Donald Trump

Serial Resignations at Breitbart News After the Michelle Fields Manhandling Incident

Fields, Ben Shapiro, and at least four others leave the conservative rabble-rousing site

|

Michelle Fields. ||| ABC News
ABC News

Last night, Michelle Fields, the Breitbart News political reporter who was reportedly manhandled at a Donald Trump press conference March 8 by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski (who claims that the "delusional" Fields made the story up, as does Trump himself), resigned from her job, saying in a brief statement: "I do not believe Breitbart News has adequately stood by me during the events of the past week and because of that I believe it is now best for us to part ways."

Part of the not-standing-by-Fields stuff included Editor at Large (and in-house counsel) Joel Pollak writing a long post concluding that the altercation "could not possibly have happened" as reported; Pollak instructing Breitbart staffers (according to internal communication obtained by Buzzfeed) to "STOP tweeting about the story. Stop speculating about the story," and (according to Fields' account to Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly), sitting on an admission/non-denial from Lewandowski that he indeed forcibly yanked the reporter away from the candidate (which Breitbart's Matthew Boyle vehemently denies). Fields has filed a criminal complaint against Lewandowski.

Michelle Fields' arm. ||| Michelle Fields
Michelle Fields

The resignations are now flying fast and furious over at Breitbart News, the conservative muckraking site founded by the late new media visionary and political provocateur Andrew Breitbart, who was a friend of mine. First to go was Kurt Bardella, who used to handle Breitbart's public relations. His account over at CNN Opinion reveals a news organization caught between its out-front pro-Trump bias and responsibilities toward its own employee:

I didn't sign up to work for Trump's de facto super PAC. Those close to me know that for weeks, I have been considering ending my relationship with Breitbart because of how uncomfortable its support of Trump's presidential campaign made me. […]

As the story unfolded, Breitbart became obsessed with uncovering any type of "evidence" that could disprove Fields' account, or at the very least, create a certain amount of reasonable doubt.

That's right.

A news organization was working to undermine one of its own reporters. For me, this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Breitbart had abandoned its own reporter and did so with the objective to protect Trump's campaign.

Fields' resignation last night coincided with that of rhetorical bombthrower Ben Shapiro, who was equally incendiary in his statement:

Andrew built his life and his career on one mission: fight the bullies. But Andrew's life mission has been betrayed. Indeed, Breitbart News, under the chairmanship of Steve Bannon, has put a stake through the heart of Andrew's legacy. In my opinion, Steve Bannon is a bully, and has sold out Andrew's mission in order to back another bully, Donald Trump; he has shaped the company into Trump's personal Pravda, to the extent that he abandoned and undercut his own reporter, Breitbart News' Michelle Fields, in order to protect Trump's bully campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski[.] […]

This is disgusting. Andrew never would have stood for it. No news outlet would stand for it.

Breitbart responded by sliming Shapiro as a disloyal career climber and "conservative gadfly" who "apparently violated virtually every clause in his employment contract during an appearance on The Kelly File," in a bizarre post under the byline of the pseudonym that Shapiro's father (who has also resigned) used when writing for the site. The post has since been taken down, and Pollak has apologized for it, saying "The article was written by me as part of an effort to make light of a significant company event, and was published as a result of a misunderstanding without going through the normal editorial channels." It's been that kind of day.

Also resigning today were National Security correspondent Jordan Schachtel and Associate Editor Jarrett Stepman, whose respective statements also paint a damning portrait of a compromised editorial operation. Schachtel:

Some of us have been fighting behind the scenes against the party-line Trump propaganda for some time, but without any success, unfortunately.

Breitbart News is no longer a journalistic enterprise, but instead, in my opinion, something resembling an unaffiliated media Super PAC for the Trump campaign. I signed my contract to work as a journalist, not as a member of the Donald J. Trump for President media network. As recent events have proven, there is no longer a point in trying to reform the company from within, so I must step aside with my dignity intact.

Stepman:

[I]n my opinion we are working with or perhaps even taking direction from a presidential campaign, which is unacceptable journalistic behavior. I believe Breitbart News is becoming less of a news site and more of a propaganda organization dedicated to the Trump campaign.

Breitbart News has also now openly embraced the "Nationalist/Populist" viewpoint, which is in direct opposition to limited-government conservatism that channels the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It is becoming impossible for conservatives like myself to continue working for the organization, which now relentlessly pushes a perspective directly at odds with my fundamental beliefs.

Either that, or The Order of the Phoenix. ||| Latashia Figueroa
Latashia Figueroa

This story provides an interesting (to journalists, anyway) and unflattering snapshot of conservative new media in 2016. I suspect that, like the alien invaders in the celebrated Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street," Donald Trump has discovered that the local populace has enough pre-existing pathology and paranoia to do the job on themselves in a moment of perceived crisis. (I wrote about the challenges, opportunities, and apparent limitations of Breitbart-derived conservative alt media in 2004 and 2009.)

For non-journalists, I would hope–though no longer expect–that one of the main takeaways is that when faced with credible accusations that his own employee physically bruised a lady-reporter, a major-party presidential front-runner reflexively accused her of making it up. That such behavior is par for the course is no less appalling.  

NEXT: Expelled Yale Basketball Captain Says Sex Was Consensual—They Spent Night Together Afterward

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. If John Nolte is going to continue to turn Breitbart into a site rivaling Kos for awfulness, the least he could do would be to take Andrew Breitbart’s name off the site.

    1. Also, I’ll bet large amounts of money that Nolte wrote the hitpiece that was taken down once people other than their sycophants learned about it.

    2. If I were Lewandowski, I would try to play it off as a case of mistaken identity. May be accuse Fields of pissing on his rug.

      1. It really ties the room together.

    3. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,
      =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

  2. I wouldn’t mind if, when Trump goes down in flames, he takes this iteration of Breitbart with him.

    1. They do give James Delingpole a platform, but yeah, probably worth it, if sidebar with “Top Articles” when I read his post is anything to go by.

      Oh, wait, Milo too. Damn, can we spin off Breibart London?

      1. No Milo is bad.

        Trump is doing one awesome thing: revealing how ugly the New Right really is. What a failure conservatism continues to be. He just can’t be president or the only alternative to Hillary.

        1. Trump has nothing to do with conservatism. That’s the one part of the criticism against him that makes any sense. He’s to the left of Herself.

          1. He is. And a large section of the ‘conservative movement’ is throwing down with him.

        2. He really isn’t though. People need to realize Milo is just the Marilyn Manson of news media. He doesn’t really support Trump categorically (as in he supports every one of his ideas), he just supports him because he is as anti-PC as it gets in the political arena, and Milo’s crusade is against SJWs and such.

        3. “No Milo is bad”

          Are you sure? SOME Milo’s are likely to be bad, just as a matter of likelihood.

  3. Man if conservatives were upset about Melissa Click saying some rude words, they must be livid about Michelle Fields being slightly accosted for trying to exercise her First Amendment rights.

    1. Does constantly looking down your nose make your eyes crossed? How many times have you broken an arm patting yourself on the back? A couple dozen I bet.

  4. No one gives a shit.

    1. The Farm does.

    2. That’s a ironic statement intended to demonstrate Karl Popper’s concept of falsification, right?

  5. OK so explain again why peaceful protests at a Trump rally are a violation of his First Amendment rights. It’s because his campaign manager could get violent?

    1. Actually it’s because they’re preventing cannabis oil from saving the lives of 50 billion cancer sufferers a year.

      1. So you are counting the mice too?

        1. We’re giving them 3g of sucralose daily as well, so there are a lot of tumors to shrink.

    2. I was all ready to get on the hate train with this one, but I watched the video and that woman was not accosted in any way. It was a big fat nothing — certainly nothing different that happens in any other media scrum or even in a crowd of people getting onto a train — and I can’t understand why people continue with this assault narrative when it clearly did not go down like that. Yes she has a couple of bruises. Some people bruise very easily.

      1. Trump might as well have beaten her himself!!!! Argle bargle

  6. Breitbart management didn’t follow one of the golden rules of running a press outlet: always always always support your reporters. Their (at best) tepid criticism of the Trump campaign and standing around while their reporter was viciously maligned in public was horrid.

    A simple apology from the Trump campaign could have probably been the end of it. But no, they decided to go the nasty route and Breitbart management played along.

    1. So Rolling Stone Magazine should have stood by Sabrina Erdely?

      1. What a stupid comparison.

        1. Why? No media company should blindly stand by their employees. There is plenty of reporters who have made up stories and part or totally

          You want this story to be true, and don’t want anyone questioning it.

          1. “Standing by your reporter” does not mean “assume your reporter is right regardless of the evidence”. It means you give them the benefit of the doubt and require significant evidence before assuming they are guilty of wrongdoing.

            If you trust your reporters so little that you reflexively side with anyone who accuses them of lying, what the heck are you employing them for in the first place?

          2. you stand by your reporter until and unless the evidence is overwhelming that your reporter is wrong. That was well beyond the case with Rolling Stone, not nearly so with the Breitbart lady.

            1. I dunno man. I watched the video and I didn’t see anyone get accosted or assaulted or anything even eyebrow-raising. Literally nothing different than anything I’ve ever seen in any other media scrum.

              1. Stop mentioning the video it does not promote the narrative. You don’t actually think any Trump detractors care about facts, do you? How will this make them feel superior?!

        2. There’s video of the incident despite your denials. She didn’t make up a story. Nor do people who talk about standing by reporters include when there is unethical or bad reporting involved. You are a bad troll account.

          1. Did you watch the video? I did, and I saw nothing resembling an assault.

          2. Can you point to the video? Because what I saw doesn’t qualify as an “assault” or even “manhandling”.

            Claiming an “assault” is a serious allegation, something that implies significant injury and a felony; if a reporter can’t back that up, their employer should drop them.

      2. New York Times should have stood by Judy Miller of Iraqi WMD fame?

        1. How long have they stood with Duranty?

      3. And all cops should stand by all cops, and prosecutors, and government employees …. yes, feudal loyalties FTW!

      4. Why was Breitbart employing a reporter that it did not trust?

        1. Why was Breitbart employing so many reporters that it did not trust?

          FIFY

        2. She has a great rack.

          1. Evidence?

  7. CBS runs a weekly hour long campaign ad for Hildebeast: Madam Secretary. So, while disgusting, not really anything new.

    1. It’s actually a really good show. Decrying entertainment as ‘propaganda’ against your preferred candidate is a well known Nazi tactic, though some would say it’s also a symptom of mental illness.

      1. I respectfully request that you refrain from Godwinning every post for at least one day. Thank you.

        1. Godwin’s Law – isn’t that the rule that says that you should never point out that a guy acts like Hitler and his followers act like Nazis? Because of .. um “Godwin’s Law”?

          1. It’s just tiresome, is all. Maybe mix it up at least (thugs, bullies, violent assholes). Just a thought.

            1. Not as annoying as the constant references to “Godwin’s Law”. Please, teach us another incontrovertible principle of proper internet discourse:

              1. Not as annoying as the constant references to “Godwin’s Law”.

                If it’s that annoying, it is totally within your power to avoid by using, you know, something other than Nazi Germany as a point of reference.

                Cunt.

                1. Oh ok yes please give us more tips and tricks to avoid offending the Nazi sympathizer contingent around here.

              2. Was checking to see if you were capable of other tones besides “spitting jackass”. I’m satisfied, thank you.

              3. “Not as annoying as the constant references to “Godwin’s Law”.”

                Run into that a lot, do you?

              4. Try comparing someone to the Visigoths. You’ll find it cleanses the palate.

                1. I once told an annoying chick in my old office that she ate like Hitler.

          2. No it just says that if a thread goes on long enough someone will invoke Hitler. The subtext is that invoking Hitler or Nazis is not a terribly interesting or insightful piece of argumentation.

          3. Criticizing a TV show is acting like Hitler? Which TV show did Hitler criticize?

            1. “Yes, Reich Minister.”

        2. The communists certainly accused their opponents of mental illness.

          1. Good point. Bernie’s big on that. He supports gun rights except if you’re crazy. He then adds, we need to vastly expand ‘mental health’ treatment in this country. Heh.

      2. Amusingly, but unsurprisingly, you got the basic argument wrong as well. He wasn’t saying it was propaganda against a preferred candidate, but rather propaganda for a particular candidate. I’m sure you’re unable to make the differentiation, but maybe it would help if we could somehow insert Hitler into the discussion…

    2. …what?

    3. If this was an attempt to campaign for Hillary it’s a total bust. Tea Leoni’s character is forthright, honest, hard working, intelligent, dedicated, loyal to her friends and willing to stand by principle. In virtually every category she is the antithesis of Hillary. She makes Hillary look very bad by comparison.

      1. And she doesn’t have cankles either.

      2. I’m fairly confident that the average voter that’s ‘for’ Hillary believes that she is all of those things. Evidence, reason, and truth be damned.

  8. No mention as to how Fields, the Washington Post reporter, and Fox were all in cahoots in order to both smear Donald Trump and further Fields’ career?

    Yeah, didn’t think so. Go sip your cocktails, Welch, while guys like me will be out searching for the truth.

    1. Do you think they were involved in the Kennedy assassination in any way?

      1. No Hugh that is preposterous.

    2. Searching for the truth? Or running to the store for Vick’s Vaporub, Irish whiskey and a tarp?

      1. He meant to say “searching for Ruth.”

    3. JET FUEL CAN’T MELT BRUISES IN FOREARMS

    4. You are riding this “just to further her career” pony pretty goddamn hard. Do you realize how careers work? Isn’t this the longshot of career advancement plans? I always thought a cunning plan would be keeping your head down and robotically agreeing with your superiors.

      But this genius here decides to pretend she got assaulted, bruises herself just for extra sympathy, then shits on everyone that got her where she is today just cause they won’t believe her.

      You may be right. If I try really hard to support trump, and I don’t use my brain at all, I can totally see how she fabricated this whole thing for her career.

        1. Goddammit! This could have played out for another hour at least, Irish!

          Shit, man, way to stomp on a great bit…

  9. “””Reportedly manhandled””””

    So was she manhandled or not?

    There was probably half a dozen video cameras going in that room, just show us the pictures that show what happened

    1. Yeah, if there wasn’t video she obviously made it all up in order to smear Trump and further her career.

      1. So you are saying that Trumps people are like Ninga’s, they can move without being seen?

        And if there is no evidence then its just he said/she said. Which is amazing since it was in a crowded room with many cameras

        1. I agree with you! She randomly made up the entire story in order to smear Trump and further her career. That is the only logical conclusion I can come to.

          1. I haven’t come to any conclusion, I want to see some evidence.

            A photo of an arm two days later is not evidence of assault, I have gotten bruise like that when carrying my luggage .

            1. I have gotten bruise like that when carrying my luggage .

              Pussy.

              Again, she just decided to make it all up. I agree. That is what makes sense. That is logical.

              1. People make stories up, some appear in the media, it happens

                Maybe it happened here, maybe not, that is why I have looked at videos of the time and tried to find something that matches up with the story. The best I can find so far is Fields following after Trump trying to get near him and she suddenly stops but I can’t see what caused her to stop. There was a bunch of people around including Trumps staff, security and other reporters

            2. I haven’t come to any conclusion

              Yet you’re pissed that Matt has not either.

              1. He makes conclusions in the rest of the story, he just threw that “””Reportedly manhandled”””” in to pretend he has not.

                1. No, he doesn’t. Read it. As he says in the closing paragraph, his interest is in the Trump campaign’s response to a “credible accusation.”

          2. I agree with you! She randomly made up the entire story in order to smear Trump and further her career.

            Is there the slightest bit of evidence that Trump’s campaign manager “aggressively tried to pull [her] to the ground”? Aggression and intent are serious allegations, and there is no evidence for them; the video seem to contradict it. The “logical conclusion” is that she doesn’t like Trump, doesn’t like her job anymore, and blew this out of proportion.

            If she had been actually assaulted, the proper course of action would have been to go to the police. It wasn’t to turn this into a journalistic spectacle in order to air her grievances with her employer.

        2. There…is video evidence. But you know that already.

          1. Do you have a link? The only video I saw had nothing despite the claims.

            1. Not handy, no. I’ve looked at multiple videos over multiple days on multiple sites. I’ve seen multiple angles that made it seem extremely likely that Lewandowski touched Fields.

              1. He touched her? Thai is rape isn’t it?

                1. I’ve eaten Thai food that hot, but generally, no.

                  1. Thai isn’t but cultural appropriate of ethnic cuisine is rape. Just sayin’

                  2. It’s rape on the way out.

              2. Have you seen video that shows him “aggressively trying to pull her to the ground”?

          2. Sure there’s “evidence” but it doesn’t support, much less prove, Fields’ allegations.

            1. Yes it does you lying sack of shit.

              1. Sorry I hate Trump almost as much as I hate Hillbillery but I have watched the video and it shows a man move her aside, not particularly forcefully, as he follows Trump through the crowd. There may be something to the claim that Trump,Lewandowski and the Breitbart folk have handled this badly, but the actual incident is pretty much nothing from the video I saw.

                1. He grabbed her, hard enough for bruising.

                  1. If Miss Fields bruises that easily she has a great future in spanking porn.

                  2. Through a thick jacket no less.

    2. There are videos of him grabbing her, and it was enough to leave a bruise. Was it a big deal? I don’t think so, but the Trump campaign idiotically made it a big deal with their lies, denials, and attacks on Fields.

      1. I’ve seen only one video on NR. It showed nothing despite the claims made by the author of the post.

        1. I have seen several videos of this room and the best support for the charge showed Fields moving toward Trump and then sudden stopping but it did not show who did what. Nor did it appear that it was a major incident.

          1. And yet she has fairly significant bruising, and it was enough of an incident to attract the notice of Ben Terris and for her to say she was “shaken up” over it immediately thereafter.

            It sounds like it was at least AN INCIDENT. All Lewandowski needed to do was apologize, instead he smeared her and said she was delusional.

            1. And yet she has fairly significant bruising

              She didn’t merely claim that someone grabbed her arm hard (something that can happen at a political rally), she claimed that Corey Lewandowski tried to “aggressively pull her to the ground”: aggression and intent. Does the video show that?

              All Lewandowski needed to do was apologize, instead he smeared her and said she was delusional.

              You would apologize for “aggressively pulling women to the ground” when all you (maybe) did was push them aside in a crowd? I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t.

              1. I really wonder: In your view, how would a video show intent to commit violence I wonder? Perhaps you’ll need a video confession? Hmm…

          2. Nor did it appear that it was a major incident.

            It became a major incident, as much as a Twitter-fueled Trump campaign of retarded retardedness can be major. Trump’s campaign manger said he did it, and then said he didn’t do it, and her news organization decided to do everything they can to smear her. Thankfully, Trump and Breitbart have a twitter mob full of obedient dorks who cannot wait to do as they are told.

            1. He never said he did it. Her reporter boyfriend lied about that.

    3. This shows it pretty clearly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Dd7wjzNsg I think she’s blowing it out of proportion, but Corey obviously grabs her and pulls her a couple of feet away from Trump. I would call it manhandling.

      1. To repeat-

        That’s the thing though, she initially didn’t make a big deal about this at all. She was asked if it happened and she responded with the truth of the events in question. Then the story took on a life of its own when others followed up with Trumps campaign. Lewandowski and the idiots at Breitbart decided to play the denial game instead of admitting what happened, so Fields posted a picture of the bruises to show she wasn’t bullshitting.

        At no point did Fields attempt to make a big deal out of this at all. This is entirely a creation of Trump and Breitbarts idiotic attempts at a smear campaign to protect the Precious.

      2. Yeah I’d agree that this seemed pretty routine; I imagine journalists regularly get ‘man-handled’ by security and whatnot, since following and hounding high profile people is a big part of their job, and dare I say that a typical male journalist wouldn’t have even bothered to mention something like this.

        The Trump campaign’s denial and Breitbart’s response were what made it such an incident. It could have been so easily brushed aside, and the display of childishness that followed was what is noteworthy. I might speculate it was deliberate on the part of Trump in order to generate more controversy and publicity, but stupidity is an equally viable explanation.

        1. Fields didn’t just claim that someone grabbed her arm. Fields claims that Lewandowski “aggressively tried to pull [her] to the ground” and intended to “forcefully throw reporters to the ground”. Those are serious allegations, a felony if true, and the video contradicts them. It’s hardly surprising that Trump’s campaign would deny that, or that a media company would not support a reporter who alleges a felony against staff of a high profile political figure without clear evidence.

    4. I would like to manhandle her. With my penis.

  10. Breitbart banned me yesterday from their comments section for the high crime of making fun of the “Great Wall of Trump”. They really are a scary group (totalitarian and hypocritical) and I couldn’t be more gratified by their implosion. This is exactly what happens when the hunger for violence and thirst for blood meets free speech and free press.

    1. If stupid was a reason for banning, you’d be banned out of existence.

      1. “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment … and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

    2. totalitarian

      “Totalitarian” refers to an ideology that society is under “total” control of the state. How in the world does that apply to a private news site?

  11. Breitbart responded by sliming Shapiro as a disloyal career climber and “conservative gadfly” who “apparently violated virtually every clause in his employment contract during an appearance on The Kelly File,” in a bizarre post under the byline of the pseudonym that Shapiro’s father (who has also resigned) used when writing for the site.

    Don’t forget the part where they put a photo of his face inside a yellow star, noted that he was an Orthodox Jew, and doxxed him in the same story.

        1. That’s not a yellow star or Jewish star. A Star of David has six points. The star you are showing has ten points and is a fairly easily available computer graphic.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S….._Holocaust

          1. I know what the fucking Jewish star looks like, jesus.

            You’ll notice that Nikki said, and I blockquote:

            Don’t forget the part where they put a photo of his face inside a yellow star, noted that he was an Orthodox Jew, and doxxed him in the same story.

            It may not be a Star of David, but don’t try and tell me it’s not yellow and that isn’t a star shape that’s outlining his face. Get a grip on yourself.

        2. Hmm… it is hard to take it seriously when it ends with “Alleged Fox News contributor Michelle Fields also resigned.”

        3. That looks less like Jew-bashing and more like the sun from Teletubbies . Not sure which is worse.

        4. I think the text is more damning than the picture. Always the diplomat, I’m going to say the star is an unfortunate coincidence– or as Hugh says, a teletubbie thing.

          1. Which of course if it is a teletubbie thing, then it’s clear gay-bashing.

        5. Wait you link a site with those images and expect me to scroll down to read some trash Breitbart posted?

        6. Hey! I made that Bob Hope/Obama poster featured on that site a long time ago.

      1. All compelling evidence points to no other possible conclusion than it is an indisputable fact that Breitbart is literally Donald J Hitler’s Goebbells, dedicated to the forcible violent extinction of World Jewry.

  12. I can sure say one thing about his Trumpness… it all makes for seriously good copy.

    1. We should wake that a word. Instead of “I’ll be frank with you”, you say “I’ll be trump with you: you’re a phony loser.”

  13. In that picture, Michelle Fields reminds me of ___________.

    I keep staring at it and thinking she’s reminiscent of some childhood star of the early 90s or late 80s.

    1. A combination of Shannon Doherty, Jennie Garth, and Gabrielle Carteris?

      1. Shannon Doherty? Mmmno.

        Jennie Garth… getting close to the right hair color.

        Gabrielle Carteris… wrong decade(s) of life.

        1. She looks like a butter-faced Jessica Alba.

    2. Jo from the Facts of Life”

        1. NO NO… I have my characters mixed up. Lisa Welchel, Blair.

      1. I’m really with this. I think that’s what I was seeing– and I think I beat you to it below.

        1. I saw a little michelle trachentberg there myself.

    3. I have the answer, Paul. Apparently you were a really big fan of The Next Karate Kid, because Fields resembles a prettier version of a pretty Hillary Swank.

      1. Nailed it, thank you

  14. I’d like to see statistics on how often women – compared to men – cause the breakdown of a group of men.

      1. Already included, as part of a general appreciation of mythology. But don’t mention it, because Ken thinks it’s his novel insight, derived through elegant exegesis of the text. Whether his stupidity there is epic may be left open, while its discovery certainly requires no exegesis.

    1. Would this be “caused” by Fields?

      1. She stuck her arm out in that rally knowing full well what Trump was capable of. She was asking for it.

      2. Well some woman caused it. And she was in the closest proximity. Don’t you know anything about science?

      3. Caused, not necessarily authored. I deliberately chose a wide term, because I don’t want to preclude questions and insights. For example, in my view, men are less likely to react as strongly (think: as protectively, as challenged) to a man being “almost pulled down”, while loyalty to the team would be a factor regardless.

        1. Granger caused. Just say she Granger caused it.

  15. I will take the high-road here and say, “Would”

    1. I don’t know why, but I get a very Facts of Life vibe when I look at that pic.

        1. What was character’s name of the one with the juggs – Toot? or Tooty? or whatever the fuck her name was….

          1. Nah, that was the black chick. You’re thinking of Mrs. Garrett.

            1. Yeah, I’m thinking of the black chyck, Tundra, especially from the neck down!

              1. The actress who played Tootie did have the name (Kim) Fields though…

  16. Now see I’ve been saying all along that critics shouldn’t be muckracking at the rally in the first place. This kind of incident only drives more people into the arms of Trump.

  17. Can we dislike Breitbart and Ben Shapiro?

      1. Question still stands.

        1. I was trying to make a Snake Plissken joke and I mis-worded it. I’m always doing that!

          1. At least you tried. It would have gone over my head even if you nailed it.

    1. Hating the lying media is so Trump.

      1. …what?

  18. I’ll be just fine with seeing Breitbart go down in flames but not supporting Fields on their part is understandable. From the three videos I’ve seen, it appears she seriously embellished what took place. She appeared to have been grabbed by whatshisface but not accosted. I wouldn’t have apologized either but going on the attack against her was ill advised.

    1. That’s the thing though, she initially didn’t make a big deal about this at all. She was asked if it happened and she responded with the truth of the events in question. Then the story took on a life of its own when others followed up with Trumps campaign. Lewandowski and the idiots at Breitbart decided to play the denial game instead of admitting what happened, so Fields posted a picture of the bruises to show she wasn’t bullshitting.

      At no point did Fields attempt to make a big deal out of this at all. This is entirely a creation of Trump and Breitbarts idiotic attempts at a smear campaign to protect the Precious.

      1. I agree with most of what you said but the but the accusation that she was being pulled down like he was trying to make her fall appears to be false and it was an apparently false escalation of what really happened. It gives the impression that he tried to brutalize her. All sides here acted foolishly from what I can tell.

        1. But again, SHE didn’t even bring it up. The Wapo reporter next to her when it happened was like “damn that was kinda messed up, are you ok?”. She didn’t jump on to the internet and start screaming “ASSAULT!!! ASSAULT!!”.

          Had Lewandowski acted like a man and apologized for grabbing a woman (I don’t care whether it was “brutal” or not, you don’t grab women like this if you were raised properly) this would’ve been a complete non-issue.

          The problem is that both the Trump campaign and now apparently Breibart as well are filled with jackass men who don’t know how to behave in public.

          1. The third video seems to show that he briefly grabbed her to allow him to walk through a crowd. It wasn’t an attack but was kind of rude. Apologizing for what she insinuated would have a mistake on his part in my opinion but yes, you’re right, she didn’t escalate until after the Trumpites attacked.

            1. She bruised his arm so no, I don’t think apologizing would’ve been a mistake. In fact, it would be what a normal man would do in this situation. Apparently Lewandowski is a little brat who wasn’t raised properly.

      2. “At no point did Fields attempt to make a big deal out of this at all.”

        Criminal charges.

  19. Here’s the latest tweet by Fields’ bf :

    so ANGRY at those ruffians @Reason right now!!! the potty words they use. #meow

    1. After all the compliments we gave her?

    2. Some of us just compared his girlfriend to attractive women! Sure, some of us compared her to Facts of Life characters, but the majority of us were complimentary. Harrumph.

      1. I HAD THE HOTS FOR JO!

        she was rad.

          1. You guys have some strange taste in women, but hey, to each their own.

            1. When Fact of Life was on, there were three television channels and no internet. Translation, no easily accessible porn. Now, try to imagine that…

              Why do you think I spent my entire childhood watching I Dream of Jeannie and anything with Pam Grier?

            2. And yours is Ann Coulter.

  20. Anyone who continues to work for BB is human shit. Anyone who has linked to them seriously in the last few years is an idiot.

    1. No. We should be thankful they are there, because now they can forever be linked to the site, and will be either ridiculed or ignored.

      1. I’m hoping Milo bails. That dude is a one-man SJW-wrecking crew.

        1. But if he doesn’t, you will know that he tacitly approves of the way the organization treats its employees.

        2. Milo is a fool and a jackass. Like the rest of the New Right dorks he’s as hazardous to the cause he supports as the one he fights.

          1. I think Milo is awesome. His encyclopedic-level knowledge of the facts behind gender issues is almost peerless and SJW’s don’t know what to do with him since he’s fabulously gay.

            I disagree with him on Trump and a few other things but he’s the tits.

            1. No he’s not. He’s as dishonest as any one else at BB. He ruined some panel he was invited to a while ago. Ass.

              1. “He ruined some panel”?

                What was this?

                1. “The afternoon panel, with Yiannopoulous, Sommers, and myself on the pro-GamerGate side, was somewhat more problematic because of a disconnect in expectations. Koretzky wanted to focus on the issue of how the mainstream media should cover leaderless online movements like GamerGate. Yiannopolous and Sommers wanted to talk about cultural and gender politics; I had planned to discuss the problems in media coverage of GamerGate (which, as I said on the panel, may well be the worst, most one-sided journalism I’ve seen in my entire career) as well as their intersection with larger narratives on gender, such as the claim that women are the primary targets of online harassment. Koretzky’s attempts to steer the conversation into the direction he wanted led to some occasionally tense verbal sparring between him and the charismatic, showy Yiannopoulous and to some interruptions that annoyed the audience.

                  On his blog, Koretzky wrote that he felt the morning session was a success while the afternoon session (during which #shutupkoretzky was trending on Twitter) was such a disaster that the bomb threat was a “mercy killing.” I, from my admittedly subjective perspective, thought we were finally starting to get somewhere when things came to an abrupt halt.”

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..play-gamer

                  He’s also pro-infant male genital mutilation.

                  1. He’s also pro-infant male genital mutilation.

                    You know who else?

                  2. (wanking motion)

                    Whatever dude. This doesn’t make me less of a fan. Sorry he’s pro-circumcision and upset the gamergate panel by being “all showy” but this hardly negates the absolute destruction he’s incurred in various campuses across the nation on his Dangerous Faggot tour.

                    I’ll accept him being an ass every now and then if his overall result continues to make SJW’s wet their pants when they see him coming.

                    1. I am interested in results, not gratification based on the emotional state of SJWs.

                    2. He defeats third wave feminists on panel after panel, campus after campus, and continually fights the good fight for free speech and meritocracy.

                      The results show that he is winning the fight. Not sure what else you are expecting, but you just sound mad because he didn’t play nice at the gamergate panel.

                      Boo hoo.

      2. Er not to be anal but what you said doesn’t really contradict my point.

      3. either ridiculed or ignored.

        Like Michelle Fields.

        1. Fuck off.

    2. Anyone who consistently speaks in hyperbolic categorical insults may not be an effective advocate for his positions.

  21. As I say above, Trump has had one hugely useful effect that may outweigh the damage he is doing in and beyond getting Clinton elected: he is revealing that the New Right and a lot of the ‘conservative movement’ at large as every bit as hideous and execrable as liberals made them out to be. Every. Bit.

    1. If you mean they’ve confirmed they’re as bad as the liberals they think are hideous and execrable, I’d have to agree.

    2. Do you have any evidence for that any of this will have a have a “hugely useful effect”? Or that it applies to the conservative movement at all? From what I can tell they’re the ones being pushed by the wayside here. (New Right is too broad to make any claim about)

      1. It’s always good when masks come off and perception matches reality.

          1. Uh yes. Re-read my post and come to grips with the point of it.

            1. I just asked for evidence. You’ve repeatedly failed to supply it.

              1. Do I have to spoonfeed everything to you? It is hugely positive when something I thought was good or benign is revealed as awful, as opposed to it being awful while I carry illusions otherwise.

                1. “Do I have to spoonfeed everything to you? It is hugely positive when something I thought was good or benign is revealed as awful, as opposed to it being awful while I carry illusions otherwise.”

                  Is spoonfeed means provide evidence, yes.

                  1. The statement that Trump has revealed the political right to be pretty ugly is pretty well supported at this point. RTFA

                    1. The statement that Trump has revealed the political right to be pretty ugly is pretty well supported at this point.

                      As long as we’re counting the political right as certain members of the GOP, labor democrats and various independents, I’ll nod to this.

                    2. “The statement that Trump has revealed the political right to be pretty ugly is pretty well supported at this point. RTFA”

                      And failed once again (of course, I never even asked about the “political right”).

                    3. “The statement that Trump has revealed the political right to be pretty ugly is pretty well supported at this point. RTFA”

                      And failed once again (of course, I never asked about the “political right” that’s even more nebulous than the “New Right” and the “Conservative Movement”).

                    4. Do I have to define everything down for you? I’m tired of holding your hand.

                    5. Perhaps you would care to hold something else.

    3. Drop “made them out to be” from that statement and it is more accurate.

      1. I think my original statement is more informative and just as accurate. This is important: when liberals accuse conservatives of racism or some other trog behavior, it’s really important not to have a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss that accusation. It’s a trap.

        1. Maybe instead of either accepting or dismissing accusations of racism or other words that have taken the place of the word heresy, we should try examining the substance of whatever subject is under discussion.

          If Adolf Hitler says the Earth is round and Martin Luther King says it is flat, then Hitler is right. Accusing your opponent of racism, heresy, or other badthink, even if it is completely true, does not add one scintilla of evidence to support whatever position you are arguing.

          1. That’s not germane.

    4. True, much like the Bush presidency revealed what depraved, deranged pieces of shit neocons and other foreign policy interventionists are. Cough cough.

    5. No, they’re not. They’re just pissed off at being constantly dumped on by SJW progtards and government parasites who feast off their hard work, Arrogantly deciding what opportunities they may have in life and what they’re allowed to do. More and more people are waking up and have had enough.

      When there are enough of those people, there will be a tipping point. And then it’s on. That’s what you’re seeing. People are pissed off, andTrump is a symptom of their anger and dissatisfaction. You just don’t like them because they aren’t open borders kooks.

  22. She’s cute.

    There, I’ve gone & said it. I hope you’re all happy now.

    1. Would

      1. Would Buddy? or would Fields? Or both?

        The internet is so confusing…threading comments is worse.

    2. You are so daring!

  23. Light of day corruption, and only now are we beginning to think about maybe asking some questions.

    I mean, for fuck’s sake, Seattle, yes, I know Bikes Are An Unalloyed Good. I know they Save The Earth. I Know that we should be More Like Denmark. But we’re literally lining the pockets of a private company, then hiring the president as the DOT chief, and then buying his company from him when it fails… because BIKES ARE GOOD!

    SDOT Scott Kubly worked with bike-share networks through government posts in Chicago and Washington, D.C. and was acting president of Portland-based Alta Bicycle Share before coming to Seattle in 2014.

    Pronto’s nonprofit contracted with Alta to operate the program when it launched. The New York company Motivate bought Alta in late 2014 and now operates the program.

    The Seattle Times early last month made a public disclosure request for all communications from Kubly about Pronto, Alta and Motivate.

    SDOT initially said it would provide the records on or about March 11, but has yet to provide them. It did provide some other records Monday.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..e-program/

  24. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  25. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  26. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  27. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  28. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  29. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  30. All I want to know is, does Trump get his haircuts at a used haircut store or what? Shit, when I was about 7 or 8 my younger brother and me gave each other haircuts one day with my dad’s Norelco that looked better than that thing he’s got nesting on his head.

  31. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/b…..ler-189307

    “Seattle police are seeking the public’s help in identifying a suspected serial masturbator who publicly pleasures himself while disguising his identity with a makeshift ninja outfit.”

    I’m sorry to say I was hesitant about moving here.

    1. You’re upset they called your Ninja outfit “makeshift” after all the time and effort you put into it?

      1. Actual ninjas didn’t even have ninja outfits that nice!

        1. Jesus, look at the size of that stain on the wall! Holy crap!

          1. APB on Peter North?

    2. Shit…

      *hides makeshift ninja outfit*

    3. As seen above, the suspect was wearing a pair of rubberized five toe shoes.

      Phew, clearly a millennial.

  32. I just cannot help but be suspicious of people who are so hard against Trump as if he was worse than any other politician. I was a Ted Cruz guy my self, and was never ever any sort of fan of Trump, never watched his “yer fired” shows, or cared about him one way or another. I never noticed when he was involved with Perot’s Reform Party because I never liked Perot much. But I would have been surprised if the anti-Perot people were as crazed against him as the anti-Trump people are crazed against Trump. What is going on? Trump must be a serious threat to something or there would not be this sort of reaction. Is it all about immigration and trade? Or is there more to it than that? Does there need to be more to it than that?

    1. But I would have been surprised if the anti-Perot people were as crazed against him as the anti-Trump people are crazed against Trump.

      They weren’t. The press found him amusing and for what it was worth, he was kind of a funny, semi-crazy populist guy, but populist in that he just wanted to make government work better and really, really was a clear outsider.

      Plus the Democrats loved him because he bled a HUGE percentage of the popular vote away, a large percentage of which was estimated to be disaffected Bush voters.

      But just making side-by-side comparisons, Perot is nothing like Trump. Perot didn’t come off as a bully, or openyly mocked any other candidate with derisive comments. He just kept making his policy points (which were largely in the fiscal arena) with his charming Texas whine and occasionally whipped out a good one-liner– often self-deprecating.

    2. “Trump must be a serious threat to something or there would not be this sort of reaction. Is it all about immigration and trade? Or is there more to it than that? Does there need to be more to it than that?”

      At best he’s a serious threat to current electoral maps. That’s probably it.

      Trump also seem to be breaking with the GOP on Israel and that’s got to be hurting him among the mainstream and gaining him fringe supporters.

  33. “I do not believe Breitbart News has adequately stood by me during the events of the past week

    If Breitbart agreed with the story, they wouldn’t be standing by *her* at all, they would be standing by Washington Post reporter Ben Terris, the only person in the known universe who claims to have actually *seen* Lewandowski grab and pull Fields.

    Breitbart did significant analysis on the video and images available at the event.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..dentified/

    Washington Post photographer Jabin Botsford, Terris’s colleague had the perfect angle to see everything, having taken a picture moments before the alleged yank from where Trump was walking towards. In that picture, you see significant distance between Lewandowski and Fields. From the picture, Terris looks like he is in great position to pull Fields’ arm.

    Why no picture of this tremendous altercation from a guy with the perfect angle? Why no picture from anyone? There are a million cameras in the scene. A million people. And no one claims to have seen it but Terris.

    1. At the following site, a guy claims to have contacted Botsford via twitter, and had the following exchange
      http://www.dangerandplay.com/2…..-cover-up/

      Q: Where is the video/photos of the Michele Fields’ alleged assault? You were the photog there at the exact time it allegedly happened.
      A: I wasn’t at that event.
      Q: So why is this photo attributed to you and licensing lists your name on it?
      A: I didn’t here [sic] of or see any assaults at the event.

      The article notes that the twitter posts are no longer there, apparently deleted.

      I have no way of knowing if the claims of that interaction are true. But it is rather odd that Botsford has not weighed in on this controversy, since he was standing right there taking and personally worked with one of the principals. I can’t find a single story interviewing him, and there are currently no posts in his twitter account mentioning it.

      1. Yes! Exactly. Thank you! She is making it all up. It is so obvious!

    2. “Breitbart did significant analysis on the video and images available at the event.”

      That’s a cute way of saying ‘made shit up’.

  34. Looks like these people had problems with Trump long before the Michelle Fields incident. Have any of them written about why?

    Is it all about personality? Is it too much to hope that they oppose Trump becasue of his stance on free trade, becasue he’s insufficiently supportive of Second Amendment rights, etc.?

    Certainly, Breitbart staff aren’t upset about Trump’s stance on immigration or Muslims, are they?

    These screeds read like “The new boss is a big bully, and Trump is a big bully, and Michelle Fields has the bruises to prove it”–and that sounds like a Breitbart spin story on any public incident that happens any day.

    I’d love to think Trump’s detractors have more substantive objections–on policy. Maybe that’s too much to hope for from Breitbart staff. Every policy I read about over there (on any given story) seems to get boiled down into some kind of personal affront.

    How dare they [insert whatever]?!

    1. How about… Trump is not a conservative? barely a RINO..

      1. Can you be a little more specific?

        There’s a problem with the establishment Republicans not really being conservatives either.

        Between World War II and the Bush the Lesser Administration, being conservative meant opposing spending, taxes, The New Deal, and Great Society programs–in addition to whatever else it meant.

        In what way is Trump not a “conservative”? In what ways are the Republicans establishment “conservative”?

        Enquiring minds want to know.

        1. In what way is he conservative, exactly?

          He’s pro abortion.

          He’s for universal healthcare

          He’s a huge crony capitalist, favoring the use of government to make the rich richer. Eminent domain for instance, is a great thing in his book.

          He doesn’t believe in free trade, wants to start a trade war with China and other places.

          He was a democrat for what, 40+ years, hanging out with them. He supported Pelosi, Clinton, and even Obama.

          1. All,of,that is bullshit.

            Trump was pro abortion and says that he has changed his position in the last fifteen years. Just like Mutt Romney, except that Trump never ran on a pro abortion platform as Romney did.

            He’s not for ‘socialized medicine’. He has repeatedly called for repealing Obamacare, ramping up HSAs, allowing interstate competition for health insurance and letting the market evolve organically.

            He is not a huge crony capitalist, those would be people like Neill Bush that owns a company profitting from common core.

            He wants to open foreign markets by engaging in tit for tat retaliation. Which was the trade policy of Ronald Reagan. Calling it a call to trade war is typical establishment hysteria.

            He was a republican in the 80s. Video exists of him at the republican convention in 88 and supporting Reagan and Poppa Bush.

            1. Either way, he will be a thousand times better than Cankles. He is far from my first choice, but I could probably live with him. I doubt america could live with Bernie or Hillary.

  35. “Trump also seem to be breaking with the GOP on Israel and that’s got to be hurting him among the mainstream and gaining him fringe supporters.”

    I’ve always been a big supporter of Israel and an even bigger opponent of their enemies. I think that the US can’t be much help to Israel if we’re weakened by all the immigration and free trade. I do not believe immigration helps us, which means I disagree with the mainstream view, and I hate free trade, which is also against the mainstream view, which put together makes me totally fringe, yet with my other views I don’t think it’s that easy to pigeonhole me
    so easily. I’m very libertarian when it comes to gun control and the drug war and whether or not Apple should give over their encryption to the government. I still think it’s not really about Trump’s abrasiveness, I think there’s a Globalist NWO thing going on, that’s what I think. If you don’t like the word conspiracy, then call it a cahootancy instead.

    1. I think there’s a Globalist NWO thing going on

      Ya think? There is no effort to hide it everything is right out in the open. It’s no more a conspiracy than that the Federal Reserve’s mission is to devalue the currency, create inflation and encourage going into debt

    2. “I do not believe immigration helps us, which means I disagree with the mainstream view, and I hate free trade”

      Then you sound like an uninformed jackass ie the ideal Trump supporters

      “I think there’s a Globalist NWO thing going on, that’s what I think. ”

      Wow, great work detective. You should collaborate with the Loose Change folks. Jet fuel can’t melt steel you know.

      1. Didn’t you vote for Justin Trudeau?

  36. I’m also suspicious of the use of violence against women tropes. Oooh, somebody hurt a woman! Like the Marxist Left doesn’t use the emotionalism of violence against women to manipulate people. I’m not buying it until it’s proven
    beyond any possible doubt, that’s my attitude when accusations of violence against women are made.

  37. I have not read Breitbart in months. Its a shame what they did to Andrew Breitbarts legacy.

  38. If you are going to sell your integrity and soul, why would you do so for Trump of all people?

    1. Because his staff grabbed a girl by the arm, and now Trump won’t say he’s sorry?

      I’m still trying to figure out why they didn’t like Trump to begin with. The establishment Republicans have no soul. They sold out Goldwater and Reagan like 15 years ago!

      What heartfelt Republican principle has The Donald betrayed? I really want to understand this.

      1. What makes you think they have any heartfelt principles anymore? Goldwater did. Reagan did. I don’t think Bush, Dole, Bush II, Mccain, Romney, or anyone this time out except Paul has a principle other than MOAR Empire.

        1. That’s what I’m asking . . . these Breitbart people leaving were apparently upset about having to be pro-Donald since long before this arm pulling incident.

          What’s their beef with The Donald?

          Do they not like him becasue he’s not . . . what exactly?

          There must be some explanation for why they didn’t like him in the first place. And over at Breitbart, being anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant is not a crime.

          1. What’s exactly to like? He’s a liberal.

            Abortion, guns, eminent domain, big government.

            Yeah, yeah, yeah, to a libertarian, Democrats might not be different than a Republican, but Republicans don’t see it that way.

            Just because he yammers on about Mexicans and making American great, that makes him a conservative?

            What about small government? What about the Constitution?

            And then there is the authoritarian component to him. Again, maybe Republicans are considered fascists by liberals (and libertarians), but most Republicans aren’t. And when they see a candidate who clearly flirts with that, they get very alarmed.

            1. Guns I’m worried about.

              Trump will sign an AR-15 ban if he thinks it behooves him to do so.

          2. He’s a protectionist who favors expanding the state rather than reducing it.

            The disagreement might not be too big a deal, but it does seem to be merely about a disagreement with Trump and those who favor him, but with the fact that the editors essentially used the sight to campaign for Trump, while stifling valid conservative disagreement with him. That seems like a perfectly sound objections, so for once I agree with Ben Shapiro.

            1. “He’s a protectionist who favors expanding the state rather than reducing it.”

              I’d love to think they were so principled.

              Meanwhile, they’ve kissed the ass of every other Republican who wants to expand the state–for wanting to expand it.

              Didn’t Breitbart.com cheer on Bush?

              I think the differences they see between Trump and establishment Republicans like Jeb are mostly cosmetic.

      2. What heartfelt Republican principle has The Donald betrayed?

        Trump claims the GOP leadership is a useless sack of shitweasels out to protect their own positions and don’t care about all the things they say they care about, they’ll do or say anything to keep power. To prove his point, he’s going to get them to support Donald Trump. If the GOP establishment supporting the likes of Bob Dole and Arlen Specter and John McCain hasn’t already convinced you they have no principles, maybe supporting the guy who’s claiming they have no principles will. They aren’t entirely without principles, though – as a matter of principle they try to hide the fact that they have no principles and that’s the fig leaf Trump’s threatening to tear away from them.

        (I don’t think for a second Trump will tear away the fig leaf once he’s the establishment candidate. They’re all going to agree to pretend a mutual agreement was reached. Trump’s supporters are those radical revolutionaries that turn oh so conservative once they seize power and all this “anti-establishment” talk is going to get memory-holed once the establishment is firmly on their side.)

        Also: Cruz firmly re-iterated his stance that he’s going to support the GOP nominee no matter what, Rubio has waffled on the issue, suggesting he’s having a hard time saying he will support Trump. My respect for Rubio just went from zero to slightly above zero and my respect for Ted just dropped another notch.

      3. Salem Media Group has been in the tank for Cruz from the beginning. They’re republican establishment mouthpieces and have been funneling money into Cruz’s super pace since the summer. It’s all ordinary corrupt politics.

        1. Is Cruz the Republican establishment now?

          Jeb and Kasich I see as establishment.

          Maybe Cruz is part of the new establishment, and after the next election, the old establishment is all but dead and buried.

          1. One can only hope.

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

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  40. Video casts doubt on Michelle Fields story. Fox news:

    https://youtu.be/ETi7lOTariY

    1. No, it doesn’t. There’s an angle where it is clear Michelle was yanked forcefully by Corey Lewandowski. Fox News showed the video yesterday during an interview by Megyn Kelly of Fields and Shapiro.

      Stop making an idiot of yourse…. What am I asking?

      1. Does it show her being “pulled aggressively to the ground” or an attempt to “forcefully throw her to the ground” Yanking a reporter back from a candidate who is walking away is legitimate, what Fields alleges would be a felony. Where is the evidence that her allegations are true?

        (Mind you, not that I’m too unhappy to see Trump, Breibart or Fields self-destruct.)

  41. I read Bardella’s story at CNN and it’s pretty embarrassing. He starts off by bragging about how people have been calling him brave and courageous for his choice to leave Breitbart and speak out against Trump.

    Yeah, you’re my freakin’ hero. Anyone with the balls to speak out against Trump is a model of bravery. Almost no one is doing that. It’s a total shame that virtually no one has the courage to say anything bad about Trump.

  42. Dumb bitch just wants attention.

  43. Here’s the concrete video proof of assault and torture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxyEVjH5XJo

  44. I must have a virus in my mouse hand because I keep clicking the click bait here at Reason.

    Being a rational human that has pretty good corrected vision with the ability to seek and find said video of said incident tells me the claim from Fields is overblown. Maybe she got caught up in the hype by others, don’t know don’t care.

    And as a very casual observer, Breitbart does at least seem to be weighted towards Trump. I suspect, suspect that they are just seeking clicks and not wholeheartedly Trumper’s. Don’t know, don’t care.

  45. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  46. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.