Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Rallies Are Getting Really Creepy

GOP frontrunner demands loyalty oaths, hires goons to sniff out protesters, restricts press access.

|

Donald Trump's rallies are increasingly

Trump's pledge.
Wikipedia

resembling the authoritarian Republican presidential candidate's rhetoric.

No dissent, even silent or symbolic, is tolerated. Hostility to the press is manifested by the construction of gated pens, which effectively prevent reporters from actually speaking to the people in attendance. And plain-clothed private security forces, as well as the Secret Service, are rooting out undesirables, sometimes violently. 

Ben Schreckinger wrote about these developments in Politico:

In the past, the press pens at most rallies have opened directly on to the floors of venues, giving members of the media access to crowds. But Trump's aides—and more recently Secret Service agents – have long worked to prevent members of the media from exiting press pens to document protests and scuffles while Trump speaks.

The more frequent use of the restrictive press pen design — which had been deployed sporadically in past months — comes in the days after a Secret Service agent was caught on video choke-slamming a photographer for Time Magazine at a rally in Virginia late last month. The photographer, Christopher Morris, had been attempting to leave the pen to document a Black Lives Matter protest and shouted an obscenity at the agent before he was thrown to the ground.

Then there's the matter of loyalty oaths, which Trump has been beginning his rallies with for some time, but the optics of which (including outstretched hands) have only recently begun raising eyebrows.

The former director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Abe Foxman, told The Times of Israel, "It is a fascist gesture" and called it "about as offensive, obnoxious and disgusting as anything I thought I would ever witness in the United States of America." Foxman added:

He is smart enough — he always tells us how smart he is — to know the images that this evokes. Instead of asking his audience to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, which in itself would be a little bizarre, he's asking them to swear allegiance to him. (italics in original)

Trump's main rival for the GOP nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tx.) seemed to agree with that sentiment, saying he would only ever take an oath to the people and would never ask his supporters to "pledge loyalty to him like subjects to a king."

Here is the full text of one of Trump's recently-demanded loyalty oaths:

I do solemnly swear that I no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions if there's hurricanes or whatever, will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for President.

After the crowd complied, Trump admonished them once more, "Don't forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don't live up to what you just did."

In the interest of context, this is what passes for light-hearted humor from Trump. As creepy as the whole enterprise is, he's clearly joking when he says "bad things happen" and even while administering the oath it's done with a loosey-goosey mock-seriousness. 

In an interview on the Today show this morning, Trump defended the use of the oath at his rallies, saying, "Sometimes we'll do it for fun, and they'll start screaming at me, 'Do the swearing! Do the swearing!' I mean, they're having such a great time."

Trump claimed in the phone interview that "until this phone call, I didn't realize it was a problem" and that I'll certainly look into it because I don't want to offend anybody. It's been amazingly received."

This kind of a response perfectly epitomizes what Trump told Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon last year about why he never apologizes, "I fully think apologizing's a great thing, but you have to be wrong."

Watch a recent clip of Trump demanding the loyalty of private citizens below:

Advertisement

NEXT: Upcoming East Coast talks

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. In an interview on the Today show this morning, Trump defended the use of the oath at his rallies, saying, “Sometimes we’ll do it for fun, and they’ll start screaming at me, ‘Do the swearing! Do the swearing!’ I mean, they’re having such a great time.”

    Stop the United States, I want to get off.

    But I gotta say, the disgust I feel reading this article isn’t directed at Trump himself, but at his supporters, who seem to be articulating an outright yearning for a strongman to treat them like the idiot sheep they are.

    1. Really? I’ve seen no video of anyone screaming “Do the swearing!” And I’ve seen video of the swearing. There is plenty of disgust for both Trump and his supporters.

      1. Don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of disgust for Trump, but–assuming the quotes in the article more-or-less accurately describe real events–he’s acting here more as a showman doing a reliable bit he knows will get a reaction from the audience.

        But now that you mention it, that interpretation relies on believing Trump is telling the truth about the audience demanding it, which is a seriously iffy proposition.

    2. It’s like a porno where a girl’s standing bent over a table, crying almost hysterically from pain, but punctuating the weeping with bouts of rabid laughter and loud demands to be fucked harder in the ass, with some twelve-inch-wielding black guy withdrawing and inserting roughly. “GIVE IT TO ME GOOD AND PROPER, BABY.”

      These folks are welcome to fuck off to Red China, or Burma. Their serf-like mentality has no place in a constitutional republic.

      1. Huh, you’re right, it is like that!

        1. Except there’s no happy ending.

          1. There is a mess ending, however.

      2. Obviously use different search terms…

      3. It’s like that. Damn. I’m showing up when Trump is in town!

      4. It’s like that. Damn. I’m showing up when Trump is in town!

    3. As a reader of history, from ancient to modern, I’m already looking past Trump for what comes next.

      It ain’t pretty.

      And it’s right around the proverbial corner.

      1. Knock knock.

        “Who’s there?”

        HITLER

        1. I don’t like Trump, but I also think comparing Trump to Hitler is pretty over the top. But toolbag up there has a point.

          IF Trump is so extreme as to follow through with his rhetoric, who knows what people will vote for after that. After Hitler, look at all the things outlawed in Germany now. Speech that even relates to the Nazi party is illegal.

          We could see the very concept and speech behind Trump’s platform made illegal. In otherwords a beginning to the repeal of the Bill of Rights. That I don’t think is over the top.

    4. isn’t that how the all libs treat Hillary and any government entity as the all knowing strongman the daddy of the house.

  2. This seems like more hay than usual.

    When Trump is sworn in it’ll be even more proof of his “fascism.”

    1. Just don’t mention the actual national socialist that’s running this year.

      1. You mean the guy who has promised that the government will take care of health care, retirement, security and everything else? The guy who has made vague promises of a cradle-to-grave welfare state while telling people to blame all of their problems on someone who is outside of their group? The guy who has talked about destroying the First Amendment and attacks anyone who criticizes him? Because that’s Trump.

        1. I know what Trump’s positions are – well, as of today, anyway, they seem pretty malleable – but are you willing to give Sander’s stupidity and authoritarianism a pass?

          1. well, as Reason noted, Sanders passed a portion of the purity test by being the most anti-war of the candidates, as if the rest of his platform mitigates that.

            1. well, as Reason noted, Sanders passed a portion of the purity test by being the most anti-war of the candidates, as if the rest of his platform mitigates that.

              So did Obama. And while I consider the anti-war test to be valuable, I don’t think we should confuse it for purity. The Holodomor and Great Chinese Famine weren’t exactly perpetrated as wartime policies.

              Not that I consider Trump to be head and shoulders above Sanders on the subject but we don’t have Reason drawing parallels between Sanders’ absolute faith in the state and Nikita Kruschev’s.

        2. That could also describe at least one other candidate – up till you get to the 1A part and I suspect that candidate has at least some anti-1A positions.

    2. When Trump is sworn in it’ll be even more proof of his “fascism.”

      I expect so. He’ll raise his right hand, JUST LIKE A NAZI SALUTE!

      1. He’s going to be sworn in on a copy of Mein Kampf. True story.

        1. The Art of the Deal.

      2. I hear rumors that his fascism has already crept into courts and schools.

  3. Trump, Clinton, and Sanders have achieved wholesale depravity. I’m just waiting for Cruz to say, or do, something particularly loathsome, so that he might also join the perma-shitlist.

    1. Hey, only Trump’s supporters wnat an authoritarian! Clinton and Sanders’ supporters want freedom, because the libertarian moment is upon us!

      1. I’m assuming you’re one of the republitarians? Or just a Trump dupe?

        1. Fucking sarcasm, how the fuck does it work? Are you really that fucking dense, or are you just so hysterical over Trump’s popularity you can’t actually think straight? How do you get that I would even consider supporting Trump? Because noting other candidates are authoritarian assholes too equals Trump support?Stop reading into things in order to indulge your prejudices, and try a little logic for a change.

          1. Because not everyone here has the type of memory that allows us to instantly remember every commenter’s entire posting history. And not all of us have perfectly-tuned sarcasm detection filters.

            1. Fair enough.

      2. You’re being sarcastic, I know, but being a stupid libertard, you wouldn’t know shit. Bernie Sanders brings America, for the first time since FDR defeated the Confederacy in Operation: Market Garden, hope for equality and justice, and a paradise where all are provided for, and nobody wants for anything. Oh, God, I’m so aroused!

        /College-age Berntard on Facebook.

        1. I think you are confused. Sanders brings hope for the first time since Martin Van Buren defeated the Huns in the Crimean War.

          1. Obama, circa 2008: “Dubyaaaaaaaa! Let my people GO!”

            True story.

        2. The fuck does that even mean? Jesus.

          1. I’m mocking Bernie apologists. Sorry if it wasn’t obvious.

            1. Poe’s Law.

  4. At this point he’s just trying to see how much he can get away with.

    1. Which is itself dangerous.

    2. The national electorate voted for Obama. He can get away with a fuckload, and that’s terrifying to me.

      1. And one would have hoped that at least the Republican voters would want things to start moving in the other direction. But it seems that one was wrong. They just want their own asshole to get away with terrible stuff instead.

        1. The republican establishment wasn’t paying attention, and now look at the mess they are in.

        2. Well, once the rule of law is gone, the only thing that matters is whether it’s your guy or the other team’s guy giving the orders. That’s pretty much where we are at this point.

          1. This.

        3. Have you not read all the glowing praises the right-wing talking heads have been throwing at Putin for years? It’s all “Obama wears mom-jeans, why can’t he be more like shirtless-riding-a-horse Putin?”

          It’s part of the reason I’ve never taken the “Obama’s a tyrant!” criticism to heart. Most often, the people saying that aren’t upset he’s a tyrant, they’re upset he’s a democrat.

          1. Yeah, it’s not that people don’t want a tyrant, they just don’t want the other side’s tyrant.

          2. I prefer to be slightly deluded and slightly happier.

            1. Fair enough, but then why are you here?

              1. It’s nice to commiserate with like minded people.

    3. He did actually say he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose any support, or something to that effect. Maybe he’s trying out his theory.

      1. I don’t know. My pet theory is that he started this as a gag and it surprised him the most when it took off. He can’t admit it was just a publicity stunt so now he’s really trying to tank on purpose and things just keep getting better despite it.

        1. “It turns out that with some clever accounting, a producer presidential candidate can make more money with a flop than with a hit!”

          1. First, “Springtime for Hitler” and now “Autumn for Trump”

            1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

        2. You know, that doesn’t strike me as too outlandish. Like maybe he started the campaign just for the hell of it, not really serious, and then when it took of he just kind of went “Hey, why not?”.

          1. Obama to a tee

          2. it isnt outlandish at all. based on, i dunno, his entire life, he’s obviously the kind of dude who likes attention. he has a bunch of money and only a few decades in which to spend it, and running for, or being, president of the us is a great way to get attention

        3. My pet theory is that he started this as a gag and it surprised him the most when it took off.

          Still harboring distrust/resentment about the IL 2004 Senate race, I honestly had similar thoughts about him being the reflection/juxtaposition to Hillary. The DNC needed a Dr. Lecter to wear the skin of the Republican Party to make Hillary look electable. Turns out, the American public will flock to see a homicidal maniac prance around in someone else’s skin.

          The fact that he seems to have revitalized/mobilized a party that was largely considered to be dying/dead seems too coincidental to me. I’m still not ready to jump on the Fifth Reich bandwagon though.

  5. So, Trump is Eric Cartman.

    1. Trump is not as smart as Cartman.

      1. I can’t understand either of them when they talk….

    2. “Screw you guys, I’m going home!”

      1. We can only hope.

    3. So, Trump wants Cheezy Poofs?

    4. No, Trump is Garrison, didn’t you watch last season??

    5. “Whateva, I’ll do what I want!”

  6. “Then there’s the matter of loyalty oaths, which Trump has been beginning his rallies with for some time, but the optics of which (including outstretched hands) have only recently begun raising eyebrows.

    The former director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Abe Foxman, told The Times of Israel, “It is a fascist gesture” and called it “about as offensive, obnoxious and disgusting as anything I thought I would ever witness in the United States of America.””

    You know, I really dislike Trump, but this sort of whiny horseshit goes a long way to explaining his popularity. Trump asked people in the audience to raise their hands and say they’d vote in the primary. In response, people begin making the absolutely ludicrous connection between raising hands and the Nazi salute.

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    1. It is reaching new heights of absurdity. And people noticing how absurd and ridiculous these attacks are is actually helping Trump’s popularity, because even the “poorly-educated” can see the dishonesty of it all, and react by wanting to defy the people pushing it.

      1. I despise Trump, but when I see asshats comparing him to figures like Hitler, I always feel like things couldn’t get any more retarded.

        1. You can never reach peak derp, Timmeh.

        2. Nancy Reagan is Hitler.

      2. It is reaching new heights of absurdity.

        Indeed, no one freaked out about loyalty oaths to Obama.

        1. “How do you pledge to serve Obama?”

          /Celebritytards 2008

          1. Oh, shit, I forgot about that. Yeah, nothing creepy about that.

          2. I was thinking of the schoolkids singing a song about Obama or whatever the hell, which was proof of public school indoctrination towards Dear Leader.

            1. Having schoolkids sing songs about how great Obama is is definitely worse than jokingly having adults who showed up to a rally pledge to vote for Trump.

              The adults freely chose to be there whereas the children are actually being indoctrinated.

              1. The “absurdity” has to do with the overreaction, right? That’s what we’re talking about.

            2. Barack Hussein Obama! mmm mmm mmm!

        2. Yes, no one at all.

        3. It was not too long ago that people were writing messages on their hands as a way of pledging allegiance to Obama.

            1. I can’t find the photo of his one campaign worker, who I think was a redhead, and he posted one of the creepiest photos in the history of creepy photos on social media of him with some sort of Obama-pledge-hand-message.

              1. I think the photo was scrubbed from the net, because it is supposed to show up in that blog post. And in the follow-up post by Nick.

                That’s right: two posts about how creepy Obama’s campaign was with that strategy, with one of them by Nick “Appletini” Gillespie. But it really makes you wonder what these double standards tell you about Reason.

    2. are these people not adopting pretty much the same pose that people take when being sworn into testify or being naturalized as citizens?

      1. NO! They’re Nazis, NAZIS!!!!11!!!!!!!

    3. I think he knows the optics and does it purposely to troll the Pearl clutchers.

      The media looks like idiots, and Trump wins again!

    4. Not to mention Abe Foxman is such a turd himself. I kind of think of him as like a Jewish Al Sharpton: when I see someone take him seriously, I know who I shouldn’t take seriously.

  7. Rico called out by Gawker:

    http://gawker.com/the-federal-…..1763499600

    The grant seems to have funded the professor Mark Carey’s entire body of research on glaciers. It was awarded in 2013, three years before the publication of the gender paper. Since then, his research has also focused on “the formation of glaciology and theories of ice dynamics,” “the establishment of theories about catastrophic glacial lake megafloods,” “glacier retreat and hydrology,” and a bunch of other stuff neither you nor I understand.

    1. Maybe the Gawker writer doesn’t understand Hydrology, but anyone with a 6th-grade education does.

      1. Umm. I don’t know about that. It’s kind of a big subject, even if a lot of it can be summarized by “water flows down hill”.

        1. Then evaporates, then rains, then flows downhill again. Of course it’s a big subject, but that doesn’t mean that it should be left to our betters in academics to discuss it exclusively while the rest of us just shut up and pay the taxes that fund their grants.

          1. Yes, absolutely.

    2. From the article:

      Did Mark Carey write a silly paper about gender and glaciers? Maybe, maybe not?maybe the paper is good, what do I know??he certainly seems like a pretty smart guy!

      The words of our academic betters are beyond questioning. Who are we mere mortals to judge whether or not the intersectionality of critical gender theory and glaciation is a worthy academic pursuit? Shut up, sit down and accept the truth that you can never discern for yourself.

      1. Mark Carey is a pretty smart guy, according to Mark Carey! Therefore we cannot question him!

        -Gawker

      2. I wonder if people are unconsciously aping Trump’s speaking style.

        1. Oh God….that is horrible. Good catch.

      3. “Did Mark Carey write a silly paper about gender and glaciers? Maybe, maybe not?maybe the paper is good, what do I know??he certainly seems like a pretty smart guy!”

        I can’t bother doing any actual research on the subject because I’m a fucking idiot and am proud of it.

      4. Holy shit it actually says that.

      5. “Did Carl Schmitt write a silly paper about dicatatorship? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the paper was good, what do I know-he seems like a pretty smart guy?”
        Seriously, how the fuck does someone assume that giving someone money is the default position, and we actually have to positively prove the guy writing it is out of his mind for us to get our money back?

    3. Also, he didn’t call out Rico, he called out somebody from the Free Beacon for tying the entire grant amount to the one stupid paper, when in reality the grant funded several stupid papers.

      1. Reason subsequently picked it up, and, as is their Libertarian wont, mocked the study for being financed by a National Science Foundation grant. “This University of Oregon Study on Feminizing Glaciers Might Make You Root for Trump,” the headline read.

        1. I thought they mocked it for being obviously full of shit. Now, there’s the distaste that we’re forced to fund bullshit with our tax dollars, that’s where the “wont” comes in.

        2. But Rico never said the entire grant funded the paper, And Gawker even admits it:

          So far, so good. The paper is real, and it was really funded by a federal grant. Most importantly, the paper’s contents seem to deliver on the delirious promise of its title.

          He excuses the Reason post, sort of. He at least hand-waves away the fact that the grant did go toward funding this navel-gazing piece of shit. But he acknowledges that the article he based his headline on was the Free Beacon one.

    4. “All of this adds up to a perfectly acceptable Republican blog post”

      OH BUSTED

      My god, i can imagine Robby losing sleep over that line. He’ll wake up and see a single hair on his pillow and scream so loud that the an entire block of car-alarms go off.

      So, the federal govt gave so much money to the moron that he was reduced to publishing bullshit gender-studies glaciology work. Gawker celebrates this as evidence of the great wisdom of our Federal Overseers.

    5. And Gawker being Gawker, it takes literally 4 comments for the discussion to arrive at “we don’t spend enough on researching glacier-gender theory because JOBS!”

      1. A lot of people, I guess, don’t realize that 50%+ of most research grants goes directly to the institution for such things as keeping the lights on and paying people like me (tech support). So best case scenario is that guy actually saw $206k. Even if it’s just a 3-year grant, that’s $68k/year. So yeah, that funds an RA or post-doc (probably not even full time) and some travel.

        As someone who has worked in academic support for over a decade, it super pisses me off when people don’t realize what that grant money actually pays for. Here’s a clue: IT PAYS FOR PEOPLE’S JERBS. You want to keep the unemployment rate in places like my city (two R1 universities, several smaller institutions of higher education, a massive medical center) low? Keep those federal research dollars flowing because literally it’s what has paid for my entire life (my dad is a professor as well) and the lives of most people I know. We’re just normal middle class folks with a 2 BR cape cod and a little vegetable garden and one (1) kid and a picket fence, and our livlihoods and the livlihoods of hundreds of thousands of other normal folks in my city absolutely depend on this kind of money.

        1. “As someone who has worked in academic support for over a decade, it super pisses me off when people don’t realize what that grant money actually pays for. Here’s a clue: IT PAYS FOR PEOPLE’S JERBS. You want to keep the unemployment rate in places like my city (two R1 universities, several smaller institutions of higher education, a massive medical center) low? Keep those federal research dollars flowing because literally it’s what has paid for my entire life (my dad is a professor as well) and the lives of most people I know.”

          If we just spent 900 trillion dollars on research grants, everyone would be rich.

          1. yeah, he appears to have missed the lecture on self-awareness. And virtually anything having to do with economics. Moar broken windowz.

        2. Even to a fellow resident of the Ivory Tower, like me, the tone deafness of that comment is astounding.

          1. The University “Department of Digging Holes and Refilling Them” is clearly under-staffed

            1. If they’re under-staffed, how are the holes getting filled?

              /Can I get my gender-studies diploma now?

        3. They actually wrote “jerbs.” Srsly?

        4. I like how this guy just glided right on past the entire question of whether or not something is actually worth stealing someone else’s money in order to pay for it.

          1. Because the answer to that question is so obvious to them that it’s not worth pondering. There’s virtually nothing they wouldn’t have a third party extort, kidnap or murder you to pay for.

        5. I’m just happy you knew the comment I was talking about.

    6. Gawker comment boards are amazing:

      1111111111111222222222222222222
      Keith Welch
      3/08/16 10:36am
      This is my theory about why people get so worked up about the national debt. If I told you I make $100,000 and bought a house with a $100,000 mortgage, absolutely no one would call me reckless. But so many people want us to run the US like a household budget, and get freaked out that we have debt that’s a little more than 100% of one year of GDP (and that ignores the value of our “house” ? which is in the trillions when you look at what the government owns, and also ignores that this mortgage is roughly 0% interest and that we can print more money when we need to to pay our bills). But because all of the numbers involved have 12 zeroes, people that barely passed high school math get freaked the fuck out over it.

      Yall, the government can just print more money! There are no possible consequences to that! And the debt is only 104% of GDP, don’t worry about it!

      1. that ignores the value of our “house”

        yeah! if you remember that the government can just *confiscate everything*, it really doesn’t seem like much at all!

      2. If the debt was 100% of annual fed tax revenue instead of 100% of gdp, it wouldnt be a big deal.

        1. Debt at 5x annual income is a bad sign for a household.

          1. Thirdly, 100% of assets is different than 100% of income. Having a 105% mortgage is bad, as the housing crisis showed.

      3. we can print more money when we need to to pay our bills

        Oh, dear God! “We’re not broke, we have plenty of checks left!”

      4. when you look at what the government owns,

        Well. He does have a point there.

  8. Is he “demanding” loyalty or just asking for it?

    1. Uh, does it really matter?

      1. Sometimes I demand things of my wife….then she tells me “you are asking for it”!

        /Catskills comedian

        1. What do you call a sleeping bull?

          A bulldozer!

          1. *Tips veal, tries waitress*

      2. Seems like a pretty important distinction to me.

        1. Asking for people to pledge their loyalty to you is a creepy fucking thing to do.

          1. “Asking for people to pledge their loyalty to you is a creepy fucking thing to do.”

            I won’t debate what is and isn’t creepy, you can be the expert there. The point is that asking people isn’t fascistic, unlike demanding it.

          2. It’s easier than earning it. And Trump’s “career” has shown he fucking loves him some shortcuts.

            1. Look, his fingers are too stubby to do it the long way, okay?

          3. He’s asking them to pledge to go out and vote in the primary for him, not to be his vassal.

            All this hysterical pants shitting over Trump is really starting to egg me on to troll the pants shitters. I can see how Trump likes it.

  9. Who is this Donald Trump fellow? And how does the Reason staff feel that his candidacy? Worse than Hitler?

  10. Trump, it seems, is running against the legacy media as much as anything. Or more precisely he’s using the history of the MSM talking down to uneducated whites to score political points, and doing so very effectively.

  11. Few people in the world can like as well as a good photograph.

    The man asks people to raise their right hands and make a pledge.

    Some goofball in the back fully extends his/her hand while making the “pick me, pick me” look on his or her face.

    The photographers snaps a photo from the right angle and we have evidence of a modern Nazi ceremony.

    Fuck this election and everyone involved.

    1. And fuck my typing skills: Few people in the world can likelie as well as a good photographer.

    2. I’ve seen more than one video of this happening. It ain’t the angle.

      1. But it’s easier to blame the MSM for being mean bullies picking on the paragon of virtue that is Donald Trump than it is to actually explain this shit.

  12. God, Trump is not even Secret Hitler anymore, is he? Who has the bullet?

    Trigger Warning: if you play the video, you may hate it as it has nerds shouting “Hitler!” at each other.

  13. I wonder how many leftists who hate Trump realize a lot of the way his supporters treat him is the way a lot of them responded to Obama.

    1. The similarities are eery. If only the GOP had someone running who had been patiently waiting his turn for a few years and was related to a former President…

    2. I’m guessing “infinitesimal”.

  14. “In the interest of context, this is what passes for light-hearted humor from Trump. As creepy as the whole enterprise is, he’s clearly joking when he says “bad things happen” and even while administering the oath it’s done with a loosey-goosey mock-seriousness. ”

    Yes. It is clearly a joke. He is joking and people decided to compare his joke to a fascist Nazi rally.

    People claim to hate these robotic presidential candidates, but the instant you start joking around on the trail, people sift through your jokes for non-existent crypto-fascist tendencies.

    1. You’re right that there’s nothing crypto- about Trump’s fascist tendencies.

      1. Very soon all Americans who don’t wear hairpieces will be shipped in cattle cars to Trump casinos all over the country to be worked to death as Trump launches a surprise invasion on Mexico, and a jokey pledge proves it.

    2. Remember the outrage when Obama jokingly threatened to drone-kill boys trying to date his daughters.

      And, yes, I understand that saying “what about X” is kind of lame but the inconsistencies get tiresome.

      1. Enough inconsistencies that point always in one direction makes you kinda wonder about why, don’t they.

        Reason is entitled to its double standards, no question about that.

        And I’m entitled to wonder just what those double standards tell me about Reason.

        1. Oh for fuck’s sake. What inconsistency in this case? Reason did not laugh with Obama. Not even a newer, super-hip writer excuses drone jokes, even if they are written and delivered by professional joke-makers.

          1. OMG ONE POST, NOT MULTIPLE POST EVERY DAY FOR DAYS ABOUT HOW TERRIBLE OBAMA IS??? POINT PROVED

            1. Actually, that is exactly what proves the criticism of Reason’s coverage is justified. Well spotted, Nikki.

            2. Really? You’re telling me there’s only one Reason post on how bad Obama is?

      2. Yes, I do remember that outrage.

        …Oh, I’m sorry, you said that as if we’re all supposed to believe no one gave him shit for it. Right, right. Carry on.

  15. I think maybe superimposing the Trump-rally photos with pictures of death camps and mass-graves might help

    1. You know who else…wait just a moment?!

  16. It is important that we in the People’s Republic of Trumpania present a unified front against the running dog lackeys of the Establishment. Deviationists will be eliminated and their bodies used as fertilizer to grow food for the Trumpanian Army of the Holy Tower. You will join us in one way or another.

    1. Used as fertilizer, you say?

      As if run through some large machine?

      I’m in!

      Vote Woodchipper 2016!

  17. that was the rally with Mohawk and his buddies in the background acting weird, possibly coordinating protesters. they got escorted out by Secret Service and troopers.

  18. I pledge allegiance, to the flag up there flapping in the wind, the beautiful flag, of America. And to the government, the republic or whatever, for which it stands all for one nation – only one nation – under God, which cannot be divided, which will not be divided! And with liberty and justice for all, and I’m talking everyone, you know?

    1. Hey! It”s the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance, as it was written in the Declaration of Independence.

  19. No doubt Hillary’s rallies are totally open and not all all staged.

    1. Non sequitur.

      1. No, that’s not at all a non sequitur. They are both running for President and both have rallies. HRC’s rally’s might be just awesome, but it would be a better article if the author had compared and contrasted the various candidates.

        1. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t know that was how the comment was intended. So it’s a Tu Quoque, not a non sequitur.

  20. I’m still not entirely sure he isn’t trolling America.

    1. He is, it just also happens to be a successful technique for running for president, somehow.

    2. ^This. Hilarity ensued.

      1. I read that as “Hillary ensured”. Sadly it probably works both ways.

        1. *ensued

          goddammit

  21. Hostility to the press is manifested by the construction of gated pens, which effectively prevent reporters from actually speaking to the people in attendance.

    But Trump’s aides — and more recently Secret Service agents ? have long worked to prevent members of the media from exiting press pens to document protests and scuffles while Trump speaks.

    A couple of thoughts:

    (1) Given the blatant, rabid hostility of the press to Trump, how is this a surprise, and how is it not good campaign management? Especially in light of the well-documented attempts to false-flag Trump supporters and disrupt his events? From Trump’s perspective, both the protestors and the press are apparatchiks are engaged in joint campaign to destroy his campaign. Why not try to prevent that?

    (2) Are Trump’s practices any worse than Hillary’s? She pens reporters, refuses to allow them out of their pens, imposes restrictions on when and how she is photographed, on and on. But somehow that doesn’t rate an article. Why not?

    1. Given the blatant, rabid hostility of the press to Trump

      Yeah, I bet none of them are shopping with his Gucci discount anymore.

    2. Why are people so mean to Donald Trump? What did he ever do to them?!

      1. To be fair, just due to lack of experience, Trump is probably the most innocent of all the candidates.

        1. Innocent? Why, because he’s just been a buyer of influence rather than a seller? He’s worked really hard to be a seller before, he’s actually campaigned for office more times than Hillary.

          1. “Innocent?”

            No, “most innocent”

            “Why, because he’s just been a buyer of influence rather than a seller? He’s worked really hard to be a seller before, he’s actually campaigned for office more times than Hillary.”

            Because he hasn’t been responsible for any bombings. Campaigning means absolutely nothing.

      2. Why can’t the press give this guy a fair shake, just because he ejects them from the building or makes fun of their physical disabilities?

        1. They seem to be able to when other candidates do pretty much the same things, so its a legit question.

          1. How many other candidates tweet that reporters are a “disgrace” after a critical article?

            How many other candidates mock reporters’ physical disabilities?

            1. How many other candidates tweet that reporters are a “disgrace” after a critical article?

              I’d guess, being generously conservative, maybe 45% of national politicians have said something not too nice about a journalist that wrote an article they didn’t like.

              How many other candidates mock reporters’ physical disabilities?

              I’d guess less than 1%. Joe Biden once asked a guy in a wheelchair to stand up, then realizing that he was paraplegic, told him that he was making everyone else stand up now. That was gaffe comedy gold. Supposedly Trump didn’t know the guy was disabled, much like Uncle Joe.

              1. I’d guess, being generously conservative, maybe 45% of national politicians have said something not too nice about a journalist that wrote an article they didn’t like.

                Which is totally similar to publicly tweeting personal criticisms to millions of followers.

                I’d guess less than 1%. Joe Biden once asked a guy in a wheelchair to stand up, then realizing that he was paraplegic, told him that he was making everyone else stand up now. That was gaffe comedy gold. Supposedly Trump didn’t know the guy was disabled, much like Uncle Joe.

                Yeah, I don’t believe that for a second. Because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have waved his arms around like he did.

                1. I’ve read where this guy had interviewed Trump numerous times over the years.

                  Trump knew.

              2. Supposedly Trump didn’t know the guy was disabled, much like Uncle Joe.

                Really, who knows? I think there is good reason to be skeptical of the media at this point.

            2. Ejects from the building?

              Would locked in a closet suffice?

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..uests.html

              How about just flat banning the press? Effectively, ejecting them all from the building.

              http://trailblazersblog.dallas…..sday.html/

              Or holding closed events in foreign countries?

              http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo…..-in-mexico

              If you think tweets and distasteful jokes are worse than these rather common practices, I would have to disagree.

              1. But it’s pretty commonly accepted here than Clinton is worse than Nicole. Trump somehow still seems to have an absurd level of support.

    3. (2) Are Trump’s practices any worse than Hillary’s? She pens reporters, refuses to allow them out of their pens, imposes restrictions on when and how she is photographed, on and on. But somehow that doesn’t rate an article. Why not?

      Because those reporters want to be in the Hillary pen during her muscular speeches.

    4. @2
      Eh, Hilary’s animosty with the press has been known, and reported on, for years (decades?). If you don’t know that Hilary and the press don’t get along by now, I don’t think a new article is gonna do much.

      That said, I don’t know of any cases where Hilary has gotten so *personal* in her feuds with the press. Trump had his whole war with Fox News, in which he lobbed a *lot* of personal attacks at Megan Kelly, publicly mocked a disabled reporter, and so-on.

      So sure, Hilary doesn’t *like* the press. But Trump makes it *personal*.

      1. The press also tends to support Hillary, so there is that.

    5. Hillary is about as awful, but we expected that. Trump the movement is the disturbing part. We already knew what kind of asshole the man is.

      Trump can do what he wants (and the media can say what they want about it), but I do have a big problem with the Secret service being involved in managing his crowds. I don’t think that candidates should be given SS protection at all (security is just another campaign expense, do they have to pay for the SS protection, or is it free?). But if they are, it should be to keep them from getting shot, not to help them manage their campaign events.

      1. But when you report exclusively on Trump’s awfulness, and rarely if ever on Hillary’s, well, you can see how that might make people suspect your motives.

        1. And if you think that’s what’s happening, well, you can see how that might make people suspect your selective memory.

        2. Maybe it’s just me. But we’ve been exposed to Hillary’s awfulness for so long that it just doesn’t seem like news anymore. Of course, Trump doesn’t either at this point. But it was new for a while.

  22. Has anyone dubbed the Downfall scene to have Hitler ranting about being compared to Trump

    1. I’m sure there will be soon.

  23. I don’t know… the press doesn’t seem to have a problem with calling their area a “pen,” so it’s not terribly shocking when it is treated like… a pen.

    Baa.

  24. It was a kind of fun trick back in the 80s and 90s to snap pictures of Republican presidents waving at the crowd and then display those photos in the Nazi salute context.

  25. Why are we pretending GWB didn’t do the loyalty oath thing either? Or FDR?

  26. So, can we call Trump Bob Roberts?

    1. Seems like he’s borrowing a page from Bill McCartney.

        1. Wings had a song against elitism:

          You’d think some people
          would have had enough of silly love songs
          I look around me
          and I see it isn’t so

          Some people want to fill the world
          with silly love songs
          And what’s wrong with that?
          I’d like to know
          ’cause here I go–again.

  27. “Donald Trump makes members of his Orlando crowd raise their right hands and swear to vote in the primary.”

    Oh my God, it’s the Nuremberg Rally all over again!

    Actually, reading this piece is more likely to make marginal Trump voters go full retard Trump than any right hand lifting, blood oath.

    The only thing creepier than Trump rallies are the way people in the press react to them.

    I’ve heard that if you followed some of these Trump people home, you’d catch them making their children pray to Jesus!!!

    1. The only conclusion I can draw is that the press, including Reason, is going just as insane as the rest of the country.

      OMG, Trump does things that other candidates have done in the past, and are doing presently. That proves he is uniquely terrible!

      Given that a big part of Trump’s schtick is that the media and the establishment have lost touch with the country and are wholly engaged in pushing their own agendas, publishing these articles is kinda like when some Islamonutter decides to protest the claim that Islamists are terrorists by blowing up a building.

      Way to prove the other guy’s point.

      1. It does seem to be a common weirdness among journalists:

        1) Democracy is something the elite does to peasants.

        2) The purpose of journalism is to prime the peasants.

        They may disagree about what the peasants should be primed to do, but priming the peasants is what it’s all about.

        And the idea that everyday people should be denigrated for their personal preferences really is just as bad or worse than what Trump wants to do. Trump is wrong on the facts about free trade and immigration, how to fix our problems, etc.

        Denigrating everyday people for their own judgement, for trusting in their own qualitative preferences, etc. strikes at the very heart of libertarianism. A world in which people are free to make choices for themselves is a world in which everyday people trust their own judgement. It’s not a world where elitist journalists successfully bully everyday people into submission by ridiculing their plebeian tastes.

        And everywhere I see Trump support, that’s what I see–people sick of being made to feel like they’re supposed to be ashamed of being typical Americans.

        1. Denigrating everyday people for their own judgement, for trusting in their own qualitative preferences, etc. strikes at the very heart of libertarianism.

          You’d be right, except we’re mostly denigrating their “qualitative preferences” about how and by whom coercive power should be wielded over other private persons. If a yearning for authoritarianism is a defining trait of “typical Americans”, then, well, they should be ashamed.

          1. “You’d be right, except we’re mostly denigrating their “qualitative preferences” about how and by whom coercive power should be wielded over other private persons.”

            “We” as in “you and me” may be criticizing Trump, specifically, for his authoritarian and anti-capitalist solutions.

            But read this piece again, Dalmia’s piece earlier today, as well as some others over the past week, and then tell me that a blue collar Trump supporter shouldn’t take this stuff personally.

            If Reagan were brand new and running against Trump today, he’d be leading these people talking about their problems and how free enterprise, economic growth, and opportunity would solve them.

            In other words, the problem isn’t the people themselves. It’s the bill of goods they’re being sold–and you don’t fix that by denigrating these people and their problems.

            1. Reagan was a right-winger though.

              1. What do you mean by right wing?

                I wish Reagan had been even more capitalist.

                If he’d been as capitalist as his campaign, that would have been great.

                Reagan campaigned on a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

                Trump, on the other hand, is running against free trade and promising to deport the hell out of everybody.

                The white, blue collar constituency is the same–so let’s not blame them. It’s the candidates and their campaigns that are different. Disaffected, blue collar, whites would be just as white, blue collar, and disaffected if Trump were preaching free trade rather than running against it.

                1. It was Snark. The guy who at least paid lip-service to liberty, more immigration and getting the government off the backs of the people was… ‘right wing’. You know, like Barry Goldwater.

        2. “Denigrating everyday people for their own judgement, for trusting in their own qualitative preferences, etc. strikes at the very heart of libertarianism.”
          … aren’t you denigrating the judgement of journalists? Or are journalists an acceptable target?

          I mean, this whole standard just seems really weird. If you can’t denigrate people’s judgement, then how do you work to persuade them that their judgement is, in fact, bad?

          1. Oh, you can denigrate some people’s judgment. Just not everyday people’s judgment.

          2. Personally, I criticizing people for exercising poor professional judgment, like journalists, is different from denigrating large swathes of your fellow citizens as bad people for having different political opinions.

            Obviously, YMMV.

            1. Yeah, people who think they should be able to enslave their neighbors are totally not bad people. That’s just a political opinion.

            2. “Statist”
              “Fuck off slaver”
              “Taxes are theft”
              “Your commonly held ideas about the acceptability of broadly applicable non-discrimination laws are a violation of what America stands for”

              You really think that “denigrating large swaths of your fellow citizens as bad people for having different political opinions” isn’t a common libertarian/Libertarian hobby?

              I mean, it’s nothing special or unique to libertarians/Libertarians. It’s a very *human* hobby. But it’s weird to pretend that libertarians/Libertarians are somehow super-human in this regard.

              1. It’s one thing to tell people to fuck off because they’re advocating some authoritarian policy.

                Another to denigrate them for being blue collar, because they’re Christian, their aesthetic preferences, they’re patriotic, their ability to make judgments for themselves, etc.

                1. Except that when you “tell people to fuck off because they’re advocating some authoritarian policy”, you *are* denigrating them for “their ability to make judgements for themselves”. Fact is, their judgement led them to support the “authoritarian policy”.

                  1. No. I’m denigrating the judgement they made–not their ability to make qualitative judgments for themselves.

                    In fact, I may be denigrating the judgement they made specifically because they’re denigrating their own ability to make qualitative judgments for themselves.

                    Tell me you’re willing to sacrifice your standard of living to save the polar bears because you care more about polar bears than you do about your own standard of living, and I won’t criticize your ability to make qualitative judgments for yourself (although I may criticize you if you want to force your qualitative judgments on me).

                    Tell me you’re willing to sacrifice your own standard of living to save the polar bears–because that’s what scientists say you should do–and I very well may denigrate you for denigrating your own ability to make qualitative judgments for yourself. No scientist has more authority on your own qualitative judgments than you do, and respect for your right to make those judgments (and choices) for yourself is what libertarianism is all about.

                    1. Right… so you consistently denigrate the *result* of their judgement, year after year, on issue after issue, but you’d *never* dare to denigrate the judgement itself?

                      Just who do you think is going to be persuaded by that? Hint: not this guy.

                    2. I’m starting to suspect you might be Tulpa.

          3. Oh, I think journalists should be free to make choices for themselves, too.

            I also think I should be free to criticize them for their choices.

            And if f libertarian journalists want to alienate the people we need to make the world more libertarian, then they should absolutely denigrate everyday Americans and their ability to make qualitative judgments for themselves.

      2. Given that a big part of Trump’s schtick is that the media and the establishment have lost touch with the country and are wholly engaged in pushing their own agendas, publishing these articles is kinda like when some Islamonutter decides to protest the claim that Islamists are terrorists by blowing up a building.

        That’s true, I suppose. But on the other hand, what is the media going to do, not report on Trump? It is the big political story right now. It’s sort of like when people say, after some mass murder event, that people shouldn’t give the killers so much attention. That’s a great idea. But it’s just not going to happen. Trump’s gonna Trump and the media’s gonna media.

        1. But on the other hand, what is the media going to do, not report on Trump?

          Not at all. They could try reporting on him like sane, rational human beings. Worth a try, anyway.

          1. Well, now you’re just being silly. How would they even know how sane, rational human beings would report on anything?

          2. Well that’s just crazy talk!

    2. Want to hear something REALLY scary, Ken? Some Trump supporters have GUNS in their homes. GUNS. The rednecks have won. I’m just hoping they’ll spare my local Starbucks when the race war starts and the lynchings commence in earnest. I need my organic coffee.

      /Hipster from DC.

      1. We’re seeing the same kind of treatment of these people–from our side.

        The Republicans are treating Trump supporters the way Democrats used to talk about the Tea Party.

        This is the same demographic that put Reagan in the White House. Reagan didn’t treat these people with contempt. He turned them on to capitalism, economic growth, the culture of opportunity, etc.

        And speaking of opportunities, if the Republicans don’t wise up, they’re going to blow this one. All these disaffected, blue collar voters were the Democratic Party’s base. They are prime candidates to be co-opted for a generation by way of Trump. And that doesn’t mean Trump has to win. It just means now the GOP has a chance to speak to these people and their problems like GOP never could before–while the progressives malign the Democratic Pary’s base for being white, racist, uneducated, and stupid.

        For goodness sake, denounce the Democrats and progressives for their elitism against the blue collar, middle class. Don’t join in with the progressive chorus in denigrating them!

        We libertarians have the same opportunity. We can denigrate these people for being typical Americans, or we can offer our solutions to their problems.

        1. If Republicans can’t align with blue collar workers they are fucked forever. They will never win a presidential election again.

          Trump is doing what they need. If one of the top men could have pulled it off Trump wouldn’t be here.

    3. I’ll ask again – don’t people raise their right hand prior to testifying in court, in taking the oath of virtually any elected office at any level, and in becoming naturalized citizens?

      Trump has plenty to dislike without making up shit.

      1. This was my point in last week’s Trumpapalooza.

    4. This goes back to my 3d chess question about making marginal Trump supporters feel maligned, solidifying their support, thrusting Trump into the nomination and ultimately losing to Hillary.

      1. You mean you had a question about whether that was Trump’s plan?

    5. I’ve heard that if you followed some of these Trump people home, you’d catch them making their children pray to Jesus!!!

      That does sound pretty creepy.

      1. It really shouldn’t.

          1. Urge to kill rising…

        1. Surah Al-Baqara, ayah 256.

        2. Making them do it is pretty creepy.

          1. “Now I lay me down to sleep . . . God bless Grandma and Grandpa and my cat Mr. Whiskers” is creepy?

            Have you seen Silence of the Lambs?

            1. Like Zeb said, making them do it is creepy.

              1. Um… isn’t that how religion is passed down?

                1. That’s also how I learned my “times tables”.

                2. Well, yes.

                  But should religion be passed down? Wouldn’t it be better if people decided on their metaphysical belief systems voluntarily and with more information?

                  1. voluntarily and with more information

                    That is how I was raised and how I would raise kids if I had them but I think I am in a tiny minority there.

                  2. Religion is a cultural adaptation like language. It encapsulates more than just ethics and passes them down through the culture, but it does that job, too.

                    No culture survived into the historical record without religion, and every culture throughout the historical record has used it to pass ethics down to subsequent generations.

                    Parents teaching their children religion as they have throughout 6,000 years of recorded history and, undoubtedly, thousands of years before that shouldn’t be any creepier than parents teaching their children how to read and write.

                    Whether you like the vehicle by which the ethics of your culture has been transmitted for thousands of years is up to you, but if people teaching their children the same things their great grandparents taught their grandparents is “creepy”, then I don’t understand the meaning of the word.

                    1. I’m not saying anyone should be stopped from doing anything like that. But I think that you can get good ethics across to kids without imposing your superstitions on them as well.

                      My parents were Christian. They took me to church and stuff, but never made me pray or anything like that. When it came time for confirmation class, I said it wasn’t for me, and that was fine. There are a lot of good ethics in Christianity and I think that I have absorbed those well without having any superstition or goofy metaphysics shoved down my throat.

                    2. Well, I don’t think your parents taking you to church is creepy. And if they’d taught you to pray before bed, I don’t think that would have been any creepier than making you clean your room.

                      I think the press generally finds Trump’s supporters creepy, and I think they make completely uncreepy things seem creepy. And I think a lot of that is attributable to simple elitism.

                    3. No culture survived into the historical record without religion

                      Which might mean that religion helps them survive. Or it might just mean that people universally like to make up stories to explain what they see in the world around them and why their traditions are the correct ones.

  28. Trump is working to destroy the Republican Party.

    Good.

    ================

    One of his attractions is how he treats the press. Keeping them in a cage – good optics.

  29. You know people, when Hitler got all worked up during his speeches etc, it was an act? I mean, right after coming off the balcony or the dais, out of sight, he’d be laughing and smirking about it all? He was a showman.

    Just pointing it out, Make of it what you want.

    The biggest difference between Trump and Hitler is that Hitler, after the failures in 1922, figured out how to build the edifice that would take over – the Gau-system. Trump doesn’t have that, nor do I really think an equivalent will gel around his administration with any speed to have the same effect. That’s the saving grace – to some extent. But what that means is we’ll have the bureaucracy off on its own doing whatever it pleases and Trump will just use whatever Power he can get to screw whoever he wants.

    Regardless, it’s simply INSANE the level that we have fallen to in this country. If a gun was put to my head that I HAD to vote for a “major” candidate, I’d vote for Cruz. And that’s no endorsement whatsoever.

    1. If a gun was put to my head that I HAD to vote for a “major” candidate,

      I’d take my chances with the bullet.

      1. I’d take my chances with the bullet.

        We call this option “democracy”.

    2. Whadda ya mean “we *will* have the bureaucracy off on its own doing whatever it pleases…”? I’m reasonably certain we’re already there and have been there for some time. And we’ve already got that same bureaucracy doing their version of “working towards the Fuhrer” with the IRS scandal, etc. They don’t have to get instructions to target right-wingers, they know that’s what will please their overlords so they take the initiative. The rhetoric can get way overheated on Herr Trump and he’s from the wrong side of the political spectrum to bend the bureaucracy to his will, but that apparatus is already there waiting to be used more effectively.

  30. I have no love for Trump. But FFS, this is pants-shitting of the first order. This is almost as bad as Reich’s little essay the other day on how all modern fascists (as if he really understands the meaning of the word) do these 7 things. Oh and so does Trump.

    Asking for people who are already at a rally, to promise to vote for him in the primary, even if the weather is awful, may seem a little cultish or creepy. But, it is hardly “Making people pledge their loyalty to him.”

    And Hilary Clinton would NEVER put journalists into a small area and not let them have access to her or the folks at the event.

    And if a Secret Service agent inapropriately assaulted a Time reporter (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn’t we be blaming THE SECRET SERVICE?? Or does Trump spew out orders and they follow them. (I guess another way that he is a “fascist”, the government just follows his orders!)

  31. Oh and BTW, what about the “I pledge to Barack Obama” video and radio segments that were aired right after he actually became POTUS. But he isn’t a fascist because he cares, and will of the people, and hope and change, and stuff.

    1. But FFS, this is pants-shitting of the first order.

    2. Who says Obama isn’t a fascist? OK, plenty of people say that. But I say he is.

      1. No president or presidential candidate was ever compared to Hitler before Trump. The reactions to Trump are a new level of ridiculous.

        1. I heard plenty of people compare GW Bush to Hitler.

  32. OT: This is kind of funny.

    Note also the top comment and how clueless Bernie supporters are. That guy thinks voluntary charity is great…so he’s voting for Sanders.

    1. I’ve noticed a larger trend of re-defining socialism as being “nice” and completely ignoring ideas of ownership and production. I think Jason Brennan remarked that a student of GA Cohen’s considered an An-Cap society socialist because the people were charitable.

    2. He will be shocked, shocked! to discover Bernie’s programs are not voluntary.

  33. Regardless, it’s simply INSANE the level that we have fallen to in this country.

    And through it all, the partisans just double down on support for the worst set of candidates in a long time.

    I work with partisan Democrats, mostly. When I broke my own rule and got involved in a political conversation the other day, I made the seemingly unexceptional observation that Hillary has committed no telling how many felonies but wasn’t going to be indicted and would likely get away scot-free.

    The response was “Well, she didn’t mean to send classified info over her email system.” I said that didn’t matter, it was a strict liability crime, and regardless of that she had also attempted to wipe her server while it was under multiple federal indictments.

    The response was, and I quote “I don’t want to hear about it.” They literally don’t want any facts presented to them that disrupt their partisan narratives. And these are intelligent, successful, sophisticated people.

    1. A few weeks back an econtalk guest mentioned discussing min wage hike with a friend. Hexwas saying it had to be paid for: either loss of jobs, or hours, or cut in benefits, or increase in prices, or closing businesses, or less profits or some combination of those. The friend replied, “I dont want to think about it that way.”

    2. The response was, and I quote “I don’t want to hear about it.” They literally don’t want any facts presented to them that disrupt their partisan narratives. And these are intelligent, successful, sophisticated people.

      And they vote!

      1. They vote, and they donate, and they are active supporters of Hillary Clinton. About 90% because she’s a (D), and about 10% because she has a vagina.

        What astonishes is that these women (and they are women) have nothing but disdain for Martha McSally, who should push every one of their feminist buttons SO HARD. Smart, successful, determined woman who has succeeded entirely on her own, etc. But they don’t like her, because she has an (R), not a (D).

        1. Any woman with an (R) is not a real woman!!11!!!!!

  34. Jeeze. All this hysteria. Lovely.

    I’m supporting Trump for the entertainment value alone. I’m sure he is counting on that.

    Illinois has a primary coming up. I can hardly wait. I await the results from Downers Grove.

    1. Nothing is quite as entertaining as mobs worshipping violence!

        1. Smrt power at its most dumbest!

      1. Nothing is quite as entertaining as mobs worshipping violence!

        I worry about Memorial Day parades. Some of those people….

        1. Yes, Memorial Day parades are sick.

  35. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tx.) … would never ask his supporters to “pledge loyalty to him like subjects to a king.”

    Says the subject of Elizabeth II.

  36. Didn’t Upton Sinclair say something about fascism coming to America carrying a flag and wearing a stupid hat?

    1. This country will never get the overt, clownish fascism that we’re continuously warned about. No, we’ll get fascism with a smile and plenty of social programs, leaving the factories in the owners’ hands, but the results of production will be directed by a powerful federal leadership.

      1. So really, fascism will come to America… uh, a hundred or so years ago?

        1. I mean, is it a surprise to you that people like… oh, I dunno, Tony keep demanding the corporations direct their profit-making towards a public good, entirely decided and directed by governmental institutions which are appointed by democratically elected leaders?

          1. the conceit that they’re being revolutionary is probably my least favorite thing about communists (self proclaimed and otherwise). youre not the first person in history who thought some people having more stuff than other people wasnt fair, most of us just grow out of it

      2. Fascism in America will come wearing a smiley face.

    2. Two things.

      First, I think its “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”

      Second, it’s often attributed to *Lewis* Sinclair, but the citations are week and not definitive.

      1. So I should worry about Cruz?

        1. It’s a cute (and possibly accurate) saying, but no. What Lewis Sinclair may or may not have said shouldn’t give you cause to worry.

          Who you “should” worry about is between you, your conscience, your views on the role and limits of government, and your knowledge of any given candidate’s record, promises, rhetoric, and so-on.

  37. Out of the million-billion legitimate arguments opposing the despicable Donald Trump, this has to be the weakest. Let’s start with Abe Foxman, the self-appointed Head Jew In Charge. I am far, far more Jewish than Abe Foxman. My connections to the Jewish People–from the numbers of my family members murdered in the Holocaust to my very name–are just deeper than his, of this I have no doubt. Donald Trump raises his hand the way that someone does when swearing an oath, as in a court case. His followers look a little more like those videos I see of people at Pentecostal Churches. This is in no way a NAZI salute and, for fuck’s sake, it’s offensive as hell to play these idiotic gotcha games.

    Trump is transparently a moron. He does violence to the English language. He cannot thoroughly ennunciate a policy position at even an undergraduate level. He has difficulty to maintain a consistent position on any issue. He has no experience in public office, being bossed by taxpayers. The litany of offensive things that he has said is so long that they are hard to remember. He lies constantly. Etc., etc.

    But if the press doesn’t like the way they’re treated, guess what? They don’t have to cover his rallies.

    1. (cont’d)

      And that photog? Dude, it’s probably not a good idea to shout “fuck you” to a member of the ?lite Secret Service. They’re paid to be tough guys and to be good at it. (If you keep watching the video, you’ll see the paparazzi also put his hands around the neck of the SecServ guy to demonstrate what had been done to him. Insane. Brave, but insane.)

      Roughing up protestors is probably the only part of this indictment that is legitimately awful. The protestors, of course, would more precisely be called “disrupters.” That’s what passes for protest in our debased country. Dignified civil rights marchers they are not.

      Fuck you people for making me defend that human shit-stain we call Donald Trump.

      1. a member of the ?lite Secret Service. They’re paid to be tough guys and to be good at it.

        The term you’re looking for is “Praetoriani

      2. Fuck you people for making me defend that human shit-stain we call Donald Trump.

        My thoughts exactly. He has a talent for bringing out the worst in people (supporters and opponents), and we are discovering that, for too many, the worst is pretty bad indeed.

        1. He’s a douche but he pisses off all the right people.

      3. The protestors, of course, would more precisely be called “disrupters.” That’s what passes for protest in our debased country. Dignified civil rights marchers they are not.

        You’re flat wrong about that. Trump has been having completely silent protesters removed as well.

        1. These are private venues, and he can choose to eject anyone he wanted. But having said that, it’s totally undemocratic and unamerican, and unpresidential, to overreact to silent, nondisruptive protesters.

          1. Why do so many morons in the audio is the only way to disrupt an event?

            Trump should pull a Ronnie – I paid for this microphone and this room. Get out.

            1. Think that audio

        2. “”‘Trump has been having completely silent protesters removed as well.””

          Oh em gee??

          “DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) ? A man was removed from a rally where Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was speaking In Dallas Tuesday. The event was held at Mountain View College.
          Sign saying “Yes Ms. Clinton, It does make a difference!” at Clinton campaign rally in Dallas.

          [picture of sign]

          The man was holding a sign that said “Yes Ms. Clinton, It does make a difference” when he was escorted out. That sign was apparently in reference to her testimony before Congress in January of 2013 regarding the September 11 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead

          The man had earlier held up a larger sign mentioning past scandals involving the Clintons. That sign was ripped down by someone after which he then raised the smaller sign seen in the video. That smaller sign appears to have been torn off the bottom of the larger sign.”

          1. Exactly what I wrote at 3:39 – she’s within her rights to do so, but it is still un-whatever as hell.

            1. They are both within their rights. But when Trump does it, its evil. When Hillary does it, well, its understandable.

        3. Well, they are silent, until they aren’t. They may stay silent the whole time, but if he doesn’t want to take that chance, it doesn’t particularly bother me. These are his events, that he has paid for, and so he gets to say who attends.

      4. Cool story, bro.

      5. Trump’s said, over the microphone, that he’d pay the legal fees for anyone that beat up a protester, told his security to take the coats of protesters as they’re ejecting them, called attendees that kicked and punched protesters up on stage to congratulate them, and so-on.

        How many times can he encourage violence towards protesters before we believe it’s not a joke?

        1. When it starts happening? Other than his paid guards. For which he is responsible.

          1. It has happened already. That’s why he’s called attendees that kicked and punched protesters up on stage to congratulate them.

            1. I hadn’t heard that one.

              Link?

              1. Here’s one http://thinkprogress.org/polit…..c-protest/

              2. To be entirely frank, no matter the link I gave, someone would complain it was a biased source.

                So the specific event I’m referring to was the North August, SC rally in mid-February. That should be specific enough you can find sources you trust, or at least some garbled youtube videos.

  38. I posted this in the am links, but The Hitler-ification of Donald Trump is apparently real. I find it creepy when it seems like there is a media-driven concerted effort to damage someone or something.

    DISCLAIMERS: I do not support Trump, I do not want to support Trump, and I do not care to quibble about Reason’s Trump coverage.

    1. SEE HOW HIT N RUN IS CRAWLING WITH TRUMP SUPPORTERS???????? SEEE?????

      1. If someone feels the need to statement doesn’t support Trump, it means he really supports him– and I’m saying this as a Trump non-supporter.

      2. TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMP

      1. Trump made a commercial for Netanyahu in 2013. It is on YouTube.

  39. If a yearning for authoritarianism is a defining trait of “typical Americans”, then, well, they should be ashamed.

    Did you ever ask yourself, “Why are there religions?”

    1. Constantly.

    2. So that people have something other than government to swear to and make themselves feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves?

      1. Exactly. The desire to be ruled is an inherent part of humanity. My general formula:

        90% want to be ruled
        9% want to rule
        1% want to be left alone.

        Those are hard odds to overcome to get to the libertarian moment.

  40. I pledge allegiance, to the Trump,
    and the United Trump of Trump.
    And to the Trump, for which Trump Trumps.
    One Trump under Trump, Trumpity Trump.
    Trump Trumpity Trump Trumptice Trump Trump.

  41. GOP frontrunner demands loyalty oaths, hires goons to sniff out protesters, restricts press access.

    You know who else…

  42. To make a long story short: yeah, this is creepy. But creepy is no sin.

    Long story long:

    Ok, I work on a military base. Every day, at 8 o’clock, they raise a flag in front of the main administration building and play the National Anthem over the loud speakers (sadly it’s canned music. It’d be nice if they got a real trumpeter to play it live every morning.)

    If you’re outside when this happens, you’re supposed to face the flag as well as you’re able, stop what you’re doing, place the hand over the heart, and wait until it’s done before continuing with things. If you’re driving at the time you’re supposed to pull over for the duration.

    Yeah, it can be a little creepy.

    When I was a kid in elementary school we started every day with the Pledge of Allegiance. We did the full thing, stand up, hand over heart, recite the pledge.

    Yeah, in retrospect it was kinda creepy.

    I’ve served jury duty, and watched each and every witness stand up and swear their oath. Left arm straight down, right elbow pointed to the ground and right hand variously either straight up (about shoulder height) or over an appropriate book.

    Kinda creepy.

    Hell, I had to swear an oath when I took this job (again, working on military base).

    Kinda creepy.

    So yeah, the oath Trump is asking is kinda creepy. Oaths tend to be. Creepy doesn’t mean the same as “solemn” or “momentous”, but the feelings can be very similar, especially if you’re an observer, not a participant.

    1. That said, in that photo there are a lot of people holding their hands/arms really high. The oaths I’ve typically seen are either hand-over-heart, hand-over-book, or elbow pointed to the ground with hand pointed to the sky, coming out to about shoulder height. So the way they’re doing oaths in that picture (many with hands over head, some with hands at head level) looks “off” or “odd”, which is going to contribute to the “creep” factor.

      And me? I wouldn’t swear an oath to vote for/support any candidate. Even one I planned to vote for. Because I don’t think it’s appropriate for the voters to be beholden to a candidate (it should be the other way around). But other people feel differently, obviously, and have in many previous elections and will in many future elections. So while I find this “creepy”, it doesn’t mean much.

      That said, Trump’s “I didn’t know this was a problem” line? About as convincing as his “I don’t know who David Duke or the KKK is”.

  43. If the media actually reported the *real* problems with Trump, rather than this spaghetti-against-the-wall, let’s-see-if-this-one-sticks approach, then maybe the media would have a useful role to play.

    As it is, they simply serve as a useful punching bag for Trump.

    1. If everybody had just ignored him in the first place he would have dissapeared but no they had to make a big deal which only proved everyones assessment that the system is for the system and not for the people and just made him a bigger deal.

  44. Trump’s main rival for the GOP nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tx.) seemed to agree with that sentiment, saying he would only ever take an oath to the people and would never ask his supporters to “pledge loyalty to him like subjects to a king.”

    Ted would never ask for a loyalty pledge. He prefers passive-aggressive prayers implying it’s their Christian duty to be loyal to him, and that anyone supporting someone else is helping Satan destroy the country.

  45. I dont think Jack Slammy is going to like that.

    http://www.Anon-Net.tk

  46. Umm, you wanna know what’s actually creepy? Making 5-year old kids pledge allegiance to a flag.

  47. As the sort of far-left anarchist/libertarian who is practically the perfect archetype for who progressive media thinks they can count on to stop the boogeyman Trump by any means necessary, I have to say I don’t give a shit about the hand gesture.

    Trump is authoritarian for sure but this thing about the oath is soft-headed. Lame, embarassing, etc? No doubt. But no more an expression of concerning fascist undertones than Yes we Can or Si Se Puede. If Obama or Hillary had people promise to vote in a primary, at one of their rallies with hands raised in the air, and Glenn Beck started making Obama/Hillary comparisons to Hitler, progressive media would have multiple orgasms catalyzed by vocal indignancy.

  48. As the sort of far-left anarchist/libertarian who is practically the perfect archetype for who progressive media thinks they can count on to stop the boogeyman Trump by any means necessary, I have to say I don’t give a shit about the hand gesture.

    Trump is authoritarian for sure but this thing about the oath is soft-headed. Lame, embarassing, etc? No doubt. But no more an expression of concerning fascist undertones than Yes we Can or Si Se Puede. If Obama or Hillary had people promise to vote in a primary, at one of their rallies with hands raised in the air, and Glenn Beck started making Obama/Hillary comparisons to Hitler, progressive media would have multiple orgasms catalyzed by vocal indignancy.

  49. Who’d a thunk that a bazillionaire would demand the Fuhrer Oath in public by his lackeys? Is this a great country or what?

  50. They took me to church and stuff, but never made me pray or anything like that. When it came time for confirmation class, I said it wasn’t for me, and that was fine.

  51. this is no worse than when teachers made their students sing songs of praise to Obama. did everyone already forget about that.

  52. the irony of all this is that the left characterizes all republicans as Nazi’s so whats new here. he could sneeze and they would call him a Nazi.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.