Donald Trump

GOP Leaders Want to Unify Around Trump. That Will Only Make the Republican Party's Problems Worse

Rallying behind Trump would cement the party's status as a joke party devoted to channeling grievances.

|

Foter / Gage Skidmore

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan have been in a sort of low-level standoff for the last week, following Ryan's announcement that he could not yet support the nominee, with Trump firing back that he was not yet ready to support Ryan's policy agenda. The two met today on Capitol Hill, but the meeting didn't exactly produce a breakthrough.

At the end of the session, the pair released a joint statement that looks to have been workshopped to please both camps—making Ryan's case that "it's critical that Republicans unite around our shared principles, advance a conservative agenda" while repeating Trump's frequent point that both men "are extremely proud of the fact that many millions of new voters have entered the primary system, far more than ever before in the Republican Party's history."

The pair said that they planned further discussions, but that the first meeting "was a very positive step toward unification." Reince Preibus, the chair of the Republican National Committee, seconded that notion, tweeting that the meeting was "a very positive step toward party unity." Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the House GOP's highest ranking woman and a critic of Trump's, also called the meeting an "important first step" towards unity.  

Unity seems to be the buzzword for Republicans talking about Trump these days, with Ryan explaining his initial decision to not back Trump by saying that the presumptive nominee had not yet unified the party.

You can understand the incentives for party leaders to call for unity, but unity isn't the solution to the party's Trump problem. On the contrary, to unify around Trump would only exacerbate that specific problem, as well as the deeper party dysfunctions that led to him in the first place.

Trump is, among other things, a product of the party's broad unwillingness to engage in productive self-criticism with regards to either its policies or its tone and approach to politics, to hold a sustained debate about party identity and priorities. Yes, scattered efforts have been made, but on the whole the GOP has remained largely committed to not challenging its own status quo.

At the same time, the GOP has been far too willing to accommodate, and in many cases encourage, demagogues and entertainers who, like Trump, have little interest in the details of policy or the compromises that effective political movements require. 

The GOP has allowed itself to become a party devoted to channeling cultural outrage and racial resentment rather than around one designed to organize a political coalition for effective governance. Indeed, it has shed most of its interest in the business of governance in favor of a politics built entirely on grievance.

That has played well with a certain portion of the GOP base, but it has helped contribute to the party's dwindling appeal at the national level, while making meaningful policy reforms essentially impossible, because it does not allow for productive negotiation. Grievance is not an agenda towards which a party can work and make progress, especially when the chief goal is to keep that grievance alive.

This is why Trump's approach to policy has been so maddeningly shallow: To the extent that he has offered policies, the particulars are largely beside the point; that they do not make sense, do not add up, change constantly, cannot possibly be implemented, and are often illegal does not matter. They are designed primarily to energize the grievances of his supporters, and to channel those grievances into additional support for Trump. 

Trump is merely the most prominent and successful example of this brand of GOP politics, which goes back years—to the party's flirtations with fringe presidential candidates like Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain, to its nomination of not-so-sharp Senate candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, to its willingness to back a presidential ticket that included Sarah Palin.

Not all of the party's candidates and politicians have been quite so self-evidently ridiculous. But their presence has been strong enough to color the party's character.  The party of joke candidates has, unsurprisingly, become a joke. And now it has nominated a joke for president.

For the party's leaders and influencers to unify around Trump would be to embrace the party's reputation as a joke party, devoted largely to channeling grievance, rather than to fight it. It would be to repeat the mistakes that led to Trump in the first place, and further the long-term fracturing of the party in the name of short-term harmony. If Paul Ryan and other party leaders genuinely wish to avoid that—and maybe the real issue is that they don't—then what's called for is some disunity.

NEXT: Could Disgruntled Republicans Take Over the Libertarian Party? Sure, if They Could Convince Around 500 of the Types of People Who Attend State L.P. Conventions and Get Sent as Delegates to the National Convention

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. a joke party devoted to channeling grievances.

    So, kinda like the Democrats? (And the Libertarians if we are going to be honest)

    1. “So, kinda like the Democrats? ”

      Exactly.

      The Democrat party is all about whining for big Daddy gubmit to give them more free stuff – at somebody else’s expense.

    2. Ya, that seems to be the key to winning elections.

      1) Have no serious ideas, so you can change them whenever needed.

      2) channel grievances through identity politics into votes.

      Am an missing any steps? I don’t think so.

      1. 3) After elected, immediately find some party other than yourself to blame for the fact that none of those people who voted for you had any improvement in their lives as they thought your election was going to deliver for them.

        1. OK. For Re-election, you are right. You need somebody to blame. Probably re-use whoever your “other” was from the first election, but that’s not required.

      2. That seems to have worked pretty well from one B. Obama.

    3. You mean the joke party that rules both houses of Congress and most state capitols?
      Methinks the Dems are declaring victory a bit early, given the weakness of their own candidate.

  2. Joke compared to what?

    1. Good question.,

    2. Why, he’s talking about the Libertarian Party of course, which is a super serious institution and not a joke at all.

  3. The GOP has allowed itself to become a party devoted to channeling cultural outrage and racial resentment rather than around one designed to organize a political coalition for effective governance. Indeed, it has shed most of its interest in the business of governance in favor of a politics built entirely on grievance.

    Hasn’t that been true of the Democratic party since at least 2004? I don’t recall Suderman calling them a joke party, though I suppose he could have. Regardless of what you think of Trump’s chances in the fall, the fact is he recieved more primary votes than any other Republican candidate in history. That doesn’t mean he is right or will win in the fall. It does, however, mean he has attracted a ton of new voters to the GOP. Isn’t attracting new voters the point of having a political party?

    More importantly, Suderman seems to think that attracting those voters makes the GOP a “joke party”. Why? Like nearly every Washington pundit, Suderman’s problem is not with Trump. His problem is with Trump’s supporters.

    1. Suderman’s problem is not with Trump. His problem is with Trump’s supporters

      He’s in denial, just like all the other Elites. Their ability to influence has been destroyed by the advance of technology and their neglect/derision of regular people, and they are hopping mad about it to the point of being just raving lunatics.

      1. It’s a proletariat revolution!

        1. some populism is good. The elites need to be reminded how easily they can be replaced sometimes. And we also need to just recycle in new elites once in a while.

          1. Replacing the elites would be far from easy. It would be more difficult now than at any time in history. I think at this point it would require some sort of disastrous event from an external source that was severe enough to completely disrupt society to dislodge our power elite?something on the order of an asteroid strike, a pandemic, or a nuclear war.

            1. I think an asteroid strike/pandemic/nuke within the confines of the Beltway would be all that’s needed. Preferably during a State of the Union Address. Thankfully I have no power to command any such event – it would be too devastating.

              1. A big natural disaster would kill all of the wrong people. Stupid people never seem to die in such calamities.

          2. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

          3. And we also need to just recycle in new elites once in a while.

            Is that what the woodchippers are for?

    2. Hasn’t that been true of the Democratic party since at least 2004? I don’t recall Suderman calling them a joke party, though I suppose he could have.

      This is a form of tu quoque. Whether or not Suderman ever said this before about the Democrats is irrelevant, if what he’s saying is true about the GOP (it is). He doesn’t necessarily have to say the Democrats are a joke, whether he believes it or not. It doesn’t undermine his point.

      Regardless of what you think of Trump’s chances in the fall, the fact is he recieved more primary votes than any other Republican candidate in history.

      A record number of people voted against / not for him as well.

      Like nearly every Washington pundit, Suderman’s problem is not with Trump. His problem is with Trump’s supporters.

      Count me in the “doesn’t hate Trump as much as I hate his supporters” camp.

      1. It’s the tone of sneering elitism rather than the points made in this article that set me (and probably John and others) off.

        1. How dare the Proles rise up against their Betters!

      2. This is a form of tu quoque.

        No its not. I am not saying they are or are not a joke. I am calling Suderman a hypocrite for having double standards.

        A record number of people voted against / not for him as well.

        So what. It was a huge field. That would be true of any nominee this year. That doesn’t change the fact that he got a huge number of votes and absolutely hammered Cruz and Kaisich getting well over 50% of the votes after the field was narrowed to three.

        Count me in the “doesn’t hate Trump as much as I hate his supporters” camp.

        Good for you. They probably don’t like you either. But nice of you to admit that. Suderman should as well.

        1. I’m in the “Don’t really like Trump, but am starting to hate his detractors” camp.

          1. Welcome to the party. I have no illusions about Trump. But my God are his detractors awful.

            1. They remind of my toddler son when he couldn’t have something he wanted.

              1. So Trump sucks, but anyone that says so is just being an asshole?

                cool story, bro

                1. I didn’t say he sucks. He is not perfect by any means. he is more of an unknown. I could see him going either way. But his detractors most definitely suck and suck bad for all the wrong reasons.

                  1. Thinking all criticism is invalid is not the position of a supporter, but rather the stance of a worshipper. Or a simple shill.

                    Trump is a buffoon and his followers shouldn’t have any control of the levers of power that can affect me.

                    1. Thinking all criticism is invalid is not the position of a supporter, but rather the stance of a worshipper

                      Why do you think I consider all criticism invalid? I don’t. I can give you lots of criticisms of Trump. He doesn’t seem to believe in much and he grossly under estimates the difficulty of forcing concessions from Congress or other nations for that matter.

                      There are two right there. And as I said below, he is not a libertarian. There are like a hundred valid reason why a Libertarian wouldn’t or should not support him. Why Suderman can’t list those and instead rants and concern trolls about the GOP being a “joke” is beyond me.

                    2. But my God are his detractors awful.

                      But his detractors most definitely suck and suck bad for all the wrong reasons.

                      Gee, I wonder why. It’s like I just came up with it out of the blue.

                    3. Prove us wrong and make a reasonable argument. I appreciate you living up to the stereotype Sugar Free. It helps our side. But no one is forcing you to do so.

                    4. Yes, but neither should Hilary’s or Bernie’s.

                      The problem is one of in all likelihood will have the levers of power by the beginning of next year. The argument is not between Trump and a platonic ideal, or even Trump and no one. It is between Trump and a criminal and just maybe a man with a criminal ideology. You cannot evaluate Trump isolated from who the other results are anymore.

                2. It’s the dumbass brigade. I must love Hillary because I hate on Trump so much! I’m a cuck! I’m a Progtard!

                  It’s dipshittery all around.

                  1. Thresues,

                    No one on either side seems to be able to offer reasonable arguments anymore. Trump is most certainly not a Libertarian. There are a hundred good reasons why a Libertarian would not support him for President. Yet, Suderman never lists those reasons. He insists on giving elitist dumb ass tripe when the reasonable case is about as easy as it gets.

                    1. There are a hundred good reasons why a Libertarian would not support him for President. Yet, Suderman never lists those reasons. He insists on giving elitist dumb ass tripe when the reasonable case is about as easy as it gets.

                      DING DING DING

                      Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner.

                      I don’t want to hear Suderman’s proggie-like whining and name-calling. Come with serious criticism or go home.

                    2. Yeah, well, I’m certainly not defending Suderman.

                  2. It’s the dumbass brigade. I must love Hillary because I hate on Trump so much! I’m a cuck! I’m a Progtard!

                    Nobody said you love Hillary. We’re just asking for some original, thoughtful, policy-based criticisms, rather than calling everyone (hillbillies/trash/racists/fascists/white nationalists/whatever). I’m fucking tired of that crap.

                3. No. It’s more that he sucks, and pretty bad. But 90% of the complaints aren’t about why he actually sucks. They are just about him not kneeling before Zod.

                  1. Except that’s not the way most of these discussions have gone this entire election. When people make a substantive, policy-based criticism of Trump, the response from his supporters has been insults, invective and attacking of straw men. People here aren’t making the “CUCK” jokes or the “COSMO FAGZ” jokes out of nowhere. That really has been the response of a lot of Trump supporters.

                    But, let’s turn this ship around. Make a substantive, policy-based case for Donald Trump. Don’t refer to him relative to other candidates. Make the actual case for his candidacy.

                    1. You are projecting Bill. Either that or you think “Trump is the RACIST” is some kind of serious criticism of him.

                    2. I haven’t called Donald Trump a racist. Neither have the columnists here. Hell, neither have most of the commenters. Even though his supporters pick up the language of moronic white nationalist websites (i.e. “cuck”).

                      But, again, make a substantive, policy-based case for Donald Trump.

                    3. But, again, make a substantive, policy-based case for Donald Trump.

                      “He might not be totally awful maybe.”

                    4. “He might not be totally awful maybe.”

                      When you know with certainty his opponents are going to be awful, that is one hell of a compelling case. How strong something is is relative to what you are comparing it to.

                    5. haven’t called Donald Trump a racist. Neither have the columnists here.

                      that’s bullshit. Suderman pretty much did yesterday:

                      because Donald Trump is a dangerous, authoritarian know-nothing who appeals to racists

                      you can get technical about line-dancing, but you know what he’s going for, so don’t BS around.

                    6. Bill I have no policy-based case for Trump that isn’t “lesser of 2 evils”. I don’t want you to vote for him. I’ll be voting for who ever the LP candidate is with near 100% certainty.

                      But if you want to write an article criticizing him in a Libertarian publication, talk about how his protectionist rhetoric, if actually followed up on, will be bad for the economy. Or how is SCOTUS nomination will probably suck. Or how he will probably further erode the separation of powers.

                      Don’t talk about how shitty all his cracker voters are and then complain about the existence of a “culture war”.

                4. it’s that his detractors are smug elitists who are disdainful of Trump for having the temerity to have fun in a campaign. see, he’s not treating the Super Serious Institutions Super Seriously, and that makes the Districters upset, because their jobs are Super Serious…for real.

            2. boy, talk about distractors.
              Have you heard about the rape of 13 y.o. girl , Trump has been accused of?
              and here is a question , the media hasn’t asked , Yet !
              http://theantimedia.org/one-qu…..ald-trump/

          2. this

      3. “This is a form of tu quoque. Whether or not Suderman ever said this before about the Democrats is irrelevant, if what he’s saying is true about the GOP (it is). He doesn’t necessarily have to say the Democrats are a joke, whether he believes it or not. It doesn’t undermine his point.”

        Suderman described Republicans as THE party of joke candidates, and cited their difficulties at the national level versus certain other parties. In that sense, only pointing out republican joke-candidates is cherry picking, not tu quoque.

        1. Yes. And I am not offering it as proof that he is wrong. I am offering it as proof that he is a hypocrite.

          1. This… is fair.

        2. Shippy was accusing John of tu quoque, not Suderman.

          1. Yes he was. And he is wrong. Maybe the GOP is a joke. If it is, that doesn’t make Suderman any less guilty of applying double standards here. That was my point.

          2. Apologies, that was miswording on my part. Insert “and it isn’t tu quoque to criticize this” at the end instead.

            1. When John (above) says that he’s not criticizing Suderman for being wrong, but being a hypocrite, he’s making a point (which you also point out, Suderman was basically cherry picking). I misread John to mean “Suderman must be wrong about the GOP sucking because Suderman never criticizes Democrats who obviously suck.” This would be tu quoque.

    3. We have discussed this before. Reason would be better served with contributors who don’t all live in DC, NY, and LA.

      They wouldn’t necessarily have different opinions – I don’t agree with Trump on much either – but they would understand WHY he has support and what has pissed-off the people in fly-over country.

      1. no kidding. this insularity is causing this blog’s freewheeling thinking and unique perspectives to atrophy. Suderman has been pounding the desk saying the same things all of the other District Punditocracy has been saying. Why? We’ve heard this boring Trump hate before.

      2. Nick lives in Ohio.

        1. But where does Jacket live?

          Jacket seems like an LA kind of fella.

      3. Yesterday, I was driving behind a contractor’s van that appeared to have an Obama sticker on it – until I got closer and it read “Because Everyone Has A Right To The Money You Worked For”. It’s people like that who are flocking to Trump since they’ve been cast aside both both parties. Hard to blame them.

        1. I think the reason this gets mocked so often is because you’re afraid it contains a kernel of truth.

          IF Reason was the true contrarian magazine it purports to be, it would not be attacking Trump multiple times per day. it would be making the perfectly reasonable observation (as it has in years past) that Trump is not better or worse on policy than any other random politician, the Presidency doesn’t matter that much, and DC’s collective hissy fit toddler meltdown is a sign of a insular, Imperial community that is afraid of pitchforks and torches.

          But instead, Reason sold out. Don’t try to deny it. That’s what happened.

          1. There are two kernels of truth here.

            1. Reason has the most principled libertarian writers likely ever assembled under one tent.
            2. There are a significant number of Republicans commenting here who get chapped asses any time the Republican party gets called out for their shortcomings.

            1. if they were principled then they wouldn’t be birthing kittens about Republicans and Republicans only.

              1. It’s just that a principled Libertarian has to completely write off the Democratic party, so their individual acts are expected and not worth commenting on. The Republicans, on the other hand, constantly mouth positions that align with those of Libertarians, while consistently pursuing authoritarian policies and socialism. Republican duplicity and hypocrisy is worth writing about; Democrats being Democrats is dog-bites-man.

                1. This is how I see it. Democrats increasingly identify themselves as Socialists and (essentially) authoritarian statists. There’s not a whole lot interesting to write about that (it’s why we see the occasional “Bernie is actually ok on this one thing!” articles – because it’s unusual.

                  On the other hand, there are a number of Republicans who either identify as libertarians, speak fondly about constitutional liberty, or at least put some effort into lessening the state. Therefore, it’s worth pointing out how frequently these jackoffs screw it up. And, in my estimation, the (R)s who speak the liberty/libertarian language risk being jettisoned to make way for the new Trump party of Derp.

              2. if they were principled then they wouldn’t be birthing kittens about Republicans and Republicans only.

                1. That’s a lie.
                2. Unless you’re a Republican, why would you care if it were true?

                1. Forget it, Cisco, it’s Chinatown.

            2. Reason has the most principled libertarian writers likely ever assembled under one tent.

              One of the most hilarious things I’ve ever read. There are a vanishingly small number of principled libertarians, and an ever-increasing number of faker scumbagettas like Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

              1. Take your meds, Mike.

                1. He’s right though: ENB, Dalmia, Suderman….the list of slightly libertarian Leftists is growing. ENB still won’t repudiate that Bustle article.

                  1. In the previous year, there was a big Progressitarian wave of immigration to Reason.

                    I think the most recent additions are bucking that trend, however. Ed Krayewski seems pretty ok.

                    1. And Sheldon hasn’t had an article for weeks.

                      There was a week a few weeks ago where I thought Nick and Matt had some articles with Trump in them, that actually seemed moderately serious, instead of just pants shitting Racist! Nazi! hysteria. It seemed to me that there was a real effort to right the ship.

                      Maybe like the country, we’ve passed peak SJW.

                2. Do you honestly think Dalmia, Suderman and Richman are “principled Libertarians”? Get some meds SF.

          2. I has a sad.

            Next you’ll tell me NRO isn’t the same anymore, either.

    4. Like nearly every Washington pundit, Suderman’s problem is not with Trump. His problem is with Trump’s supporters.

      Isn’t this what most of his critics have admitted all along? The man is churlish and inarticulate, but his only real “crime” is seizing on the grievances of churlish, inarticulate voters. These are people who believe economic isolationism and border militancy will improve their lives, and they’re willing to gamble away even the anemic growth we’ve seen in order to put a man not renowned for his philosophical or personal consistency into a position to do something about it. They are the problem, although they’re no more a problem than any other grievance group.

      1. I love it when Trumpster fires yell at me, “You just hate the regular folk who love Trump!” And my response is: “Yep.”

        1. Trumpkins are the only thing standing between you and a one party state Progressive Theocracy.

      2. I know. These are people whose interests don’t matter and should have no voice in the political system. Kevin Williamson told us that months ago.

        They also represent well over a third of GOP voters. I guess I am not one of those establishment geniuses because I think hating 40% of your voters and telling them to fuck off is a very odd way to run a political party.

        And yes, you hate those people’s guts. That is your and the rest of the conservative movement’s right. But don’t then complain when they turn to someone you don’t like. You are the one who ceded the field.

        1. I know right? The churlish and inarticulate have no business in the political process. Uppity proles!

          1. Are we just suffering from false consciousness?

            1. Like, in The Matrix?

              1. No, like in Marxism, the language of which you are adopting all over the comments.

                1. Trump supporters are just the right-wing version of SJWs, and it shows in their rhetoric.

                  1. I’ve always thought that we were elitists around here. I mean, we believe in something that is only supported on a statistical noise level. Common people are the ones that have been voting away our rights for 200 years.

                    1. I will admit to being a huge elitist. I am such an elitist that what offends me most is when people I deem undeserving of the title like Suderman try and pretend to be so.

                    2. I get confused all the time as to whether I’m an elitist, or just a misanthrope.

                      But I’m pretty sure it’s at least one of those.

                2. Am I? How so?

          2. “I know right? The churlish and inarticulate have no business in the political process. Uppity proles!”

            Warty’s WHYCOME YOU FAGGOTS stuff annoys the shit out of me, but the fact that people seem to glorify being stupid in modern society annoys me more.

            Yes, being stupid is a bad thing. It’s actually incredibly offensive that so many poor white people elevate the fact that they’re uneducated to some kind of a virtue and pseudo-populists enable them.

            John thinks I’m just bigoted against poor whites, but actually I’ve just had a lot of conversations with Trump supporters and they are all complete idiots, at least when it comes to politics. They will believe whatever he says completely without regard for what the actual evidence says. It’s pathetic and it’s even more pathetic that people like you justify this stupidity and this cult of personality by claiming that the statement ‘being an idiot is a bad thing’ is somehow a sign of elitism rather than a sign of common sense.

            1. No Irish, I just don’t give a lot of credence to the Trump supporters who live in your head. I don’t believe everything Trump says and have never claimed to. No one I know or have spoken to does.

              For whatever reason that is just a reality you can’t face. Trump supporters must all be dupes who support a cult of personality in your view. The thought that they might have a more sophisticated and often cynical view of things is for whatever reason something you are unable to admit.

              I find that 90 percent of what the detractors of Trump say to be all about their own neurosis and prejudices. It is not that there are not valid criticisms to be made of Trump. There most certainly are. In fact, the exist of those criticisms and the seeming inability of so many of his detractors to make those obvious and rational criticism is what shows how their objection to Trump runs much deeper than this or that policy difference.

            2. It’s actually incredibly offensive that so many poor white people elevate the fact that they’re uneducated to some kind of a virtue and pseudo-populists enable them.

              Why do you suppose many do that? Maybe because they get shit on by people who are smarter than they are? That’s what I see around me but perhaps there are other reasons.

              Trump supporters and they are all complete idiots, at least when it comes to politics. They will believe whatever he says completely without regard for what the actual evidence says.

              Isn’t this every supporter of a politician that looks at he/she with blinders on?

              It’s pathetic and it’s even more pathetic that people like you justify this stupidity and this cult of personality by claiming that the statement ‘being an idiot is a bad thing’ is somehow a sign of elitism rather than a sign of common sense.

              I can’t help it half the population is less smart than the other half. I would prefer that the less-smart half do more to educate themselves on the issues that matter. Unfortunately, I can’t make them do that. That’s their choice, not mine. I don’t think that means they should have a diminished voice in politics – especially since both parties appear to have cast them aside. I’m not endorsing their apparent choice so much as just trying to understand it.

            3. I’ve spoken to a lot of Trump supporters who are very articulate, involved, intelligent, and broadly informed.

          3. So, having a majority makes you right?

            I’m guessing you side with the Climate Change Consensus then too, right?

            You can get the most votes and still be a moron. Particularly when your constituency consists largely of morons.

            Look down at Trump voters? You bet your ass I do.

            1. So, having a majority makes you right?

              I didn’t say it made him right. I said it made him not a political joke. And the climate change movement may be wrong but it is most certainly not a joke. If only it were a joke.

              I can’t respond to you Frank when you make no effort to understand what I am saying.

              1. That was for Restoras, John.

                Restoras may be wrong, but he’s not a mendacious troll. Him, I’ll engage with for that reason.

                You, not so much.

                1. My apologies Frank. I misunderstood.

            2. No, the majority doesn’t make ‘me’ right, or you for that matter. If that’s what I said then I apologize.

              No, I most certainly do not side with the Climate Change Consensus, unless you mean the consensus here.

              Yes, I suppose you are correct about getting the most votes and still being a moron, since most people who vote are morons, as you say.

              You are perfectly within your rights to look down on Trump voters, just as I am. I guess I prefer not too, no more than I look down on people that support Bernie or Hillary or Jeb or Cruz. They have their reasons, and some/many/most aren’t rational but you’ll never win anyone over to rationality by calling them morons, at least in my experience.

        2. Kevin Williamson was a little more forceful:

          “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

          That’s how he feels about working class whites. And all the GOPe are shocked, just shocked that the peasants hate them in turn.

      3. I think the question is whether the disdain is firmly rooted in principle, or whether it’s motivated by fear that they could derail the Beltway gravy train.

        1. fear that they could derail the Beltway gravy train

          It really wouldn’t be that hard if a big enough mob had someone to rally around.

          1. At this point the power elite have the means to destroy a mob of any size. And don’t count on the “Oath Keepers” fantasy to save the mob.

            1. Well, we’ve heard that before.

        2. My disdain is firmly rooted in watching friends, politicians, and internet strangers make complete asses of themselves trying to justify why they’re on board the dipshit train. There are still two other dipshit trains with Bernie and Hillary supporters, but those people are lost causes to me.

          1. I’m talking about Suderman; sorry, I thought that was clearer. He’s a DC journalist, who writes for more establishment publications (and is married into a more establishment writer as well). He may have pure motives, and I’m sure he thinks that he does, but I wonder if he is being perfectly honest with himself.

            1. Gotcha. I guess I just don’t care. I read Suderman’s article and found it mostly “meh.” Nothing new here. Then, come here to the comments and the apes start throwing their shit like Suderman had fucked their chimp wives.

      4. The odd part about it all is that some of the supporters are people who hadn’t always been idiots. It’s like getting a case of the DTs (Donald Trumps) is some disease that makes people feel all need to maintain principles, intellectual consistency or basic civility whither away in a flare of victimhood.

        1. No one in politics has any decency, civility or principles. I am not sure they ever did but if they did that ship sailed a long time ago. If you want to adhere to your principles, start a religion because politics doesn’t work that way. Spare me your tired ass appeals to civility.

      5. Suderman’s problem is not with Trump. His problem is with Trump’s supporters.

        Can’t it be both?

        1. Sure. But he needs to admit that and stop pretending that his problem is with Trump.

    5. “Suderman’s problem is not with Trump. His problem is with Trump’s supporters.”

      Yes. My problem is also with the people involved in a pathetic personality cult where they essentially worship a buffoon. My problem is with Trump supporters for the same reason my problem in 2008 was with Obama supporters. If I think a candidate is terrible, then I’m going to blame their supporters for that candidates success.

      Strange that you behave as if Trump supporters are beyond criticism but Obama supporters weren’t.

      1. Do you want a guy who can get buffoon votes, or a guy who can’t?

        Do you want to win, or do you want to cuck?

    6. I’m pretty sure the “point” of having a political party is to organize and promote the ideals and policies of the party. The number of voters is only relevant insofar as it leads to those goals.

      In the case of Trump, while he may have drawn in many new voters, if those new voters don’t translate into a general election win, then they’re moot. And even if they *do* translate into a general election win, if Trump doesn’t stick to Republican ideals/policies/principles (and Trump is nothing if not inconsistent) then it isn’t really a victory for the Republican party.

      So while I’m not sure I’d go so far as calling Trump a “joke” candidate, or the GOP a “joke” party if they unify around him, I will say that, for the Republican party, it may be better for Trump to lose the general election then have him win it.

      All that said, I’m not a Republican, so my views/opinions on the matter aren’t worth the hard-drive space they’re stored on.

      1. The point of a political party is to represent the views of your supporters. If the supporters decide they want something different, then the party changes. It is a political party not a religion.

        And spare me the fake tears over principles. You just don’t like the people who have done this. If a bunch of Libertarians had come in and taken over, you would rightfully love it and be telling the butt hurt conservatives to fuck off. Who said they owned the party and not the voters?

      2. I’m pretty sure the “point” of having a political party is to organize and promote the ideals and policies of the party.

        The point of politics is power.

    7. His problem is with Trump’s supporters.

      Peasants are so icky!

  4. Seems like the GOP’s problem was Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, …

    “Ignore the base harder!” is some hilariously bad advice.

  5. Rallying behind Trump only makes them craven partisans–just like when all the Berniebots swallow that little bit of vomit that splashed against the back of their throats and vote for Hillary.

    It’s naive in the extreme to think politics hasn’t been about grievance all long.

  6. I would love to have Suderman explain what makes an ordinary political interest a “grievance”. Lets say for the sake of argument that a good number of Trump’s supporters are people who have lost their jobs due to foreign competition or immigration. Why is their interest in wanting their old jobs back a grievance rather than just another political interest? Would Suderman describe public employees who voted against Scott Walker because of his stand on unions as having a grievance? I don’t think so. They are just another political interest. Sure, one that Suderman thinks ought to be ignored but not part of the dreaded “grievance industry”.

    Lastly, why are grievances necessarily bad? Can grievances never be legitimate? And isn’t the whole point of politics to provide a peaceful way to adjudicate different groups’ grievances? This is a sorry article. And Suderman clearly can’t get over his need to act outraged and to engage in snobbery to think clearly about this issue.

    I wouldn’t expect any Libertarian to support Trump. But Jesus Christ you can do a better job of understanding what is going on than this.

    1. If you are a transgendered Mexican, your grievances are opportunities for progress.

      If you are drinking a Budweiser at a tractor pull, your grievances are sign that you are racist.

      At least that’s how I think it works.

  7. Y U COSOMO FAGITS HAT TRMUP PARTY

    1. No need to ask, we know why.

      Cucks gonna cuck.

  8. The “joke” party controls both Houses of Congress, a majority of the Governorships, and a majority of the state legislatures. I really don’t think that’s a “joke” party.

    Yes, Donald Trump is a clown. And who are the Democrats running? Someone under a cloud of possible felony indictment and an unreconstructed socialist.

    But, it’s clearly the GOP that should “engage in productive self-criticism with regards to either its policies or its tone and approach to politics” (i.e. engage in self-denunciation and give in across the policy board to their opponents).

    I’ve held off on the Suderman bashing. Since most of it seemed directed at any hint of criticism of the Orange Messiah. But this is just a weak argument.

    1. The more you put down Trump the worse it makes the rest of the GOP look. If the GOP is so great and Trump is so bad, how did they manage to lose their own primary so badly to him? They couldn’t beat him among their own supporters. Someone is a clown here but it isn’t Trump.

      1. By your reasoning, Barack Obama is just super awesome since he won the Presidential election.

        Yeah, John, someone here is a clown. But if it isn’t Trump, it isn’t me, either.

        1. No not at all. By my reasoning Mitt Romney and John McCain are horrible politicians for losing to him.

          1. And not being a good politician is what makes you a clown.

            You really are starting to sound like a prog.

            1. If that is how you make your living, that is one of the things. Lets take the GOP at their word. They run a national political party and were so incompetent they allowed this horrible monster to come in and take over their party. If that doesn’t make them clowns, what does? Remember, Trump didn’t pull a gun and take over by force. He took over because the people running the party are such ass clowns he was able to turn their own supporters against them.

              1. They run a national political party and were so incompetent they allowed this horrible monster to come in and take over their party. If that doesn’t make them clowns, what does?

                Anyone can whip up a crowd promising inanities divorced from any connection to reality. That Donald Trump better assessed the utter credulity for stupid bullshit of the average crowd of voters than the rest of the GOP isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

                1. II know Bill. Its just the stupid voters. If only the GOP could find voters who are worthy of them. If your answer to losing is “the voters are not worthy of me”, you are a fucking clown.

            2. I think that if the “Professionals” can’t sell the ideals of a party, then those ideals might be questionable. Whatever we think of Trump, the lesson is that the GOP is run by horrible politicians.

              Or, the GOP ideals suck ass.

              But, that probably isn’t 100% true, given their success at the State and congressional district level. Perhaps what we are really learning is that in different districts, people vote Republican for different reasons, and there is no one politician that all of them are willing to support at the same time.

              So maybe they aren’t horrible politicians, they just aren’t very good at lying? Same thing?

      2. The more you put down Trump the worse it makes the rest of the GOP look.

        Why should anyone give a shit?

        1. Because if you don’t like Trump you are obviously either a Democrat or a supporter of the establishment wing of the GOP. There literally are no other scenarios.

          1. Oh yeah. I forgot.

          2. I’m a Democrat cuckservative supporter of the establishment GOP with an inferiority complex because I’m clearly afraid of how manly Trump and his supporters are.

            1. That was truly epic.

            2. “I’m clearly afraid of how manly Trump and his supporters are.”

              Trump supporters are so extraordinarily manly that they mostly just complain about how Chinese people and Mexicans make it really hard for them to succeed.

              Like all manly men, from Beowulf to Clint Eastwood, they know that there is nothing manlier than constantly bitching and scapegoating other people for your failures.

              1. But … but … jobz!!!

          3. Because if you don’t like Trump you are obviously either a Democrat or a supporter of the establishment wing of the GOP. There literally are no other scenarios.

            Who said that? No one I can see. So why are you acting like someone has?

  9. I was woken up very early this morning by a wood chipper running right outside my front door. It ran for about five hours as workers across the street cut down several trees. Now I’m going to be cranky all day.

    1. We need more trees and fewer politicians.

      1. Good hint!

    2. Wood chippers make most people around here happy.

  10. SUDERMAN AND REAZUN, LUV TEH HILLREY!

    You dun never talk as bad about teh Blue statists as yaz do about muh Red statists!

    Proof, Reazun is a librul rag!

    1. No one said Suderman loves Hillary. Why do you think anyone did?

      1. I did.

        Suderman luvs Hillary.
        Suderman luvs Hillary.
        Suderman luvs Hillary.

    2. If only that were followed by:

      Lets get out her and go whereby we be free to luv us some Trump2016!

      1. We can only pray.

        I’m an atheist, but am willing to try anything.

  11. This is pretty much backwards.

    Of course Trump is serious. Just because he’s a professional dealmaker and knows public relations doesn’t harm his credibility, unless of course you’re going to say Senators and lawyers lack credibility.

    Trump is like a cross between Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt. He seems to enjoy life a little more than Nixon does, more a happy warior like Teddy. Like Teddy, ambitious to stretch the Constitution to accomodate his ambitions.

    Trump might have an enemies list, but out of calculation, not pique. And if the enemy was willing to cut a deal, he’d be off the enemies list and onto the White House guest list.

    The comparison with Nixon is because Trump is substantively a prog, for the most part, but manages to get support from non-progs and (related) piss off other progs.

    He’s not a principled defender of free enterprise. He boasts in Art of the Deal that unlike other developers in NY, he doesn’t want to abolish rent control, just means test it. That is, drop those parts of rent control which keeps him from making a profit, not mount a philosophical challenge to it. I suspect he’d be happy if rent control and other laws could be used against his competitors so long as they’re not used against him.

    He could, in all seriousness, bring us back to the Good Old Days when Progressive Democrats like Woody Wilson squared off against Progressive Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, and constitutional conservatives were out in the cold.

    1. He could, in all seriousness, bring us back to the Good Old Days when Progressive Democrats like Woody Wilson squared off against Progressive Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, and constitutional conservatives were out in the cold.

      Constitutional conservatives are gonna get real cold if Hillary appoints 3 more justices to the Supremes and christens millions more progressive voters. Game over.

      Get on the Trump Train, or make your plans for living under the one party state Progressive Theocracy.

  12. lol @ Trump trolling the ever living fuck out of Suderman

  13. Trump nominates Jesse “The Body” Ventura for veep, and then dies from whatever makes him that strange color. At the next summit, Ventura tries to put Putin in a sleeper hold, but Putin kicks his ass. WWIII starts.

    1. “I’m just not comfortable with Jesse Ventura having his finger on the nuclear folding chair.”

  14. Reason in a nutshell:

    “Hillary supporters are idiots” – no one cares

    “Obama supporters are idiots” – no one cares

    “Trump supporters are idiots” – YOU’RE EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT IN AMERICA, WHY DO YOU HATE UNEDUCATED WHITE PEOPLE, I BET YOU GO TO COW CHIP TOSSING CONTESTS IN RURAL AREAS AND URINATE ON SMALL CHILDREN WHILE CALLING THEIR PARENTS RACISTS

    1. Wow, you make rural life sound so interesting, tell us more…

      1. I’ve been to the Sauk City, Wisconsin cow chip tossing contest like 7 times and it’s always a good time. Lots of food that will make your heart explode.

    2. Just wait till election season is in full swing, it only gets worse from here.

      1. Just wait till election season is in full swing, it only gets worse from here.

        Hey, I have been assured that no one has ever commented that libertarians should swallow their stupid principles and vote for the GOP because the Democrat might win. It’s never happened. Ever.

        1. You should vote however you want. Either you buy into strategic voting or you don’t. If you don’t, its not like one vote makes any difference. And if there is one thing two terms of Obama has taught us, life goes on no matter how bad the President is. So even if your vote did make the difference in who won, its not like things are going to be that different one way or another.

          1. I must say, this is among the more cheerful things you’ve said lately!

          2. Ah, there’s some stuff I can agree with.

            What frustrates me is that we creep ever farther away from limited government, liberal principles, and the constitutional order. The Trump/Hillary/Sanders trifecta only shows me that people are becoming more statist, not less. It’s not that I think Trump/Hillary/Sanders will completely destroy the country. It’s that I think the people voting for these asshats will.

            1. It’s a pendulum. This country has survived much worse people in the past, sans maybe Sanders.

              1. I certainly hope you’re right.

              2. But when you import a new country, you may find it’s not quite so resilient as the old one.

            2. The country is going to do what it is going to do. No one politician is going to change that. And even if one could, government is only one part of life and one of the things that can take away your freedom. It doesn’t do any good to have a limited government if your society is oppressive and nasty. I worry more about the state of society at large than I do about the hired help in the White House. The last 16 years has taught me that politics is both more damaging and less important than I thought.

              1. But once again: Only the State has the power to enforce the BS that “society” comes up with.

                1. Don’t kid yourself. Society can enforce it even more effectively than the state if it sets its mind to it. The state can just shoot your or throw you jail. Society can kill you but worse it can deprive you of your family, your friends or any sort of meaning or sense of belonging. The state can can do that too but it has to try really hard and even then there is always an underground. If society tries that hard you are truly alone.

                  And the state is ultimately a reflection of society anyway. Totalitarian governments don’t just magically inflict themselves on freedom loving people, absent foreign invasion.

        2. The appeals for Mitt Romney last time were downright nauseating, I have a feeling they will be worse this time around.

          1. “The appeals for Mitt Romney last time were downright nauseating, I have a feeling they will be worse this time around.”

            ^^^ I was just going to mention this. All the people now telling us we should vote for Trump because he’ll destroy the establishment were trying to get us to vote for Romney last time.

            That’s my favorite part.

          2. The appeals for Mitt Romney last time were downright nauseating, I have a feeling they will be worse this time around.

            GILMORE never saw them, so they must not have happened.

    3. But they aren’t Trump supporter or anything.

      1. Who is denying that? I will vote for Trump. I have never denied ti. I just can’t figure out why that simple statement causes you to think I worship him and think he is infallible.

        1. Oh, you motherfucking liar.

          1. What am I lying about?

              1. Where am I denying I support Trump? And even if you think I am the infamous author, that article is hardly worshipful. Its like you are butt hurt that I won’t live up to the stereotypes that live in your head. Sorry, life doesn’t always meet your prejudices.

                  1. Yes SF. There I am giving the exact same position I always do about Trump. I say

                    I don’t know why people think that. My point has always been that Trump is no worse than the alternatives and the reaction to him has been completely unwarranted and driven mostly by social snobbery. I have said on multiple occasions that Trump is incidental to my larger points.

                    That is exactly what I am saying on this thread. And what I always say. its always some variation of “he is no worse than the rest and he might be better”.

                    Let me ask you again, how am I lying? And why do you I think I worship the guy?

                    1. Because you have slavishly defended him in thousands upon thousands of posts.

                    2. No. I have called his detractors out as clowns, because they are. The fact that he is fortunate in his enemies doesn’t mean I think he is perfect. It just means I think his detractors are morons.

                      Even Irish doesn’t agree with you. Why can’t you just give it up? Why does it means so much to you?

              2. Gogo Romace had a lot to say in that thread.

        2. Maybe all of the knee-jerk reaction defenses. Just a guess.

          1. Name one. Mostly I attack his detractors for being clowns. I really don’t offer that many defenses of Trump and when I do, they are pretty measured.

            Where are these knee jerk defenses because I don’t remember writing them.

            1. Go one week without commenting on a Trump article. I dare you.

              1. So enjoying picking on Trump detractors means I am launching knee jerk defenses of him? Sorry that doesn’t follow. Yeah. I love kicking around Trump detractors because doing so is so easy. That however is not the same as giving knee jerk defenses or refusing criticism of Trump. That just means his critics are stupid not that there are not valid criticisms. In fact, the existence of valid criticisms and his critics refusal to make them is one of the things that makes his critics so stupid.

        3. I don’t think you worship Trump. I think a lot of his supporters do and I think it’s telling that you deny what a cult of personality he’s managed to construct.

          1. Maybe there is one. But I really don’t see it. And I never see anyone offer any actual evidence of it. They just claim there is as if the assertion requires no evidence.

            1. And fish have a hard time understanding water is wet.

              1. And again, you offer no evidence. If it is so obvious, why can’t you point to Youtube videos of kids singing in praise of Trump like they did Obama? Why do you think it is a cult of personality?

                You accuse me of worshiping Trump even though I happily criticize him whenever you call me on it. Yet, you continue to make the accusation.

                You never offer any evidence and you falsely accuse me of being a worshiper even though I know its wrong and then accuse everyone else of the same without any evidence.

                And I am unreasonable for doubting this why?

        4. No, John, it’s that any criticism of him, even comparatively mild criticism of him relative to what is the norm on H’nR, causes you to break out in a conniption that makes us think you worship him or think he’s infallible.

          1. That is not my impression Bill. Why do you have it? Do you want to give some examples. I don’t think I am having any conniption. I am calling Suderman out. If you agree with him and think I am wrong, then say so.

            You and SF pretend that I do that because it bothers you that I won’t live up to your stereotype. Well, tough shit.

      2. It’s funny that the GOP shit-sandwich sales seem to spike around here every 4 years.

    4. I’m more amused that someone writing for a Libertarian rag feels the need to scold a major party for apparently not nominating ‘serious’ enough candidates who develop in-depth policy views.

      Why in the fuck does Suderman care? Especially to sound like such a stuffy elitist about it.

      1. Its quite a bit of concern trolling. Shouldn’t Suderman want the GOP to be a joke? IT becoming a national joke would create a pretty big opening for the LP I would think.

        1. Shouldn’t Suderman want the GOP to be a joke?

          Dunno. I’m just trying understand the reactive indignation which the Trump spectacle seems to evoke in him, as well as others I’ve seen.

          IT becoming a national joke would create a pretty big opening for the LP I would think.

          Maybe?but that’d be contingent upon the LP party becoming less of a joke. Running someone besides Groggy Johnson for a change would help.

      2. seriously, Suderman is not a Republican and he was never going to vote Republican, so he can spare us this “oh if only the GOP would nominate reasonable candidates.” The people yelling about Trump the loudest were never, ever, ever, eeeeeeeever voting Republican anyway, so they can spare me the horseshit about how Trump is uniquely awful. There was a “serious” candidate in 2012 and the liberal trolls turned him into George Wallace anyway. Well big fucking surprise, Republicans stopped listening to you.

        1. It’s also shitty for Suderman to suggest that the party ought to consider rebuking the choice its voters clearly made (Trump), rather than unify around it as they’ve traditionally done for past nominees.

          Like it or not, this is the Pandora’s Box those voters have chosen to open, and taking that choice away would destroy the party worst of all.

  15. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/pI9ucn
    The best adult dating site!

  16. I get the feeling a civil war is brewing between Reasolitists and Reasonoids.

    PICK A SIDE.

    1. What’s a Reasolitist?

      1. Cosmo vs. IPA

        1. I’ll drink my whiskey and sell you both arms.

        2. What if I don’t want either?

      2. I merged Reason with Elitist.

        /stoically stares back.

      3. What’s a Reasolitist?

        Cucktarian.

  17. Given Trump’s success thus far, and re-reading some of Scott Adams, I am really hoping that much of the bravado is for negotiation purposes, and as a result he will be much more successful at actually achieving many of the things we all say we want.

    I would ponder this more carefully, but my vote doesn’t count, so I’m not going to waste the calories.

  18. I dislike Trump, but I’m not so sure his rise spells the end of the GOP. I haven’t seen a Republican nominee energize the GOP the way Trump has in decades, lots of Republicans are enthusiastic about the guy (very few were enthusiastic about Dole, Bushes, McCain, Romney). True, many Repubs dislike him, but most will come around for the sake of party unity. It is far from certain that Hillary will beat him in the general. If he wins the general election, how does this spell the end for the GOP?

    Again, I do not want him as president, but I don’t know that he spells the end of the GOP as we know it.

  19. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…
    http://www.earnmore9.com

  20. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  21. GOP Leaders Want to Unify Around Trump. That Will Only Make the Republican Party’s Problems Worse

    The cry of the Cucktarian: “It’s always better to lose elections.”

  22. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.cashapp24.com

  23. 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.MaxPost30.com

  24. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  25. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $120 per hour.

    I work through this link. Go here——————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  26. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $120 per hour.

    I work through this link. Go here——————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  27. ONLINE JOBS WITHOUT INVESTMENT AND SKILLS Today!!!
    I come up with the great oppertunity. No Need Investment smile emoticon smile emoticon No Need Skills. Just work for 2 hours daily and earn 80$ daily or more. Why you stopped. Just Sign up in 15 seconds and start your JOB
    click this link==== http://www.earn-yelp.com

  28. RE: GOP Leaders Want to Unify Around Trump. That Will Only Make the Republican Party’s Problems Worse

    Worse?
    How could it get any worse for the fascist republicans?
    Bring back Nixon?

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

    This is what I do—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  30. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  31. My roomate’s sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here…..

    OPEN this link …….

    http://www.pathcash30.com

  32. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  33. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  34. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  35. Allison . if you think Rachel `s artlclee is exceptional… last week I bought audi after having made $5844 thiss month and just a little over 10-k this past month . without a question it is the easiest-work Ive ever done . I actually started eight months/ago and immediately started to earn at least $86 per-hour . Read Full Report…

    ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  36. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  37. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  38. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  39. Allison . if you think Rachel `s artlclee is exceptional… last week I bought audi after having made $5844 thiss month and just a little over 10-k this past month . without a question it is the easiest-work Ive ever done . I actually started eight months/ago and immediately started to earn at least $86 per-hour . Read Full Report…
    ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  40. 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.Centernet40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.