has given me truth I didn’t know about. How much more those who have been meditating on his Word?

            2. John your position here is nonsensical.
              1. I think I am more intelligent than many people, that does not imply that I have the specific internal knowledge of those people’s desires, emotions, experiences etc to choose among the myriad possible goods in the world for them. The beginning of wisdom is understanding the limitations of your intellect.

              2. Even if I absolutely knew the course of action that would produce the greatest good for the greatest number, forcing people to follow that course would deny them agency. It would violate the golden rule, the categorical imperative, and the NAP. In other words your assertion throws out the basis of pretty much every ethical system and reduces to utility. Let me say once and for all that I do NOT accept the utilitarian basis for ethics.

              Prove to me that a slave is happier than a freeman and I will still argue for his freedom.

  30. Low grade paranoia? I beg to differ, there is nothing Low Grade about The Empress wannabee’s paranoia. Nothing at all.

  31. I was waiting for the punchline and there wasn’t one. 🙁

    1. If Obama was not just a bumbling idiot and instead of someone who hates what America stands for actively trying to hurt Americans what would he do different?

      1. I do wonder that at times. Having more sick foreigners here just proves how terrible and inequitable our system is, and thus we need more socialism. Any pushback is caused by racism, which proves we need to fight racism harder.

  32. “I love the poorly educated. We’re the smartest people, we’re the most loyal people, and you know what I’m happy about? Because I’ve been saying it for a long time.”

    If Trump sounds like John McLaughlin with epaulettes, it’s because his education began in military school and ended at Fordham.

  33. What the 2016 presidential race has taught me:

    The average human being is too stupid to know what’s in their own best interests. Mr Franklin…your doubts are confirmed.

    1. Good lord again.

      In this context, what is in their own interest? Shun democracy altogether? I’m not sure what choice the average human being has that would satisfy you in this instance.

      1. The only solution is a coup in which I’m immediately named Supreme Overlord. I’ll fix this shit. Don’t worry, all of you get mulching devices to help in the destruction.

        1. You can’t fix what doesn’t want to be fixed.

      2. Are you kidding me? They had the best choice they’ve had in, well, maybe since the Founders running in this cycle. He’s gone, in favor of Trump, Sanders or Clinton.

        Liberty, MJG….liberty is their own interest. And they apparently vote for those diametrically opposed to it.

        1. I can’t really fault the voters for that.

          Maybe if Rand Paul had actually, you know, talked a lot more about liberty?instead of about how ‘Murica needed religious revivals and pandering to SoCons about how pro-life he was, etc?then the outcome might’ve been different.

          1. Rand pandered to the SoCons too hard and for too long. Voters he was never going to get to begin with and in turn, lost the liberty vote.

            1. What I’m saying is that Rand could have been getting 10-15% of the vote instead of less than 5% average. He might still be in this.

              1. Yeah, that’s my assessment as well.

                And at the very least, by pulling that kind of support, he could’ve shifted the general election narrative in a more pro-liberty direction. In the same way Sanders has pulled Hillary to a more extreme prog-left.

        2. Well, “elect a libertarian/libertarian-leaning candidate” is a pretty tall order. If that is your standard, then you knew this long before this election.

          1. then you knew this long before this election.

            Yeah, I expected a backlash against the establishment. I’d hoped the electorate would be smart enough to take that sentiment, apply logic and focus it on a real solution.

            Instead, they double down on stupid, picking candidates (Trump and Sanders) that will actually be worse than the status quo simply because they are not the status quo.

            Mindless reaction to a real problem.

    2. Then you should not believe in freedom. If everyone else is too stupid to know what is best for them, it is immoral of you to enable them to harm themselves. Is it moral to buy drinks for an alcoholic?

      You either have enough humility to believe you don’t know what is best for other people or you don’t. If you don’t, then you can’t claim to believe in freedom unless you see harming people as a good.

      1. Jesus tittie fucking Christ do you ever get tired of spouting complete nonsense just to hear the sound of your own retarded voice?

        That may be the dumbest thing you’ve ever written. And that’s a tall order.

        I do know what’s best for them. They would not be harmed by liberty. And it would be immoral for anyone to force it on them against their will.

        If everyone else is too stupid to know what is best for them, it is immoral of you to enable them to harm themselves.

        What? False premise. And now you’ll go on to build an argument on a false premise, as it’s your MO.

        John makes ridiculous statement. John defends ridiculous statement to the death.

        Francisco has better things to do than help John get the attention he craves.

        Bye John.

        1. It is so easy and so much fun to make a subtle point that goes right over you head. It is a real vice off mine to do it and then watch you go insane misunderstanding the point. I should not enjoy it but I can’t help it.

        2. If you don’t think you know what is best for people, where do you get claiming they are voting against their interests and are too stupid to understand? If you don’t know better than they do, who are you to judge that?

      2. You’ve managed to resurrect Tony’s argument against libertarianism. For fuck’s sakes, John.

        1. No I haven’t. You are closer to Tony than I am. You clearly believe that you know better than everyone else. You hate people and consider them beneath you and think they can’t manage their lives just like tony. The only difference is tony at least is honest enough to admit it. You guys and tony just fight about how long of a rope the proles should get. I don’t believe either of you have a right to the rope at all.

        2. The question sugar free is that do you know better than everyone else such that you and people like you should have a greater say in the political process than anyone else? Of course you and I can think some or most people are nuts or stupid. But so what? Everyone has an opinion. The question is what does that mean. And you and MJ and a lot of other people on here seem to be saying that it should mean that you get more of a say in the political process than everyone else and using undemocratic methods to achieve “freedom” is perfectly okay.

          To that I say you have surrendered the game to the Progs just like conservatives surrender it when they support the drug war. Once you buy into the idea that some people are smarter and more worthy of a voice in things than others, you have lost. But politics is different you say. No, it isn’t. You think people need to be told how their government should be and people like you should be making the decision on that for some greater good. That is nice and I am sure you mean well but Progs think people need to be told how to do a lot of things. Why are you right and they are wrong? You both buy into the fundamental assumption that “smart” people with the right answers know best. You are just arguing over the details.

          1. John we are pretty much all saying smarter = yes, more deserving of a voice in things = no. The whole point of limiting government is that NO ONE, no matter how smart, should have any say in most areas of people’s lives.

    3. “The average human being is too stupid to know what’s in their own best interests….”

      But We The Enlightened do, although we haven’t yet figured out how to teach them what’s in their best interests.

        1. I know Frank. I know. But damn do you have to make it your mission in life to constantly remind me of that? Can’t you get a little better?

  34. Trump claims he has the ‘highly educated’. Is there a report or link confirming this?

    1. He got the majority of the vote in NV of people with higher education degrees. I can try to find the link again, I think it was CNN actually.

      1. Oh, not nationally. Thanks.

  35. Education is not wisdom not is it synonymous with intelligence. It is no coincidence that the more obsessed our society has become with formal education the dumber and less free it has become. Education has become nothing but an excuse to say “I know better than you “

    1. Just remind the commentariat that the most educated people tend to be progressives politically.

  36. I’ve been finding it very interesting how fragmented the HyR community has become. Long time regulars who in times past appeared to agree with each other have become divided. Minor differences have become magnified. Overall the tenor of the conversation has become harsher and less congenial.

    Hmm.

    1. It is because in addition to the political fight there is also a class fight. The nastiest disagreements boil down to class and some people’s desire to feel like they are some kind of elite that is in the know and wiser than the rest of the world

    2. YEAH WELL WHAT DOES DB STAND FOR HUH, DOOSHBAG!?

      1. They’re my fucking initials, you stupid inbred FULLSCREAM typing (cosmo|yokel)tarian.

        1. I actually feel a little bad about typing that.

        2. Typical Elitism we’ve come to expect from *your kind*. You just hate Real Americans who respect a man who speaks with Volume!

          1. “Typical Elitism we’ve come to expect from *your kind*. You just hate Real Americans who respect a man who speaks with Volume!”

            You elitist bastard with your fancy schmancy spelling of Murican!

    3. Shut up, Tulpa!

      1. Why can’t we all join hands and sing in harmony about how much we hate Tulpa

  37. Trump has his villains, for sure, but they’re never in the room he’s addressing.

    Unless they’re Jeb Bush donors, booing him in a debate for ripping W.

  38. Superb work-from-home opportunity for anyone…fa Work for three to eight hours daily and start earning about $4k-$8k each month… Regular weekly payments…If this interest you try here Viset My Page……..

    ——– http://www.alpha-careers.com

  39. before I saw the paycheck that said $8517 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like realy bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there uncles cousin started doing this 4 only ten months and as of now cleard the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Saab 99 Turbo . learn this here now…

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~[] http://www.Mom80.Com

  40. Trump is popular with his supporters because he is a xenophobic misogynist bigoted bully just like they are. Bernie Sanders is popular with his supporters because he is a whining pussy freeloader, just like them.

    1. Only if you define “xenophobic” and “bigoted” as wanting to enforce immigration law and not import Muslims at a time when Islam is on the warpath all over the world.

    2. If only everyone could be like you Dave.

  41. After the country elected the last President, with zero experience running anything, very little record to go off of in any endeavor, and a myriad of positions on issues based on historically failed ideas and governing principles, it is incredibly difficult to be scared about any person that may get elected from now on. And that is just the last guy we put in charge. It doesn’t include previous presidents or candidates.
    Why Mr. Nick is so terrified of Trump is beyond me. Nick’s emotional reservoir should have gone empty long ago. It is hard to get worse than the last guy, even for Trump.

  42. I have never seen, in these why Trump is popular articles, is the fact he is/was a celebrity. Name recognition goes a long way and so does celebrity. Celebrity’s do well running for public office. Schwarzenegger, Eastwood, Reagan, John Glenn, Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, Fred Thompson, the guy from Love boat, etc..

  43. Thank Goodness none of them read Reason.com, or they’d know the disdain they’re held in.

  44. On the bright side, assuming the runoff is between Trump and Hilary/Bernie — and assuming that there’s no high profile “independent” candidate in the race — the Libertarian Party candidate should get the highest percent vote total since Ed Clark managed in 1980.

    Including my vote — and I’m now a Republican.

  45. I can’t help but feel like the fix is in on America’s nomination process when almost everybody I know kind of hates all the candidates running for president. Except Sanders, but some of my friends are kind of ill informed.

  46. You know what we need? I’ve heard calls here for a sleeper libertarian; one that pretends to be a moderate in the primaries and general election that quietly shrinks the state from the inside. I think that’s close, but what I’m realizing would be better would be to have someone with Rand Paul’s ideas who speaks like a fucking idiot. Someone that has sincere convictions but doesn’t look like they do at all. Libertarians kneecap ourselves when we say “well our ideas are out of the mainstream so we have to bend over backwards to not piss anybody off and propose half measures”. Apparently, since policy doesn’t even matter, that was an irrational fear.

  47. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  48. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  49. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  50. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  51. RE: Trump: ‘I Love The Poorly Educated.’ So Should The Other Candidates.

    You can’t have poorly educated people in power unless you have poorly educated voters.
    Why is this so difficult to understand?

  52. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  53. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  54. “And he’s going to make things right for you, through a mix of great deal-making and ball-busting and force and whatever it takes. ”

    Nick, whether you know it or not, you’re describing Huey Long, the one time dictator of Louisiana. Long ran on Sander’s type policies and Trump’s style of BS. Only an assassin’s bullet stopped Long from a run at the presidency.

  55. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ———— http://www.Wage90.com

  56. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————! http://www.Wage90.com

  57. 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

  58. 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

  59. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.