Donald Trump

The Rise of Potentate Trump Shows That "Real" Americans Are the Big Threat to Limited Government

Can we quit blaming Hispanics for Big Government?

|

Conservative restrictionists have long depicted Hispanics as an existential threat to America's core limited

Donald Trump
Gage Skidmore / Foter / CC BY-SA

government ideals because Hispanics are allegedly welfare queens who'll always vote for Big Government Democrats. But if the rise of Donald Trump, an autocrat with the worst bouffant in the Western world, proves anything, it is that "real" Americans are no less lovers of Big Government. In fact, more so.

Everything in the Trump platform, such as it is, screams Big Government, I note in my column at The Week. His plan to Make America Great Again is nothing if not one long paean to Big Government. Almost every item in it involves using the government's muscle to bend private companies and foreign governments to his will.

(Hey, and libertarians who are attracted to him because he's at least not a neocon on foreign policy are fooling themselves. Trump will arguably be worse because he's obsessed with pay back. He's on a hair-trigger margin against America's enemies, both real and imagined. He considers even Vietnam a threat to America's economic greatness, for Pete's sake. He isn't opposed to starting wars, only losing them. "We will make our military so strong that no one will mess with America" isn't the song of a dove but an ignoramus who doesn't know that America already spends as much as the next seven countries combined. It also shows that he doesn't understand that military might wont deter a low-tech, low-budget venture like terrorism.)

Trump has the manner and understanding of a Third World potentate that ought to revolt a country with 200-plus years of democratic governance under its belt. If "real" Americans are still willing to embrace him, then Hispanics are the least of this country's problems.

Go here to view the whole thing.

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Are the Newspapers That Condemn Donald Trump's Free-Speech Rants Endorsing Hillary Clinton?

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

  1. Y U HAT ON TURMP REASIN

    1. Don’t discourage them, I was worried we might not be getting enough Trump today.

      1. THEM DON”T WNAT AMRICOA 2 B GRAT AGAN

      2. I think we’re up to 6 (7?) Trump posts and it’s not even 9am here.

        1. Four before noon. The Guinness committee is preparing…

        2. Slow news day, huh?

          1. Slow news day, huh?

            But a very fast Trump day!

        3. Well yesterday they had a whole 2 articles that mentioned the libertarians.

    2. Trump Thursday

        1. Nein!

          Thor reclaims the day for himself by promptly smashing Mjolnir atop crazy hair’s head to scatter grey matter and unhinged ego everywhere.

          1. THIS!

          2. What grey matter? He has enough ego for an entire professional sports league, but grey matter? Pffffft.

        2. Von heute ab ist jeden Tag Trumpentag.

            1. No!

              *assumes lotus position, enters deep trance and shifts mind and spirit toward tranquility*

    3. You do realize that thinking Trump is an asshat and that Shikha is an embarrassment aren’t mutually exclusive, right?

      1. THAT DON”T SOND LIEK WINNGING TO ME

    4. Because everyone who is sick of Trump articles is secretly in love with Trump. It all makes sense.

  2. “Real” Americans Are the Big Threat to Limited Government

    Well, if that don’t just ruin my libertarian moment. (spits)

    1. Politician: “Here’s a bunch of stuff you can have.”

      “Real” American: “Well, ok!”

      1. Why didn’t Shikha go with Real “American”? Or even “”Real” “American””?

        1. Real” “American

          1. “A Real American Hero – GI Joe is there! GI Joe!”

    2. There’s only on Real American, and it ain’t Donald Trump:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuhZvO1DKg

      1. preach it, brother

      2. This song makes we want to end wars in Africa with F-22s and cans of whoop ass.

  3. The Rise of Potentate Trump Shows That “Real” Americans Are the Big Threat to Limited Government

    Finally, something we can all agree on.

    1. Strangling a republic to death is something we all do together.

      1. Strangling? I thought we were smothering it with a pillow?

        1. Only if you don’t steal the funds for that pillow via taxation.

        2. No, just the Supreme Court. They’ve earned a more merciful death.

      2. BUTT WE R UH DEEMOKRACY

    2. I don’t agree. This article is nothing more than the mass-media part of the political class deciding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to discuss. In hopes that ‘real’ Americans will just STFU and stop getting uppity – and let TOP MEN decide what is good for us.

      If Trump gets the GOP nomination, then I for one look forward to getting the popcorn out for the election itself. Because there is no doubt that Trump will force actual legitimately-political issues to be a part of the election campaign – where a vote on those issues can then actually be said to be the will of the American people. IF Americans then prove that we/they are the ones who truly want Big Govt – by our actual votes rather than pundits premature demonization of us – then and only then will I accept that ‘real Americans’ are the threat to limited government.

      1. So you think that when Trump gets roundly trounced by Clinton, that will be a vote in favor of limited government?
        Or vice versa?

  4. Can we quit blaming Hispanics for Big Government?

    before we quit, aren’t we required to start? Sure, immigrants have been shown to be heavy participants in the welfare state, but they didn’t invent and it did not emerge as a problem solely because of their participation.

    Then again, it’s a Shikha article. I’d like “things no one is actually doing” for $600, Alex.

    1. Right? I was like “who the fuck blames Hispanics in particular for big government?”

      1. Yeah, never in my life have I said or thought, “You know, never mind these left-wingers and Progressives, it’s all the damn El Salvadorans and Hondurans who are responsible for the explosive growth of the federal government, the fuckers!”

        1. The sole El Salvadoran immigrant I’ve ever known was a rabid anti-communist. He worked about 15 different jobs to scratch out a middle class lifestyle for his wife and 4 kids.

          Looking back, he may have been a cocaine addict as well.

          1. If you are using it to produce you are not an addict. You are an exemplary citizen.

    2. Yeah I believe the welfare state perverts the incentives associated with immigration, but I don’t recall hearing the argument Hispanics are *the* reason for big government. Maybe on Stormfront that argument might get tossed around, but that’s hardly representative of the white population which she derisively refers to as “real Americans”.

      1. Maybe she means in contrast to the imaginary Americans, who seem to be the subject of most of Dalmia’s articles.

          1. The modern term is “Virtual Americans”

    3. To be fair, I have heard restrictionists push exactly that sort of argument. The logic goes that they’re culturally conditioned toward more statist Latin American societies and by admitting large numbers of them, they’ll transform our political culture to match their cultural norms.

      1. This. See link to comments provided below.

      2. Yes, why are people pretending this is not a common argument? It seems to be the main argument used by/for libertarians.

        1. Because a brown woman kind of said they were racist.

          1. The people who say no one makes this argument have clearly mercifully spared themselves from spending time at Conservative sites, arguing with neanderthals who claim that the Messicans are stealing our jobs and the brownies are turning our country into a Socialist hellhole. (Or, they’re playing dumb because they are the people who make those claims)

            1. I don’t hang around “Conservative” sites. This place is all I need.

              *sniffles*

        2. That’s doesn’t make sense. wHy would they come here if they had a more socialized country that worked?

          1. Because that socialized country doesn’t work? Or there are better benefits to be had here and a higher standard of living.

            It’s the same argument as the ‘Massholes’ fleeing to NH and turning it into Massachusetts, or Californians moving to Colorado and Texas and pushing the same policies that have hurt California.

            1. Or the Midwest transplants that move to CA and try to push their hotdish values down our throats, LITERALLY.

              1. Look, I’ll keep my hotdish, and you can keep your sliced avocados.

                Jokes on you, eating all those avocados when you could be eating guac instead!

                1. Whatever. I have a tree in my backyard that allows for separate harvesting for BOTH of those aguacate preparations.

                  *tauntingly shakes ass at Riven*

              2. YOU LEAVE HOTDISH ALONE!

                *clutches pan*

                1. You can have my hotdish when you can pry my 9×13 pyrex casserole dish from my cold, dead hands, Doyers.

                  And you can keep all your gross vegetables. I never touch the stuff–except guac and pizza toppings. … And whatever vegetables they put in the delivery chinese food.

              3. Real pizza has way more cheese than you can pile on a flat crust.

            2. I personally think they never realize they are actually the ones causing the problems. They think it was someone else and never look inward. Hence you get the same policies in NH. Rinse and repeat

              1. You will totally like this it will be great!

            3. So wait, citing Austinfornia or NH Massholes is legit and true but this is false? I don’t get it. That sounds like a special pleading.

              1. Brett: I don’t think the comparison totally holds up, but I also don’t say there’s nothing to it. It’s just not sufficient for me. I also don’t think the Masshole argument is sufficient to restrict emigration out of MA or CA.

                1. It’s interesting because I’m not a restrictionist, but when you suggest that the people who are used to one way of life should just shut up and accept the change, particularly when it is arbitrary enforcement of current laws that causes some of the problem, anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Not saying you, personally, are arguing thus, but there is some of that going around.

      1. pretending that Hispanics are the ritual point of blame is still pretending. Does heavy illegal immigration raise some questions? Sure. And the link does more to highlight the ongoing welfare state/open borders conundrum than to accuse Latinos of anything.

      2. Saying that people from statist societies will make government bigger is not the same as saying they are to blame for its current size.

    4. Yeah, I saw that headline and thought, “Who blames Hispanics for big government?” Then I saw that it was Shikha and realized the answer was “The strawmen in her head.”

    5. I blame them for the oversexualized culture.

    6. You are either with the immigrants or against them. No mixed opinions allowed!

    7. I thought we blamed women, since the welfare state didn’t really take off until after the 19th Amendment. Or Blacks because the civil rights movement occurred at another time when the welfare state expanded greatly. I’m unsure what’s right here.

    8. I cam here to post this comment.

  5. So we are not living in a libertarian moment?

  6. A Shikha article about Trump and Hispanics. The Yokel hate quota will be filled for months.

  7. I for one am learning to embrace our Progressive Moment replete with Imperial Presidential Candidates.

    1. It’s a strange love, Paul, but at least you’ve stopped worrying.

      1. And learned to love being set up the bomb!

        1. Hehehe. Nice one. 🙂

    2. “I for one am learning to embrace our Progressive Moment..”

      Good. That’s a necessary prelude to learning to love Big Brother.

  8. Technically, all immigrants who don’t have visible means of support have the potential to become welfare queens. It just happens that the ones who can’t afford a plane ticket are most visibly hispanic. If people like the author would quit pretending that there’s no reason for low skill and no skill native workers to believe that illegal immigration also creates a gray market for employment that negatively impacts native job seekers, maybe we could all have an honest conversation about how to get from where we are to somewhere more free and less governed.

    1. Who pretends that labor competition doesn’t negatively impact some laborers? More importantly, why should I care about that anymore than I care about the fact that orange juice competition hurts orange juice vendors?

      1. Who pretends that labor competition doesn’t negatively impact some laborers?

        really?

      2. Who pretends that labor competition doesn’t negatively impact some laborers?

        Cytotoxic. The guy that literally argues that no immigration has ever hurt anyone, anywhere, ever.

      3. why should I care about that anymore than I care about the fact that orange juice competition hurts orange juice vendors

        Among other things, because the group of laborers in particular is the one most prone to go on welfare if they can’t get a job, because the other career paths in the US have insulated themselves effectively against said competition (there’s certainly not a free market in labor for medical professionals and lawyers, for instance), and because it’s being done to a group whose options are limited and made even more limited by the government.

        The most likely outcome of all of this is an increase in the welfare-using underclass and a decrease in the working class, similar to what happened with the inner-city black working class and small business class post-Great Society.

        It is a problem that those with no blue-collar roots are extremely distanced from, and it shows.

        1. No blue-collar roots? Fucking please. Some people with blue-collar roots realized they needed to do more than graduate high school and show up at some closed union shop to be able to afford to “raise a family,” as these people so often seem to feel entitled to doing on nothing more than a single earner’s wage.

          1. You’re right. Some people realize that they need to graduate high school and go through 4 more years of government schooling to get a job at one of the closed-union shops in the medical or legal field, or maybe get a job in finance and banking (and God knows there’s no government interference *there*). Oh, or they could get an engineering job with Boeing or Raytheon to design government weapons systems. And if you weren’t born with a 115+ IQ, then you can fuck right off and compete for jobs that the government dislikes you working and attempts to regulate out of legal existence on a periodic basis. But don’t worry: you’ll get to see those jobs go to foreigners who aren’t burdened by those same restrictions, either because they’re working under the table or because the government decided that the jobs were beneath Americans but just right for Central American peasants.

            Are there countries where this isn’t the case? Sure — hell, just reforming the education system so that middle school and high school prep kids for more than 4 years of college would help things. But why the fuck would we want to do that, when we clearly recognize that blue collar types of average intelligence are the scum of the Earth who don’t deserve to participate in the economy? Naturally, they’ll thank us for minimizing the areas where government hurts them and maximizing the outrage when they want the same deal on labor that America’s educated class already has.

            1. Just wondering: who is “us” in this conversation?

              1. Libertarians and most classically liberal conservatives, but in all honesty it can apply to most mainstream politics in the country.

                The blue collar has been tremendously ill-served by the government and the way it has influenced hiring and business practices, and attempting to usher in a foreign workforce that doesn’t need to be compliant with these laws is merely a coup de grace. You’d think libertarians could at least offer compelling points about what the government is doing and how to rectify the situation, instead of telling blue collar people to go to school for subjects they’re not inclined to do well in with money they don’t have. The “information economy” is hardly an inevitable result of the free market.

                1. You’d think libertarians could at least offer compelling points about what the government is doing and how to rectify the situation

                  Libertarians do this constantly.

                2. So libertarians are telling blue collar workers to suck it up and adapt to onerous regulations?

                  I’ll inform the Institute for Justice.

                  1. So libertarians are telling blue collar workers to suck it up and adapt to onerous regulations

                    Why don’t you look at Nikki’s replies to me and tell me what you think.

                    I love Institute for Justice, but an obscure think tank isn’t going to make it on the radar. Most libertarians come off like Shikha and Nikki, with the exceptionally poor advice that the blue collar needs to go to school and become part of the information economy to be worthy of “good jobs” — by and large untrue and not even particularly attainable for anyone who falls short of an above-average IQ.

                    So yeah — just in case it’s news to you, conservatives and libertarians come off really poorly on this.

                    1. Most libertarians come off like Shikha and Nikki, with the exceptionally poor advice that the blue collar needs to go to school and become part of the information economy to be worthy of “good jobs”

                      When did I say they needed to go to college? When did I say they needed a “good job”? I criticized their feelings of entitlement. They think they are entitled to live in the style they are accustomed to?a style that was propped up by the state. They’re not. I’m perfectly happy for them to not go to college, but they want to whine about how if they don’t do that they can’t afford to raise a bunch of kids?who will also not have any prospects, but will want to reproduce more.

                    2. When did I say they needed to go to college?

                      You might as well have said it in your last post:

                      Some people with blue-collar roots realized they needed to do more than graduate high school and show up at some closed union shop to be able to afford to “raise a family,”

                      You stated there that those being displaced really should try doing more more for themselves before bitching about their situation and offering their own solutions to improve their lot and that of others like them. And while that “more” can mean a lot of things, you shouldn’t be surprised that it gets read as “go to college” since that’s the simplest and most common solution.

                    3. You stated there that those being displaced really should try doing more more for themselves before bitching about their situation and offering their own solutions to improve their lot and that of others like them.

                      No. I stated they need to set their sights on a lifestyle they can afford. They can keep the same badly paying jobs and live more frugally if they want to. They don’t want to.

                    4. The problem is that people don’t like it when their standard of living declines. They don’t like it when third world immigrants come in and offer to work at 1/3 the wage.

                      The result is that we wind up paying them through welfare. AndOr they simply steal from us.

                      Best case they elect democrats who steal from us.

                      As evidenced by the income inequality meme, the rabble will not sit quietly while you snack on Brie.

                      So, we might want to reconsider importing more rabble.

                      Meanwhile the average Silicon Valley resident is a good indicator that we need to import more people from India. Those people are insufferable assholes.

                      The Californians I mean.

                    5. I think the IJ is more on the radar than an Internet commenter venting among ideological peers.

                      A libertarian – particularly a libertarian with a pulpit – telling blue collar workers to suck it up rather than turning the blame toward overregulation and taxation is news to me. There is the glib, “get a job” response that some people give to those unemployed or on welfare, sure. But your criticism sounded more like this is what the libertarian solution IS, rather than what some libertarians can sound like. It’s not what the Pauls sound like, or what Stossel sounds like, or even what Paul Ryan sounds like.

                    6. I’ve found that most libertarians prefer to offer no response to the problem at all, in keeping with the practice of mainstream politics to consider the working class (as opposed to the underclass or the middle class) as little as humanly possible.

                      Recalling that my responses on this thread stemmed from a libertarian asking why they should give a damn about the employment situation of blue collar workers, the relative priority given by libertarians to this is piss-poor and the responses by same are often incredibly disdainful and condescending. Considering that this is the group most at-risk for becoming welfare cases, I’d say that’s a serious neglect that makes no sense (especially when many of the immigrants libertarians are inviting will become part of the working class and stay at-risk for same).

                    7. the responses by same are often incredibly disdainful and condescending

                      What % of these people have kids? Because you better believe I am absolutely disdainful of people who have done that and couldn’t afford it. The vast majority of these people I’m supposed to feel so fucking bad for have exacerbated their own problems by sentencing others to more of the same.

                    8. And yet it is still going to be your problem.

            2. Some people realize that they need to graduate high school and go through 4 more years of government schooling to get a job at one of the closed-union shops in the medical or legal field, or maybe get a job in finance and banking (and God knows there’s no government interference *there*). Oh, or they could get an engineering job with Boeing or Raytheon to design government weapons systems.

              Yeah, because cartels and government contractors are the only alternatives to unemployment.

              But why the fuck would we want to do that, when we clearly recognize that blue collar types of average intelligence are the scum of the Earth who don’t deserve to participate in the economy?

              “Desert” is meaningless. What do I care if they participate in the economy anyway? They are the ones who seem to want to. They had the option of taking up lifestyles that didn’t require skills they didn’t possess. They don’t want those lifestyles.

              1. What do I care if they participate in the economy anyway?

                For the same reason it’s pertinent whether most blue collar people get their food at Walmart or at a bread line: the latter implies a serious dysfunction in what the government is doing to distort markets in that sector.

                Do you seriously not see the problem with the blue collar becoming a part of the welfare underclass? Because they do, and that is a huge motivation in blue collar politics.

                But hey, glad to know that the libertarian answer to decades of government mismanagement is that the blue collar should eat cake. Seriously great answer.

                1. I care if these people participate in the economy. But the solution is not trade barriers or government patronage or minimum wage laws. It is deregulation.

            3. Hey I worked for Boeing indirectly and Raytheon directly sans degree. Military and commercial aircraft. Interesting work.

            4. Uh. Engineers are not as dumb as you believe. The cut off on the low end is IQ130.

          2. What about the people who didn’t finish school? Should they be priced out because of onerous labor laws whose only enforcement seems to stem from lawsuits brought by exploited workers, which encourages emploers who choose not to follow all of the laws to use illegal immigrant labor which has a disincentive to file such lawsuits. I don’t think that either the current labor or immigration laws are good, but acting like the not-at-all-impartial enforcement by the government doesn’t drive the sentiment seems to me to miss half the argument. Yes Trump is wrong about the solution, but he and his supporters aren’t wrong that there is a problem.

            1. Employers using illegal immigrant labor because they are afraid of lawsuits is not even a real thing. it is a fantasy you made up in your head. Being undocumented is not an advantage in the job market. Employers only hire illegal aliens if they are desperate for cheap labor. And believe me, they would much rather deal with a lawsuit than one of the mexican gangs that will come knocking if they don’t pay their workers.

            2. That and discrimination laws that force companies to use degrees as a proxy for intelligence.

  9. “Conservatives have long depicted Hispanics as an existential threat to America’s core limited
    government ideals because Hispanics tend to vote for Big Government Democrats.”

    FTFY.

    And now we don’t need the rest of your soft brained blather.

  10. Trump is a witch, he turned me into a newt.

    I have proof, his hair weights the same as a duck.

    1. Am I the only one who read “his hair weighs the same as a dick”?

      1. Yes.

        The most likely reason is that you do things like endorse Gary’s Johnson.

        1. So Trump is wearing Gary’s Johnson on his head?

          It is all starting to make sense….

          1. Yes, yes. It took me quite some time to understand what he truly meant with all his ‘Merkin talk.

          2. Trump broke into my house and buttfucked my cat.

            1. I bet the cat asked for that to happen….

              1. Meow you’ve crossed the line of common decency.

            2. Meeeoouuuch!

            3. Please, for the sake of your fellow readers’ sensibilities, please paws and think before making such comments.

              1. *narrows gaze at the lot of ye*

  11. I’ve come to the conclusion that for most conservatives, limited government simply means lower taxes. Lower spending? Not so much. Because if you try to get them to point to any specifics, about the best answer you can get is “Welfare for illegals.”

    Sorry to agree with the author. I know I’ll catch a bunch of shit for it. Oh well.

    1. the author’s case would have merit if the premise was that people love free govt so long as their pony is not being impacted, that they hate big govt when it benefits others but love it when it suits them. Instead, being Shikha, we get the usual “you hate the brownz” bullshit.

      False premises are false. She could actually make a case that shows the hypocrisy of many on the right when it comes to the size of govt but she goes race retard as usual.

      1. Bastiat summed it up here.

        Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.

        Seems to me that that third system is modern conservatism in a nutshell.

        1. and that’s the heart of my argument with this piece, far more with the author than with you. Lots of people claim to hate Big Govt but only when they it benefits someone else; they love whatever they might be getting. And THAT would actually a worthwhile piece. But Shikha can’t help herself. It always comes back to identity politics.

          It’s a version of the Hillary dynamic where she will lie when the truth is the better alternative, but lying is ingrained that she instinctively goes there.

          1. She sees the symptoms, and misidentifies the cause. She should go into politics.

          2. She referred to the author.

      2. Blame W for compassionate conservatism.

    2. I hear foreign aid.

      1. But not Israel. To even suggest that is heresy.

        1. Right, they aren’t anarchists.

    3. True. I think the military needs some big cuts. Lots of fat in there.

      1. Yawn.

        Ever heard of “providing for the common defense”? It’s an actual enumerated power of FedGov.

        Unlike “feeding/clothing/housing all slackers and their descendants forever”, which costs a hell of a lot more than planes and bombs.

        1. It’s not the slackers that are the problem, we can afford them. It’s the old people that think they deserve to have their retirements subsidized because they “paid in.”

        2. Constitution does not say “spend 6% of GDP”

    4. The central point of this piece should be uncontroversial.

      1. The central point of your mom is uncontroversial!

    5. I’ve come to the conclusion that for most conservatives, limited government simply means lower taxes. Lower spending? Not so much.

      And you are right. Conservatives have become a mutant and retarded form of libertarian who claims to love freedom but hates pots heads and abortion and thinks “lower taxes” is the same thing as the free market.

  12. American voters are the cheapest dates in the world. Promise them a little sugar and they’ll keep putting out no matter how many times they get ghosted and end up on tetracycline.

    1. Huh, I’m allergic to tetracycline. Coincidence? I think not!

    2. By you a drink, big boy?

      1. I’d actually like to *buy* him a drink.

  13. Hey, and libertarians who are attracted to him because he’s at least not a neocon on foreign policy are fooling themselves. Trump will arguably be worse because he’s obsessed with pay back.

    Don’t worry, so are Hit’n’Runpublicans.

    1. What? Please expand on your comment. TiA

    2. Wait I thought those guys were only obsessed with payback when it comes to criminal law. With foreign policy I thought they were obsessed with the idea of the Ayatollah riding the bomb Slim Pickens-style as it falls on America.

      1. They’re obsessed with payback when it comes to the left. So all President Trump has to do is convince them that one time Nancy Pelosi said something nice about someone overseas?anyone, really?and I’m sure they’ll fall right in line.

        1. Huh. You know now that I think about it, you could frame the Iran thing in terms of payback for…I don’t know, the hostage thing or the revolution or something. I mean nobody could truly be stupid enough to believe that Iran would use nukes against the US or Israel.

          1. John will be along shortly to prove just how stupid he can be.

          2. So nice of you to risk the lives of millions if Israelis and Americans, Hugh. But we all know you don’t care about those people. Disgusting.

          3. nobody could truly be stupid enough to believe that Iran would use nukes against the US or Israel.

            Not against us.

            Against Israel? I would say that’s long odds, but not impossible. And “They probably won’t nuke us” isn’t very reassuring, if you’re an Israeli.

            1. I can’t think of a better way to get the U.S. to pick an ultimate winner in the Shia/Sunni dispute (which is who all of these hypothetical Iranian and Saudi nukes will be pointed at) than to have one or a few of those nukes go off in the U.S. Preferably with little tags that say, “Made by the other guy.”

              One of the things that stops such a strategy is the very real fear the U.S. will, instead of figuring out who did it, will up and say that everyone there loses. And resigns itself to higher oil and gas prices for awhile until the short half-life stuff dies away, and frac’d domestic wells get spun back up to full production.

              Ensuring stockpile custody and control, particularly in a society where military command and control is as divided as Iran’s (or Pakistan’s for that matter) is a really tough problem.

        2. Trump supporters are much more interested in payback against domestic enemies than foreign enemies. I don’t think most of them give a shit about attacking people abroad.

          You also get some Trumpsters who hate US military interventions because ‘WE’RE JUST LAPDOGS OF ISRAEL!’ I’ve heard several arguments along those lines.

          1. They’re interested in payback against China in particular and probably some other countries that stole America’s manufacturing jobs.

            1. Sorry. I’m not defending, but it’s not just Trump supporters. You should see the Clinton and Sanders commercials in Michigan. Repeal Nafta, TPP, Americans jobs for Americans.

              1. Well Sanders makes no bones about being a National Socialist.

              2. it’s not just Trump supporters. You should see the Clinton and Sanders commercials in Michigan. Repeal Nafta, TPP, Americans jobs for Americans.

                Yup.
                Trump is basically selling the same shit that Sander’s is selling, just with more of a nationalistic spin. Sanders’ voters are college kids who graduated with useless humanities degrees, in contrast to high-school grads who got laid off from their factory jobs. But they’re both economically disadvantaged groups with no marketable skills who want government to come in a throw up a bunch of regulations that are supposed to force the market to give them high-paying jobs. Culturally they are a million miles apart.

                1. so when does someone notice the fundamental disconnect between Herself and ad critical of an agreement willingly passed when her husband was president and second agreement that she championed before pulling a Kerry?

                2. I am more sympathetic with the “poorly educated” who did their jobs for years and now find themselves broke while the managers who killed the company ride off into the sunset.

            2. “Stole our jobs” could be a drinking game when talking to idiots.

            3. Yeah, no question its a popular campaign talking point. But I think there is some perception that Drumpf will actually do something about it. Other candidates talk about trade restrictions out of one side of their mouth while deep-throating China out of the other.

  14. I always thought it was the upper middle class progs bringing about the big government.

  15. I sort of like the prospect of trump because he would accomplish nothing. He would be a lame duck for 4 years. His policies really have no substance….it is all sloganeering.

    1. Can you guarantee that? Or would he just be a “deal maker” and end up with $37 trillion in debt because hey, we can just declare bankruptcy and bribe a judge or two to give us a sweetheart deal, right?

      1. I see him like Obama….all style and no substance. Not willing to deal…pure lazy.

        Where we have been hit hard is the federal departments via regulation…and that will continue no matter who is POTUS

        1. Unless i become potus.

      2. I think it would be interesting to see him default on our debts to China. Might be the only thing that ends our perpetually skyrocketing debt. No one loaning us money.

  16. The Reason staff have become exceedingly tiresome two trick ponies. Trump, stupid shit on college campuses, repeat ad nauseam. The only thing bringing me back are you salty pricks. Ah, fuck it. I’m going fishing.

    1. You’ll catch cold, TH.

    2. What else should they be talking about? Shit on college campuses seems to be getting more ridiculous by the day, and Trump…seems to be getting more ridiculous by the day.

      1. HOW ABOUT THE NEW SCULPIN RELEASES?

        1. What?? New sculpin releases?? Tell me more!!

          1. Pineapple Sculpin and Watermelon Dorado. Get ’em while they’re hot! The former is pretty tasty and I’ve yet to try the latter.

          2. I heard that many sculpin jokes begin with “You’re in”.

    3. Hope your fishing trip is going to last eight months!

  17. “But if the rise of Donald Trump, an autocrat with the worst bouffant in the Western world, proves anything, it is that “real” Americans are no less lovers of Big Government. In fact, more so.”

    What is the argument here? That just helps conservatives point.

    The Big Government threat has always been here, importing more certainly isn’t going to improve the likelihood of limited government.

    1. Look at the author. Invariably, the theme of the article comes back to race or ethnicity. Even when there is a valid point to be made.

      1. We’re lucky that Jindal flopped early on; at least we don’t have to listen to Dipshit call him a race traitor anymore.

  18. Who the fuck is blaming Hispanics for big government?

    1. Irish?

    2. Really? I hear that argument all the time, including here.

      1. I think it goes something like…

        ‘If you let all the brown people who are stupid and don’t understand democracy [this is key, because these people fundamentally don’t understand that democracy sucks] and will turn us into Socialists because that’s all the darkies know becuz they stupid!’

        1. Ah. Well. That is a pretty dumb argument for anyone to make, yes.

    3. I blame people like Rubio. Does that count?

  19. I hope you all went long on strawman factories with Shikha writing an article on Trump.

    The vast majority of people who are not “open borders”, don’t have any racial issue with “hispanics”. It is because of the perceived issues regarding illegal immigration, and those illegal immigrants happen to overwhelmingly come from Latin America. Not arguing about whether or not illegal immigration is positive or negative.

    Is Trump a authoritarian blowhard? Absolutely. But it doesn’t automatically make one racist to think that those who have come here illegally from Latin America, aren’t necessarily the best and brightest that region has to offer. It may be completely wrong. But actually that implies that there are good and bad hispanics. Just like there are good and bad non-hispanic Caucasians. Good and bad blacks. Good and bad Asians. etc.

    And the point isn’t that hispanics are welfare queens. But that illegal immigrants are taking benefits. IOW, it isn’t because they are hispanics, it is because they are here illegally. Again, not arguing the merits of that point of view. As an additional point, some may argue that illegal immigrants take more welfare or not. Obviously these can be checked, depending on one’s definition of “welfare” and benefits. But some also argue that since they are here illegally, ANY benefits they take are wrong.

    We all have plenty to argue with Trumpkins over. But stop with the intellectual laziness.

    1. “It is because of the perceived issues regarding illegal immigration, and those illegal immigrants happen to overwhelmingly come from Latin America. Not arguing about whether or not illegal immigration is positive or negative.”

      My favorite strawman argument of this variety was the idiot who asked the Republicans at the debate why they don’t want to build a border wall with Canada. The obvious implication was that this is based on racism, but the actual reason is because there aren’t tons of poor Canadian illegal immigrants.

      1. That’s because Canadian immigrants have White Privilege, so they don’t have to be poor!

    2. It is because of the perceived issues regarding illegal immigration, and those illegal immigrants happen to overwhelmingly come from Latin America. Not arguing about whether or not illegal immigration is positive or negative.

      Except it’s not about illegal immigration. If it were, I’d probably be quite sympathetic to that cause. When you really pursue the topic, it’s about immigration, per se. If it were about illegal immigration, the same people wouldn’t be clamoring to restrict H1-B visas and put a “pause” on legal immigration.

      1. “Except it’s not about illegal immigration. If it were, I’d probably be quite sympathetic to that cause. When you really pursue the topic, it’s about immigration, per se. If it were about illegal immigration, the same people wouldn’t be clamoring to restrict H1-B visas and put a “pause” on legal immigration.”

        What’s the wall for then? I think there is a big contingent that are pretty focused on the illegal aspect here.

        1. The wall is for keeping out all the people who can’t immigrate legally. So there will be less immigration.

          1. Are you making my point for me?

            1. No, I’m not.

              1. Can you explain what the difference is between “people are against illegal immigration” and people are “against immigrants who can’t immigrate legally”?

                1. The part where they aren’t interested in making it possible for them to immigrate legally.

                  1. “The part where they aren’t interested in making it possible for them to immigrate legally.”

                    That’s already very possible.

                    1. No, it isn’t.
                      You don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know anything about current immigration law.

                    2. I’m beginning to think you’re in over your head here.

                    3. As some who actually went through the immigration system, I am certain I am not.

                    4. “As some who actually went through the immigration system, I am certain I am not.”

                      I don’t doubt that you believe yourself.

                    5. How about you demonstrate your deep legal knowledge of the immigration system and explain how it’s super easy for a Guatemalan farmer with no US relatives to immigrate legally, if only they weren’t too lazy to try?

          2. so what stops them from immigrating legally? And at what point does implying that, for some reason, Hispanics cannot manage the system that emigres from elsewhere have managed get called out for being a version of soft bigotry?

            1. so what stops them from immigrating legally?

              The fact that the immigration laws are written in a way that makes it impossible for them to immigrate legally.

              There are only four ways to immigrate:
              1. Have a close family member sponsor you. (not possible if you have no close American relatives.)
              2. Have an employer sponsor you. (Only works if you have at least a bachelors degree in a STEM field.)
              3. Win the Visa lottery (you chances are essentially zero)
              4. Be a refugee or asylum seeker (not possible if you don’t come from a war zone or brutal dictatorship).

              For an unskilled laborer from Central America with no US relatives, it is effectively impossible to immigrate legally.

            2. Hispanics cannot manage the system that emigres from elsewhere have managed

              Emigres from elsewhere DON’T manage it any better. There’s ton’s of illegal immigration from Europe, Asia, Africa,…. effectively everywhere. Tons of it. They just don’t walk across the border, they fly in and overstay their visas.

              1. I agree. That is why the sentiment seems anti-hispanic, because there’s no possible mechanism of enforcing the means of entry terrorists have actually used. But it is also why the sentiment is not about the color of skin or native tongue. Demagoguery needs a simple solution to a complex problem, but to say that racism against hispanics is the basis of the sentiment is crazy.

      2. Apparently some large fraction of our illegal population arrived on a visa.

        There is also the observation that companies lie on H1b applications, claiming that they can’t find Americans to do the work.

        So, I think there is a lot of overlap between the two issues.

    3. The real reason certain people are against immigration is because they are afraid of the economic competition from (other) low-skilled workers.

      It has nothing to do with welfare benefits. That has been debunked as complete bullshit a thousand times. The reality is that the kind of people who are voting for Trump and hating on immigrants just don’t want to *admit* that they are worried about their jobs (or the lack thereof), because it’s shameful for them to say they are afraid of competition from an illiterate foreigner who doesn’t speak a word of English.

      It’s absurd really, they would rather come across as racist or uninformed than admit that they are concerned with their own naked self-interest.

      1. The literacy rate in Mexico is 95%, just so you’re aware. Most immigrants (legal or not) are perfectly fluent in their own language.

        But yes, there is a definite class difference in why people might prefer less immigration. As a general rule, gentry conservatives are likely to view the political effects as a problem, and blue collar conservatives on the issue are economically self-interested.

      2. ^This. My God this.

      3. If a native loses his job to a guy who will work under the table for five dollars an hour, you’re paying for those extra welfare benefits regardless of whose pocket they’re going into.

        It’s just basic logic. If you add more workers, but don’t add an equivalent number of jobs, the difference represents an increase in the number of people either relying on savings (ha! as if), charity, or welfare.

        1. Where do jobs come from? Is there a fixed supply of them?

          1. No there is not Hazel. But the increase in the supply of the labor force doesn’t create them.

            1. Neither does decreasing the supply of the labor force.

              1. But at the moment we have an excess of people who are not working.

          2. Capital investment, elimination of unnessary costs to hiring, time, confidence in the economy. None of those things seem to be forthcoming, and I don’t see Trumpistas pushing for reforms that directly help only the business class and may potentially (no promises) trickle down to them, without some upfront concessions to their concerns. But Trump is all about making deals, so…

        2. See my point above. Even if the native guy would work for $5/hr under the table, any employer who is dodging labor laws probably wants to create as many disincentives to his employees suing him as possible. Being a non-citizen without a visa is a nice disincentive to sue. But hey, it’s crazy to suggest that someone trying to run a vegetable farm that has a tiny margin would rather cheat the government than go under. The native worker can do equal work and stil be the worse choice.

          1. I agree totally. It is similar to having harsher sentences for “drug dealing” than murder. If I am going away for a mandatory 20 for dealing crack, then I might as well be willing to kill cops to try to stay out of jail. Might as well be hanged for a wolf than a lamb.

            1. “hanged for a sheep as a lamb”. Boy did I fuck up that metaphor.

          2. But if I pay a citizen $10 I can deduct it from my taxable earnings. So I am unclear on the benefits of hiring illegals in these scenarios.

            Unless it is a cash business and I am not paying taxes.

      4. Don’t want to admit? What?

    4. He’s a blowhard, but I don’t believe he’s authoritarian. I think he’d actually increase liberty in any affair he doesn’t have a stake in, and in many of those he does. Like porn & cursing on the air would be legal, unless it’s about Donald Trump, and even then it’d only be for $ damages, no jail. I doubt he’s changed his ideas on wanting drugs to be legal; in fact if you look at his position page on health care now, it says he wants restrictions on drugs & their marketing removed.. I think if he could figure a way for POTUS to make gambling legal throughout the states, he would. I bet if he could work a way to make the gov’t $ on immigration, like charging an entry fee, he would. All he wants is for “America” to be “winning” somehow; in most cases that wouldn’t restrict liberties.

  20. If you can’t get Hispanics that fled bullshit statist regimes to vote against bullshit statist regimes, maybe you should blame yourself.

  21. What Libertarians are supporting Trump? The only quasi-support I’ve seen for Trump from the Libertarian side comes from the “fuck it, burn it all down” crowd, and most of them are not actually serious.

    1. There are people here who get mad at Trump criticism.

      I just don’t think most of them are libertarians. They’re Republicans who try to get us to vote GOP every election.

      1. What do you call a Republican who’s probably going to try to get you to vote Libertarian this election?

        1. Rand Paul? Justin Amash?

        2. Hitler?

          1. Mister Hilter of Minehead is a National Boscialist, isn’t he?

        3. “What do you call a Republican who’s probably going to try to get you to vote Libertarian this election?”

          A hallucination?

      2. Or it just gets tiring with article after article. Or we see a libertarian case for Sanders because he’s good on a single issue. I’m one of those burn it down types. I really want to see Trump v. Hill in the general just to see how he attacks. I’m sure he’s donated shitloads of money to the Clintons. He could really hammer them in several ways no other GoP nominee can.

        Anyway, I’ll bring the popcorn.

        1. Just to be clear, he’d be able to say you took my money with a smile, blah blah.

        2. https://reason.com/blog/2016/02…..ie-sanders

          Trump also being good (or better than Hillary) on a single issue is quickly waved away.

        3. Trump’s more likely to drop out and endorse Clinton than he is to attack her.

          1. He’s already attacked her though. He hasn’t gotten the nom quite yet so it could just be a long con.

        4. I’m sure he’s donated shitloads of money to the Clintons. He could really hammer them in several ways no other GoP nominee can.

          How does that work exactly? “You should definitely not support this lady to whose foundation I donated $100k.”

          1. But…but… he did that cuz he was manipulating her! You don’t get how business works /derp.

            1. Exactly, and I type that with a straight keyboard. People believe him when he says he had to play this crooked game, but when the shoe’s on the other foot his sympathy will be with those who don’t want to play it. I believe him too.

          2. you just say “Herself talks constantly about how money is an evil influence in the system, how it should stopped. She said neither of those things while taking my checks.”

            1. Are you aware of what side of the campaign finance debate Hillary is now on?

              1. key word in your comment is “now.” Herself’s entire MO consists of being on whichever side is expedient at the moment. We saw it with gay marriage, there is the Foundation and the donations it takes, and her own speaking fees, for a few examples.

                Also, she has ads in some states that are highly critical of things like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific deal. She was once for the latter and has more than a passing knowledge of the former.

          3. “How does that work exactly? “You should definitely not support this lady to whose foundation I donated $100k.”

            Seems pretty easy for him to turn that into her being weak. I think there was a Sanders supporter who wrote pretty on how easy it’ll be for him to spin this.

            http://gawker.com/donald-trump…..1722622546

            “She had no choice because I gave.”

            1. Exactly. He pays the Clintons; ergo, he is their boss.

    2. I get the sensation that a decent chunk of Ron Paul’s coalition are clinging to the Trump movement. (Touched upon by Reason ) Granted, they’re probably not “libertarians” so much as “fuck politicians” voters.

    3. I’m a libertarian who’s supporting Trump now. The more I look at it, the more good I think he’d do for individual liberty, considered on a worldwide basis, than Cruz, who’s the only other contender I’d’ve gone for. Not only that, but I’m very curious & eager to find out how Trump winds up governing. My hunch is that he’ll be so much better than other libertarians think, somewhere in the range between well that wasn’t so bad after all, a stopped clock is right twice a day (which means good decisions a year), and holy shit, who’d’a thunk this good was going to come from this quarter? I see someone leading the world towards liberty in a way explicit libertarians never could, because the ideology’s repellent but the practice is very attractive; that may not be Trump, but eventually it’ll be somebody.

      1. The irony is that I probably wouldn’t’ve been so sympathetic to Trump were it not for what I read in HyR. I was one of the skeptics in LPNY about Trump when some were courting him ~25 yrs. ago. Then again, many in LPNY thought I sold them a lemon in the form of Stern.

    4. I am coming around to this line of thought. Might feel good to vote for burning it all down.

      I take solace in the fact that my vote doesn’t matter.

  22. Have you guys checked out http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald? It’s like walking into an alternate reality.

    1. There’s a link to Garry Kasparov’s post there, so it’s not that bad.

      I’m enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd.

      1. There was one post earlier complaining about how the media isn’t paying attention to Trump’s policy proposals but instead highlighting his less-than-politic statements about minorities and women to call him a racist/sexist.

        I mean, let’s assume the media is treating Trump unfairly with regards to his bombastic statements about pretty much everybody… what policy proposals of Trump are they supposed to report on? His entire platform is “Trump knows best and it’ll get figured out”.

        1. Pointing that out would be helpful, however.

        2. I didn’t even know about them until today someone linked to https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions . Compare them with the other contenders for POTUS & I think that on avg. he compares favorably.

      2. Mr. Kasparov is a treasure.

        That subreddit apparently also has a weird obsession with Sanders.

        1. All of reddit has a weird obsession with Sanders

      3. That’s the first link I clicked on. I could not bear the FB comments.

      4. I also get a kick out of them lecturing African Americans on who they should be voting for. Apparently they didn’t vote for Sanders cause:

        – they dont understand his policies
        – aren’t educated
        – anti-semitic

        1. Has nothing to do with the Clintons cultivating the African-American vote for decades. Nope.

          1. First black president.

  23. I hate the “Free Rider” argument. It permeates all political discussions, and always ends up with accusations, the use of Government force, and name calling. This is why I have fully embraced everything voluntary.

    It this point I do hope it all gets razed to the ground. I just won’t be the one doing the razing.

  24. OT:

    Chicago transgender woman dies after taking mysterious pong pong seeds bought online for $5

    Lot’s going on there: transgender suicide, OMG drugs, OMG cheap mail order drugs…

    1. Also this gem: she is speaking out to warn parents about the deadly potential of the dangerous good.

      “the potential danger of the deadly good.”

      “the good danger of the potential deadliness.”

    2. What does the transgender part have to do with the story?

      1. Headlines, man. Headlines.

      2. in a news sense, nothing. But from the prism of identity politics……

      3. Yea that is what i thought when i saw this trending on derp-book. And then it dawned on me….clicks clicks and clicks. The media is really scum but they give customers what they want

    3. That article is gold!:

      “Anderson said she wasn’t aware of Lucia’s suicidal thoughts before the death from the seed’s heart-stopping poison, but said that her daughter had been bullied in school.”

      Then in the next paragraph the writer states that the mother refers to her child with male pronouns and uses HER birth name.

      In addition, the video clip has a tagline that says “Mother issues warning after $5 online purchase kills son.”

      BTW is pong pong the next super soldier drug?

      1. BTW is pong pong the next super soldier drug?

        It’s essentially digitalis, as digitalis-agonists (or is it antagonists? Been awhile since college) work as antidotes to suicide tree poisoning. So no.

        Sounds like a suicide of an unfortunately troubled young person, notable for his gender choice and for the novelty of s/he chose to kill themselves.

  25. “Real” Americans Are the Big Threat to Limited Government

    Anybody with two brain cells rubbing together could have figured that out decades ago. Just because Republican rhetoric has been advocating for “limited government” and scare-mongering over government-run healthcare, Republicans have presided over — indeed, rammed through Congress — some of the largest increases in government spending/programs.

    1. Republicans have presided over — indeed, rammed through Congress — some of the largest increases in government spending/programs.

      The establishment takes a dim view of the voters ever having any real say in this matter.

    2. Well, weren’t we warned by Alexis de Tocqueville?

  26. You’re making the fundamental mistake of assuming that what a politician says has anything to do with how they govern, out that people actually care about policy

  27. I am really enjoying all the trouser-soiling the ruling class and self appointed intelligentsia are doing. Since they tend to be wrong about almost everything – despite their credentials – I wonder if a President Trump will be all that bad.

    1. He’s a blowhard, know nothing egomaniac, aka a politician. So he will be all that bad.

      What the ruling class doesn’t get is all the other people in the race now are that bad, too.

      1. Perhaps, but he still has to work with Congress. I don’t get the sense that he is as politically astute as Bill Clinton was. I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of Republican Congressmen work with the Democrats to thwart whatever it is he proposes – assuming his proposals are as radical the trouser-soilers think they will be. Throw in a hostile bureaucracy…I’m not convinced he’ll be any worse than we’ve had for the last 16 years.

        Besides, our biggest problem is on autopilot for the mother of all train wrecks, and no one is talking about it.

        1. Trump would face hostility from both parties in Congress. I can’t see how he would be half as dangerous as as someone like Hillary or Rubio who would command near absolute loyalty from their own parties.

      2. He’s a blowhard, know nothing egomaniac, aka a politician. So he will be all that bad.

        You do realize this describes every single person of importance in Washington today. And while I would not describe Obama or Bush as blowhards in the way Trump is and Bill Clinton was, “ego-maniac know nothing” describes about all of them.

  28. STFU and VOTE TRUMP

  29. China built a wall, but it’s full of chinese, so clearly, walls don’t keep foreigners out!

    1. Kept out those Mongorians though!

      1. Mongolians brought free trade and capitalism to china resulting in a libertarian moment. Now I’m questioning the concept.

        1. The Mongolians did nothing but break down the city wall and steal the city beef. You been reading that Common Core history, or something?

          1. That wall’s pretty damn impressive, so I asked the guide: “How did the Mongols breach the wall?”
            Guide: “They bribed someone to open the gates.”
            I’m sure Trump figures no one in the US gov’t is corrupt, right Hillary?

            1. Come on Sevo, next you are going to tell me no one in US law enforcement is in league with the drug gangs. And we all know that is impossible.

            2. Right. Many (possibly most) illegal immigrants don’t enter the country by walking through the desert. They enter on a tourist visa and overstay.
              What are we going to do, start banning foreign tourism?

  30. Man. I’m sure missing the libertarian moment.

  31. I looked at this, an article by Shikha with 207 comments. OOOO shit storm ahoy, lets dive in.
    Thank you Reasonoids.

  32. I don’t get the Trump is Obama comparisons. Trump doesn’t seem to believe in much of any ideology. Obama in contrast most certainly does. Obama’s political genius was to be a hard core leftist but still manage to appear to be an empty vessel and let people project onto him what they want him to be. Trump’s political genius is that he appeals to the notion that the problems in Washington could be solved if someone came in from the outside and forced the ideologues to make deals and agree to practical solutions. Whatever you think of that, it is not Obama.

    I think the conservatives who call Trump Obama are projecting. They want their own Obama. They want a guy who is a true believer but manages to appear reasonable to everyone else. Trump is certainly not that.

    1. I think Obama was just an empty vessel. Obama essentially became another Bush yet is hardcore leftist? Personally i think he is lazy.

      His speeches “sounded nice” but didnt have substance. He really is an empty suit

      1. I don’t see how you can call him another Bush. He continued some of Bush’s policies, but leftists never had a problem with a lot of what Bush did. They just hated it that they were not doing it.

        And Obama is a master at trolling the country and dividing people and getting them angry at each other. It seems to bring him pleasure.

        1. I don’t get the Trump is Obama comparisons.

          And Obama is a master at trolling the country and dividing people and getting them angry at each other. It seems to bring him pleasure.

          facepalm

        2. well they were all about TEAM

    2. Yeah, he’s the exact opposite of Obama as diagnosed: he is infinitely malleable and open to any solution, but comes across to a large portion of the electorate (on both sides) as some sort of true believer.

  33. Now wait a second, most Americans (real out imaginary) aren’t supporting Drumpf. Most Republicans aren’t supporting him either. He is only “winning” because the field is so divided. The whole “Silent Majority” thing is a scam he is playing to look like Richard Nixon. He has support of maybe a sixth of the country, and those idiots certainly are not silent.

  34. SIGH

    Obama passed one of the biggest entitlement spending program in the history of the nation with overwhelming support from Latinos and minorities, who often hail from socialist nations and have never abandoned their collectivist worldview. They’re also reliable crusaders against free speech and due process rights for icky rapist people on campus.

    Trump is a hypocrite and so are many of his supporters (who now detest free trade and economic liberty) but you can’t seriously even suggest that somehow they love big government MORE than Mexicans or any other groups. If Bernie Sanders became president, who will push for the back breaking “free college” programs? Or single payer healthcare? Lots of whites, but even more non white parts of the dem base.

    This sort of reasoning reminds me of liberals who use aggregate terrorist activities and to prove that most terrorism isn’t committed by Muslims. But clearly, there’s a difference between an eco terrorist blowing up an empty van and ISIS executing 100 people in Paris. “Almost everything Trump does screams big government” can be applied to any other candidate, because almost everything they propose will grow government to some extent. Tarriffs and super walls might be bad policies, but they don’t meaningfully compare to the ACA or Obama’s unprecedented abuse of executive orders.

    And does anyone seriously believe Trump will order massive deportation once in he’s in the white house? He’ll freaking unrecognizable at that point.

  35. Does anyone else find that use of the term POTUS for the President is suggestive of the term “potentate”? Do you suppose that could be one reason for the term being used? It feels like it could be a contraction of the Latin “potentatus”, even though formally it is just an acronym for President of the United States.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.