Donald Trump

600+ Writers Sign #NeverTrump Letter Because Dictatorship

The problem isn't that the letter goes too far. It's that it doesn't go far enough.

|

Reason, Todd Krainin

Over at Literary Hub, "an organizing principle [i.e., website] in the service of literary culture," about 600 writers ranging from Stephen King to Jane Smiley to Dave Eggers to Rita Dove have signed an open letter denouncing Donald Trump.

The presumptive Republican nominee, the signatories argue, "deliberately appeals to the basest and most violent elements in society, who encourages aggression among his followers, shouts down opponents, intimidates dissenters, and denigrates women and minorities."

And there's this:

as writers, we are particularly aware of the many ways that language can be abused in the name of power;…

we believe that any democracy worthy of the name rests on pluralism, welcomes principled disagreement, and achieves consensus through reasoned debate;…

the history of dictatorship is the history of manipulation and division, demagoguery and lies;

It goes on in this vein for a bit and then concludes:

We, the undersigned, as a matter of conscience, oppose, unequivocally, the candidacy of Donald J. Trump for the Presidency of the United States.

Read the whole thing.

Well, good for all the writers, though I remain dismayed that it takes someone or something like Donald Trump to rouse writers to political commitments, even low-risk ones such as this.

https://reason.com/issues/march-2016

I know I will not be voting for Donald Trump under any circumstances that I can plausibly imagine, though it's overheated to call him a threat to the American way of life (seriously, if the US of A can't withstand him as president, the game is already over, folks). At this point, neither will I be voting for Hillary Clinton, for many of the reasons that Matt Welch outlined in his excellent piece, "Hail To the Censor: Hillary Clinton's long war on free speech." 

FFS, both Trump and Clinton called for censoring the Internet within days of one another in virtually identical terms because of the non-existentialist threat of Islamic terrorism. "You're going to hear all of the usual complaints—you know, 'freedom of speech,' etc.," said Clinton, while Trump harumphed, "Somebody will say, 'Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."

In this sense, my basic issue with the #NeverTrump letter isn't that it goes too far in denouncing a candidate virtually no vaguely intellectual or serious person could ever support, it's that the letter isn't ultimately real about its commitments to things like free expression. You don't need to say Hillary Clinton is equally bad as Donald Trump to argue that neither candidate is acceptable as president if in fact you believe in something/anything approaching unfettered free speech, true tolerance, yadda yadda yadda.

I get that virtue-signaling is not just a thing, but often a good thing; it's a speech act that can make a huge difference at any given time. But what I want out of "writers"—who really have no special claim to insight or seriousness than mere journalists or "ordinary" citizens—is ultimately a commitment to speech and expression, not an expression of something as small-ball as partisan politics.

NEXT: Bill Named After Murdered Girl Fails House Vote. Thank Goodness.

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. 8 years of Obama’s bullshit met with total silence, but now they want to complain? Yeah, fuck these guys.

    1. Wow, the time just flew by.

      1. To be fair, I suppose it’s been more like ~7? years.

        1. I think it’s fair to count from when they start campaigning, plenty of bullshit before they ever make it to the office.

    2. total silence? I for one have been bitching & moaning consistently trhoughout both of Obamas terms.

    3. Way to miss the point, dumbfuck.

      1. I read that as kinda agreeing with Nick, namely the bit about small-ball partisan politics.

        1. Yeah, was basically a form of agreement with Nick. Seems odd, but it happens.

          1. the Snarkitariat is sensitive to anything that looks like approval of Trump. because they’re so above politics…I guess.

            1. SugarFree in particular is hypersensitive to any statements made in context of a Trump article that happen to not involve melodramatic castigations of Trump.

              1. Or I don’t like boring shills.

                But sure, take Tulpa’s side.

                1. Oh fuck you , you pathetic crybaby fuck.

                  You complain like a child that he misadd the point, then cry that he’s a shill, THEN, as if its some game winner, call him Tulpa.

                  When did you become, such a worthless piece of garbage? When your sockpuppet buddies stopped showing up to slurp you? The timing seems right.

                  1. So brave. Much sockpuppet. Wow.

                    1. That’s exactly the crybabying right there.

                      “Much sockpuppet”

                      What about epi and nicole?

                    2. You sound familiar.

                    3. I understand that I hurt your feelings. I just don’t give a shit.

                    4. And yet you keep posting to tell me so.

                    5. Trumps Disappointing Poll|5.25.16 @ 1:56PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      And yet you keep posting to tell me so.

                      I replied to this handle once. What other handles are you running? Did I hurt all their feelz too?

                      I mean, without a chorus of agreement from yourself, you might have to make an actual argument once in a while.

                    6. What about epi and nicole?

                      Everyone knows that they were SugarFree’s sock puppets. Didn’t you get the memo?

                    7. “SugarFree’s sock puppets.”

                      And if you notice, another one has, showed up.

                    8. Whoa, whoa! I didn’t agree to wade into this kind of flow of mewling, droolgobbling idiocy!

                      I remember when H&R actually had sentient trolls. This batch is only half baked; barely conscious.

                    9. And if you notice, another one has, showed up.

                      Well, yes, Warty, but everyone knows that, too.

                    10. Is this the new strategy? Sock puppet solipsism?

                    11. I’m not sure it even knows what a sockpuppet is. “People use word as insult. I use word too!”

                    12. Really, really familiar.

    4. They’ve given power to form a committee and they’ve given that committee full power to right a report.

  2. Bunch of liberals declare they won’t vote for Trump.

    Stunning and brave!

  3. At this point, neither will I be voting for Hillary Clinton,

    Nick is clearly in the bag for Hillary.

    1. Nice qualifier by Nick.

      And by the way, the qualifier is bullshit.

    2. I notice not even a qualified commitment not to vote for Sanders.

    3. How about at this point? State Dept IG Finds Hillary Clinton Violated Government Records Act and Refused to Speak to Investigators

      http://www.politico.com/story/…..ort-223553

  4. to Jane Smiley to Dave Eggers to Rita Dove

    To who to who to who?

    1. I think they are people who have given each other awards.

  5. Are these idiots trying to push me toward Trump? Everyone needs to get their own house in order, because you’re never going to change the opposition.

    1. This.

      They won’t take a single vote away from Trump. They stand a decent chance of taking a few away from Hillary though.

  6. Not bad, Nick. I think you hit it about right: this is partisan hackery by the writers, as neither candidate is as balls-to-the-wall respectful of free speech as they should be.

    This, however, strikes me as being a little too . . . insular?

    I get that virtue-signaling is not just a thing, but often a good thing; it’s a speech act that can make a huge difference at any given time.

    My beef with “virtue-signalling” is that what it touts as virtues really, in practice, aren’t. There is a shitload of virtue-signalling going on right now that has everything to do with restricting speech, collectivizing groups based on race, gender, giving special privileges to some people and restricting the rights of others, etc. etc.

    And, finally, that much “virtue-signalling” may be a “speech act”, but its a bullying speech act not intended to persuade, but to call down coercion or otherwise impose very real, very adverse consequences on people.

    1. “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.”

      Believer or not, there is a lot of human wisdom in the Bible

      1. This. On those rare occasions I go to church I spend the entire time reading the bible and ignoring everyone else

        1. You know, they sell bibles, you don’t have to borrow the church’s.

          1. Or you could just steal one from your hotel room, along with the shampoo.

    2. So Nick acutally believes virtue-signalling is a good thing? So saying you hate something instead of actually doing something about it is good? A normal person would say that makes someone a hypocrite.

      1. Nah, it’s only hypocritical if you say one thing and then act opposite to it. Saying one thing and then playing Xbox for 48 hours isn’t hypocritical, it’s just lazy.

        Now, disrupting other people’s peaceful assembly because your commitment to free speech requires you to drown out speech you disagree with? THAT’s hypocrisy!

    3. When Obama was telling us that we needed to rethink our view on freedom of speech and prosecuting a guy for making that awful abortion of a video, how many of these people signed the letter condemning him?

      1. pffft – they’re voting for the woman who masterminded throwing that guy in jail, who are you kidding

      2. Yea, but it was a really crappy movie, cinematography was bad, color matching off, no real character development.

    4. Trump is Hitler. That is, it is 1933 in Germany. These German writers put out a letter calling Adolf a dire threat to the nation, and go on and on about what liberalism is about. Is the letter not a good thing?

      Also, is that “call it ‘radical Islam’!” cry all that different from a demand for virtue signaling?

    5. Most of Nick’s virtue-signalling is to get cocktail party invites.

  7. I haven’t read the letter – let me guess, they used to be Republicans and they enthusiastically voted for Romney because he was a Responsible Moderate, but now their beloved Republican Party is going in the Wrong Direction with Trump?

    Ha ha, just kidding, for at least one of these signatories, Mitt Romney was a greedy, selfish one percenter: “I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share.”

    1. It’s almost as if, at least to some of these writers, there’s not such thing as a non-evil Republican candidate.

      1. Yeah people with rigid myopic points of view sure are tiresome, huh Eddie?

        1. almost as tiresome as people who chirp endlessly in an attempt to get clever one-liners in against other people.

          1. But nowhere near as tiresome as pusillanimous sock puppets.

            1. once upon a time you had a sense of humor, but something about the very slight rightward lean of the comments section soured you entirely. my impression was that a lot of the regulars here didn’t actually care so much about the TEAM sports, but it seems to me that some of you care very much if things get even slightly more RED here.

              1. It’s the election. Every four years this place goes insane.

              2. I can only work off of what’s laying around. So if the comments are full of blinkered yokeltarians and tedious Trumpling sockpuppets like you then it’s not so surprising that my material has gotten stale.

                1. you rolled a 1, Hugh. that’s total failure.

                  1. At least my one-liners make sense.

                    1. That doesn’t make you any less tiresome.

    2. Holy cow, what horrific logic displayed throughout that piece.

      “Sure, private charity can help Bob. And sure, I give to charity myself to help Alice. BUT WHAT ABOUT CHARLIE!? I demand you raise taxes to help Charlie even though I literally just said I have more money available and I know what charity is!”

      I particularly liked “charity can’t decrease the price of gasoline by a single penny.” Sure it can. Step one: take a shitload of pennies and stand by a gas pump…

      1. “charity can’t decrease the price of gasoline by a single penny.”

        Whut?

        I bet Jimmah still thinks price controls are a nifty idea.

    3. I really wish someone would explain what “fair share” means. I interpret it to refer to the amount legally owed to the government. If Romney is breaking the law, he deserves chastisement. If he is playing by the duly enacted rules (what happened to all that herp-a-derp about “law of the land” when we got to the subject of taxation?), he’s paying his fair share.

      1. Fair Share:

        Tax the rich to feed the poor,
        Until there are no rich, no more.

        1. Unironically, the writer of that song died because of a botched surgery from National Health.

        2. Ah, the joys of income equality.

  8. The statements they’re talking about is mostly Trump talking about deporting illegal aliens and bombing the hell out of ISIS, right?

    Have they looked at Obama’s record lately?

    It’s all about a signaling war. If we ever get a real fascist in this country, he or she will rise to power on the back of inclusiveness signaling.

    1. ^This. Obama already has engaged in a systematic killing of terrorists and their families, deported more illegals than his predecessor, escalated the drug war, and used the Justice Department to silence his critics.

      1. It’s just different aesthetics.

        It was the same thing with George W. Bush.

        What did Bush do that Obama didn’t do?

        Not much. Bush even expanded Medicare to include prescriptions–biggest expansion of the program in history.

        Obama did the same things in foreign policy.

        Why do they hate Bush and not Obama?

        They hate the redneck aesthetic that Bush embraced. They hated Bush speaking with a drawl. They hated his cowboy aesthetic.

        If you could convince the left that rednecks hate Trump today, the left would jump on his bandwagon tomorrow.

        1. For some reason I remember Bush and Kerry being asked what their favorite gun is. Kerry, mendacious twat that he is, said, the M-16 I carried in Viet Nam. Yeah, sure. Bush on the other hand said his Weatherby Athena 28 gauge shotgun. Which meant that he actually did have a favorite gun ! (and a nice one)

        2. If you could convince the left that rednecks hate Trump today, the left would jump on his bandwagon tomorrow.

          ^ THIS. The left’s culture was is an optics war and not much of anything else

      2. LA Times:

        “A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

        Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.”

        Washington post:

        “…Julia Preston of the New York Times reported that in the fiscal year 2013, the immigration courts saw a 26 percent drop in the number of people who have been deported…”

  9. “But what I want out of “writers”?who really have no special claim to insight or seriousness than mere journalists or “ordinary” citizens?is ultimately a commitment to speech and expression, not an expression of something as small-ball as partisan politics.”

    Put your money where your mouth is. As editor in chief of Reason, I’m sure you’d have no trouble finding a writer, or even a “writer” who can whip up something to satisfy you.

    1. Fuck off, Maoist.

      1. He’s not a Maoist. Mao, and Mao Zedong Thought, never denied the Holocaust.

        1. “He’s not a Maoist. ”

          Oh but I am. I have repeatedly praised Mao’s barefoot doctor programme, responsible for saving the lives of many in China’s countryside. Worse, I have managed to make converts and persuade others here of Mao’s righteousness.

          About the Holocaust. As I good Maoist, I wouldn’t dream of denying it.

          1. I have managed to make converts and persuade others here of Mao’s righteousness.

            Citation needed

            1. oh please don’t encourage it to talk more.

            2. Make sure you get back to us when you get what you need.

          2. Oh but I am. I have repeatedly praised Mao’s barefoot doctor programme, responsible for saving the lives of many in China’s countryside.

            Yes, so many lives were saved by ignorant quacks who injected their suffering victims with chicken blood, as mandated by Mao Zedong Thought, or gave them enemas using water boiled with “traditional medicinal herbs”. And all because the 40,000 trained doctors were either executed or “sent to the countryside”.

            About the Holocaust. As I good Maoist, I wouldn’t dream of denying it.

            So how many Jewish victims of Nazi genocide were there, Martin? Please provide a number.

            1. “Yes, so many lives were saved by ignorant quacks ”

              No, what saved lives were fairly simple public health measures like boiling water before drinking. I understand you take a courageous stand against the Cultural Revolution, an upheaval I am only partially approve of. The barefoot doctor programme is a different thing, although both came out of China at around the same time. If you are critical of the barefoot doctors, you’ve yet to make that clear.

              “So how many Jewish victims of Nazi genocide were there, Martin?”

              Don’t know, if the number is important to you, you should look into the matter for yourself.

              1. No, what saved lives were fairly simple public health measures like boiling water before drinking. I understand you take a courageous stand against the Cultural Revolution, an upheaval I am only partially approve of. The barefoot doctor programme is a different thing, although both came out of China at around the same time. If you are critical of the barefoot doctors, you’ve yet to make that clear.

                I know Howard Zinn didn’t tell you about things like the chicken blood therapy, but don’t compound your typical laowai ignorance by refusing to admit that the Cultural Revolution purge of Western-trained doctors was the origin of the barefoot doctors were quacks who were responsible for the death and suffering of 10s, if not, 100s of millions of Chinese.

                “So how many Jewish victims of Nazi genocide were there, Martin?”

                Don’t know, if the number is important to you, you should look into the matter for yourself.

                Onus probandi.

                1. Still silent on the barefoot doctors, I see.

                  I’ve never read Howard Zinn, and quack medicines are not unusual in China, or Cambodia for that matter, where the Red Khmer forced similar ‘cures’ on people. What the barefoot doctors were about was introducing simple public health measures to the countryside, where doctors of any description were non-existent. Like it or not, Mao’s responsible for the introduction of these measures.

                  “Onus probandi.”

                  He who smelt it, dealt it.

                  1. Still silent on the barefoot doctors, I see.

                    I don’t see how I could be more clear on my criticisms of the barefoot quacks. That you continue to ignore my arguments is sign that you concede to them. You’ve repeatedly attempted to play pigeon chesshere, yet I’ve intellectually checkmated you every time. You’re only response has to been to squawk revisionist claims about the supposed public health measures the barefoot quacks have introduced. Which is why, in 2016, rural toilets in China still look like this.

                    “Onus probandi.”

                    He who smelt it, dealt it.

                    Now you’re pretending that you weren’t the one who first claimed the number of people killed in the Holocaust were inflated?

                    I mean, what are you getting out of this, Martin? Is this some sort of intellectual sadomasochism? Do you get off on having me eviscerate your lies, you sick fuck?

                    1. Squat toilets are good for you, you idiot. #neversit

                    2. Do you get off on having me eviscerate your lies, you sick fuck?

                      No he gets off on pissing you off.

                      Seriously, ignore him. He is utterly unworthy of anyone’s time or attention.

                    3. Again, I’m not pissed off as much as bored while I wait to pick up my daughter from school.

                    4. “Seriously, ignore him”

                      He can’t. He knows I am correct but not being a Maoist like myself, he’s unwilling to concede the point.

                    5. “Now you’re pretending that you weren’t the one who first claimed the number of people killed in the Holocaust were inflated?”

                      I don’t remember saying anything about any numbers being inflated. Inflated from what?

                      I’ve yet to read anything critical of the measures introduced by the barefoot doctors such as boiling drinking water. All you are willing to do is criticize the Cultural Revolution, patting yourself on the back on how this gives you intellectual superiority. I repeat it again. The barefoot doctors (under Mao Zedong) introduced public health that saved millions. You can continue criticizing the Cultural Revolution all you want. It doesn’t refute my claim.

                    6. I don’t remember saying anything about any numbers being inflated. Inflated from what?

                      mtrueman|5.13.16 @ 5:17PM| block | mute | #

                      “How many Jews?”

                      Disgustingly, less than 6 million.

                      That’s some chuztpah, dude.

                      As you have nothing more constructive to add, all future posts by you will only be responded to with Wang Rong Rollin’s “Chick Chick”.

                    7. You mean 6 million is the correct answer? Not 7 million, not 6,000,001? In fact 6 million is accepted as an upper limit to the number of Jews murdered by Nazis. The actual number was almost certainly lower, upper limits being what they are. (anti-semites)

      2. Put your money where your mouth is.

        1. Are you under the impression that SF is editor-in-chief of Reason?

          Oh, if only that were true! Yes, issues would have to be sent in brown wrapping paper, but…

          1. “Are you under the impression that SF”

            Maybe I am. Tell me who or what SF is and I’ll get back to you.

              1. Wht do you guys waste your time with the loser?

                To interact with him provides no benefit. Ignoring his imbecilic comments is no loss.

                1. Just wasting time in general, tbh.

              2. “SugarFree”

                If he’s so anxious to see me fuck off, let’s see the color of his money.

                1. I see you’re doing a good job beclowning yourself.

                  1. “I see you’re doing a good job beclowning yourself.”

                    Yet nobody has said a word against Mao’s noble barefoot doctors. Are you brave enough to join me in their praise, comrade?

                    1. Yet nobody has said a word against Mao’s noble barefoot doctors.

                      Well, no one white enough to bother paying attention to.

                    2. Martin really hates it when we get uppity. How can he speak for all of us when we’re opening our gobs?

                    3. “Well, no one white enough to bother paying attention to.”

                      Attention is paid, no doubt. What’s lacking is any challenge to my statement that Mao’s barefoot doctors saved millions by introducing basic public health measures to China’s countryside.

                2. wat

                  I like you guys. I learn new idioms and vocabulary every day. Sometimes it’s even useful.

  10. I get that virtue-signaling is not just a thing, but often a good thing; it’s a speech act that can make a huge difference at any given time.

    You’re going to have to spell out for me how displays of sanctimoniousness are good things that make huge differences, Nick. Is there another definition of the term of which I am not aware?

    1. it’s the right people being sanctimonious, so there’s that.

    2. Well, I usually have a hard time being convinced until the person trying to convince me goes full sanctimonious prick.

      You have to look at it backwards, I think. The good is that you get exposed to the sanctimonious assholes who insist on virtue signaling. Which, usually, ultimately drives intelligent people away which can make a pretty big difference.

    3. Is “virtue signaling” any different from run-of-the-mill advocacy?

    4. Yeah, virtue signaling is a good thing.

      Ex. – Co-worker walks up and hands me a 100 that they saw me drop unawares.

      That is good. An actual act of virtue voluntarily engaged in.

      Phoney baloney signalling is useless. I don’t give a shit if you want to save the whales or if you hug trees or if you vote for the right team. It is an empty gesture that costs you nothing. If anything it makes it harder for me to trust you.

      Lets see you step up and put yourself between an aggressor and a weaker person. That is a virtue signal. Don’t mouth platitudes, put your ass on the line and you will have my respect.

      1. Well put southern. My only critique is that virtue signaling tends to be without action where your 100 dollar example would be someone taking action and is really a virtuous act instead of virtue signaling.

  11. “we are particularly aware of the many ways that language can be abused in the name of power;…

    we believe that any democracy worthy of the name rests on pluralism, welcomes principled disagreement, and achieves consensus through reasoned debate;…

    the history of dictatorship is the history of manipulation and division, demagoguery and lies;”

    Have any of these people tried to tell that to some of the campus protesters?

    1. Or Trump rally protestors?

  12. Heh. I think Gillespie’s been reading my complaints about his alt-texting.

  13. If there’s anything worse than Donald Trump, it’s being forced to defend him against bullshit charges by the left.

    Well, that and Hillary Clinton. The woman is a crook. She accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. Benedict Arnold for President?

    I don’t think so.

  14. Sure would be nice if some of these writers would have had the courage to speak out about the guy actually committing a good many of the authoritarian acts, demagoguery, and war-crimes that they fear Trump might do.

    1. Obama has killed–at least–66 children in Pakistan alone with drone strikes.

      http://tinyurl.com/of6gq8v

      And that doesn’t include Afghanistan, Somalia, or Yemen.

      Adam Lanza only killed 20 children.

      Yes, Barack Obama has killed more children than Adam Lanza.

      1. Fuck Obama, and fuck all these cowards who are oh so concerned but bravely speaking up about what Trump might do while being silent for seven and a half years about what Obama continues to do.

  15. Sort of related, but the term “ordinary citizen” should at all times and in all places be replaced with “private citizen”.
    I’m not ordinary just because I don’t work for the government, or have a special job like teacher or writer.

  16. #NeverTrump

    What do I win?

    In 2008 I won a pony! Then in 2012 I won dissolution and despair that I was never going to get my pony. I hope I get a better prize this year. I’ve been really good.

    1. You didn’t get your pony because Mitt Romney shutdown the pony factory and gave the workers’ wives cancer, if I recall the 2012 Obama campaign ads correctly.

      You didn’t build that pony, anyway. Someone else made that happen.

      1. Mitt Romney’s got binders full of ponies!

    2. Disillusionment too. This morning I haven’t won coffee yet.

  17. I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 92 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! .1B.Check it out what i do…

    ——– http://www.careers-report.com

    1. Well, I’m glad somebody got their pony!

  18. well if the self-important harrumphing of a bunch of also-rans doesn’t end Trump’s campaign, I don’t know what will.

    maybe these people should have voted for the “reasonable” Republicans nominated the last couple of times that they always claim to “support” and this might not have happened.

  19. Virtue signaling unmoored by any virtue is not a good thing, it’s just playing pretend.

  20. Virtue-signalling is fucking bullshit for cowardly herd animals.

    More offensive is that any one of the authors presume I fucking care about the collective might of their micropens.

    1. We’re Stronger Together when Love Trumps Hate will Make America Great Again.

      I’m too young to remember Reagan’s campaign. Did he get anywhere close to as much hate as Trump?
      Fuck it. I’m voting for Dukakis.

      1. Reagan was a crazy old man war monger who was going to nuke Russia and destroy the world. That of course doesn’t mean Trump is another Reagan. It just means both Reagan and Trump’s critics were generally mendacious retards.

        1. you just made me realize how old the Democrat playbook really is.

          they’ve basically just been running the same variation of “Daisy” for the last 50 years.

          #Trump2016

        2. You forgot ‘amiable dunce’

      2. There was a tremendous amount of hate for Reagan.

        It stemmed from his days as the Governor of California, going against the hippies at Berkeley. I believe he’s the one that started charging tuition at the University of California system. Before that, it was tuition free.

        Also, when he went to address a bunch of protestors there, he looked out at the student protest leaders and saw a number of former communists who had been active in Hollywood back when he was the head of the Screen Actors Guild. Reagan’s hatred for them and what they did to his friends in Hollywood (and his wife), them black listed, etc. was extreme. He started treating the students with contempt when he saw those old communists among them in the crowd.

        Reagan was one of the three people most hated by the hippies, the others being Nixon and Agnew. And when he was running in 1980, it was a hate fest. It was even worse in ’84. They hated him for walking away from the Russians in Reykjavik. They hated him for turning around and embracing Gorbachev. They didn’t just hate every thing he did. They didn’t just hate everything he said. They hated Reagan. They hated his hair. They hated his clothes. They hated his smile.

        Meanwhile, Reagan compromised with Congress on spending and never even threw the social conservatives so much as a table scrap.

        1. Jane Wyman never wrote a tell-all book, or tried to cash in on her status as Reagan’s ex-wife. A testament to her, obviously, but that always struck me as a testament to the respect she must have had for him. You know there were people making offers for a tell all book.

        2. Thanks Ken. Being a maligned millennial I don’t have much context for “Do you know who else wanted to Make America Great Again?”

          Sidenote, now that we have the brakeless MAGA train here John no longer is the biggest Trump cheerleader. I know the internet is not the electorate, but the people making Trump memes are absolutely crushing their competition. (This is not an endorsement, I am waffles)

    2. More offensive is that any one of the authors presume I fucking care about the collective might of their micropens

      I have checked Rita’s hands and I don’t think “micro” is the right word for it.

  21. Not to parse too closely, but contrast these two statements:

    I know I will not be voting for Donald Trump under any circumstances that I can plausibly imagine,

    At this point, neither will I be voting for Hillary Clinton,

    One disclaimer does seem a little stronger than the other, no?

    /neo-paleo OFF

    1. At this point

      He just needs a little more convincing.

      1. “But I could be persuaded. *cough*pleaseinvitemetothenextbigHillaryevent* cough*cough*”

    2. He’s definitely voting for Hillary, probably in both D.C. and Ohio.

      OK, there’s a chance that maybe he’ll vote for Gary Johnson in D.C., but he’s definitely voting for Hillary in Ohio.

      1. To be fair, a vote for Hilary does not necessarily mean Nick cast it himself.

    3. “at this point” is one of those weasel phrase that people use hoping the reader will simply ignore it. I can understand criticism of Trump; what I don’t get is the even tacit support for Hillary.

      1. Agreed. Hillary has a very long record of being hostile to pretty much everything that should matter to libertarians, and a longer record of corruption.

        I will say categorically that I will not vote for either.

  22. These same people will tell you with a straight face why Trump is terrible (he is) and Clinton is awesome (she isn’t). When it comes to politics these are largely unserious team players who are worried their precious 49ers are going to lose to the hated Broncos.

  23. Dang, I sure hope my fire insurance is paid up.

  24. How many times has Obama exercised executive power only to be slapped down 9-0 buy the SCOTUS? Several by my count. Obama ordered the assassination of an American citizen. The media is on the fainting couch over Trump saying he would water board terrorists. Imagine what they would do if Trump said he would order the assassination of any American citizen who joined al quada. Obama actually did that and killed the guy’s son too.

    And lets not forget that Obama’s DOJ gave arms to Mexican drug gangs figuring they could use their presence at Mexican crimes scenes to build support for gun control. And Obama used the IRS to go after opposition political groups. And Obama unilaterally and illegally rewrote immigration law after Congress refused to do what he demanded. Feel free to add your own examples to the seemingly endless list of abuse of exectutive authority that have occurred over the last 8 years.

    And now Trump says that we need to get rid of the reckless disregard standard and treat public figures like everyone else in libel suits and that we should enforce the immigration laws and these ass clowns, nearly all of whom have been silent the last 8 years are worried about him wanting to be a dictator.

    Fuck off is too weak of a response to this bullshit.

    1. Abdulrahman al’Awlaki should have had a more responsible father. /Robert Gibbs

  25. And one other thing. Most of the conservative media that is hyperventilating about Trump wanting to be a dictator thought it was fabulous when Ted Cruz pledged to use all of the illegal authority Obama has claimed to undo Obama’s policies. They don’t have a problem with a dictator. They just want the dictator to be their guy.

    1. Well that’s just how it is for everyone. We need a dictator to get the right things done. And in order for the right things rather than the wrong things to get done, the dictator must be on my team.

      1. I don’t think what Cruz said was wrong. But I also don’t think Trump has said anything that would cause me to think he wants to be a dictator. If I did, I would be upset about what Cruz said.

  26. Other than King, am I supposed to know who any of these “writers” are? May as well be the Toledo phone book.

    1. About 10 years ago, Dave Eggers wrote a mildly entertaining book that never really developed a plot and rambled on for way too long. No clue on any of the others.

    2. As Bob Knight once said, “we all learned to write in the second grade, some of us moved on to bigger things”.

      I love that quote.

  27. it’s funny little “protests” like these that make me support Trump.

    1. He really does make all the right enemies.

    2. That’ll show ’em who’s dumb.

      1. sounds like somebody needs an orgasm and a nap.

        1. Nah, just this morning I came to my wife getting pounded by our black landlord, so I’m sated.

    1. Someone should give them an award for their courage. Not like those downward-punching Islamophobic cowards at Charlie Hebdo. These are the true heroes.

    2. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

  28. What happens when you break the government? Do we devolve into chaos, anarchy, or dictatorship? Well, that might happen to some countries. In America, when stuff is broken, we fix it. And if it ain’t broken, we’ll break it anyway, just to fix it better. That’s sort of our thing. And we’re good at it.

    I don’t get the hate Scott Adams is getting. When he writes stuff like the above I totally agree with him. Maybe he just rubs certain Canadians the wrong way. Don’t pet cytotoxic.

    1. he’s getting hate because he was one of the first to call that Trump will go the whole way, and people still shoot the messenger, even though it’s the CURRENT YEAR

    2. I don’t get the hate Scott Adams is getting.

      You mean other than the fact that he’s a hack who has recycled the same 4 stale jokes for almost 30 years?

      1. If the hate were being directed at his cartoon strip rather than him, then I would agree with you. His political analysis is a bit out there but I don’t quite understand why it seems to inspire so much hate of him personally.

    3. So when have Americans “fixed” government?

      1. 1776
        1787
        1865 or thereabouts, but the Supreme Court promptly broke with their strained interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

        Never in our lifetime, though.

        1. Good list. I’d also throw in 1913, 1933, and maybe even 1986. One man’s “fixed” is another’s “broken and completely fubar”.

        2. I would add 1688 to that. The Glorious Revolution that put William of Orange on the throne definitely made England more free.

          1. 1649 – A tyrannical king got his head lopped off and the government (briefly) became a Republic.

  29. But what I want out of “writers”?who really have no special claim to insight or seriousness than mere journalists or “ordinary” citizens?is ultimately a commitment to speech and expression, not an expression of something as small-ball as partisan politics.

    Perhaps I missed it, but where was Reason when J.K. Rowling did just that?

    1. You know what the scary thing is in that article? The fact that they had to have a debate in Parliament to be protected from their own moronic hate speech laws.

  30. I’m sure if Trump was a commie…crickets.

  31. as writers, we are particularly aware of the many ways that language can be abused in the name of power;…

    ” we believe that any democracy worthy of the name rests on pluralism, welcomes principled disagreement, and achieves consensus through reasoned debate;…

    the history of dictatorship is the history of manipulation and division, demagoguery and lies;

    It goes on in this vein for a bit and then concludes:

    We, the undersigned, as a matter of conscience, oppose, unequivocally, the candidacy of Donald J. Trump for the Presidency of the United States.”

    Blah, blah, blah, guys.

  32. Where’s Nick getting 600+? I see 471 names on that list. Shocking to no one, more than 1/4 of them are from New York, and there’s about three “flyover” states represented, with the rest comeing from CA, WA, CT, MA, NJ, etc. etc.

  33. Wait wait wait…

    mtrueman is really a fan of mao????? yikes

    1. “mtrueman is really a fan of mao????? yikes”

      mtrueman really is. Mao’s barefoot doctor programme saved lives in China’s countryside by introducing simple public health measures that you probably take for granted.

        1. Again, you’ve yet to say anything negative about the barefoot doctors. Are you ready to join me in their praise, comrade?

          1. Are you autistic? It is obvious you can’t read Chinese, but you have no excuse now that I linked to it in English. The chicken blood therapy originated within the barefoot doctor movement and was administered by them. The Ministry of Public Health originally attempted to reign in these quacks before it was obvious that the political tides were against them. Can you engage in even one argument without mendaciously misreading your interlocutor’s statements, Martin?

            1. Are you a doctor? Prove to me that countless lives weren’t saved by chicken blood transfusions!

              Okay, okay, I’ll get back to work. I’m just being stupid now.

              1. Prove to me that countless lives weren’t saved by chicken blood transfusions!

                Fuck! I concede.

            2. ” but you have no excuse now that I linked to it in English”

              I do. I almost never bother to follow the links you provide. The importance of the barefoot doctors was their role in introducing public health measures to large numbers of Chinese. I honestly share your skepticism over things like chicken blood therapy. But boiling drinking water is another matter. I support it even if it the water was boiled by fanatical Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.

              1. I almost never bother to follow the links you provide.

                HA! HA! HA! You fucking clown. You want to have a discussion, but you don’t want to do the intellectual work of either citing your claims or examining the evidence for claims your interlocutor provides.

                Does Flora know you’re cheating on her in an internet rhetorical sadomasochistic relationship?

                1. “You want to have a discussion”

                  I think if an editor wants a writer to write something, he can pay them.

                    1. I know China quite well. My reading and writing abilities relied on my knowledge of Japanese. Passable spoken Chinese, as well. Better putonghua than many uneducated. At least enough to get me into trouble with the authorities. I wonder how many here besides myself have been subject to interrogation at numerous police stations over the years, though not recently. Never had any trouble with the old 100 names though you can always stumble into the wrong place at the wrong time.

                    2. Are you at all familiar with China? Aside from wikipedia? Ever been there? Aside from lurid details harvested from the internet, what insights have you to offer? In Latin, even, if that’s all you’ve got.

      1. “introducing simple public health measures that you probably take for granted.”

        Such as murdering people by the millions and confiscating their wealth and property for the state.

        1. “Such as murdering people by the millions”

          No, by boiling water before drinking it.

            1. Chinese medicine does take some getting used to. Filth in China remains. It didn’t come and go with the Cultural Revolution.

      2. How did Mao help the health of the 60 million people he was responsible for killing?

        1. Well, they don’t have to worry about it anymore.

        2. “How did Mao help the health of the 60 million people he was responsible for killing?”

          He didn’t. He saved the lives of millions with the barefoot doctors. It introduced public health measures that you doubtless take for granted to hundreds of millions in China’s vast countryside.

          1. “He didn’t. He saved the lives of millions with the barefoot doctors.”

            Uh Huh.

            Obviously the nurse in charge of your meds at whatever mental institution you happen to be “resting” in needs to up your dosage.

            1. “Obviously the nurse in charge of your meds at whatever mental institution you happen to be “resting” in needs to up your dosage.”

              For some reason you insist on denying the benefits to public health to be gained by introducing measures such as boiled drinking water. You are the one who needs to meditate on his position. Don’t be afraid, comrade, to come join me on the dark side.

  34. “”deliberately appeals to the basest and most violent elements in society, who encourages aggression among his followers, shouts down opponents, intimidates dissenters, and denigrates women and minorities.”

    Who is responsible for the majority of violence at political rallies? Who fanned the flames during the race riots over the last 7 years? Who is attempting to prosecute global warming skeptics? Who appeals to envy and greed? Who tried to destroy rape victims to protect their rapist husband?

    How many of those yellow dogs are voting Hillary or Bernie? They are so far down the pinko rabbit hole they are unaware of how transparently hypocritical they are and that this kind of thing only galvanizes Trumpalos.

    1. Another angry white man

      /sarc

    2. Yeah back in the real world here and now – it is the anti-Trump protesters who show up at Trump events who are actually perpetrating most of the actual violence.

      I don’t recall hearing about any Trump supporters showing up at any Sanders/Hillary rallies or events and trying to block roads or access to buildings, etc.

      If any of that were happening, the liberal MSM would be pitching a hissy fit about it whereas they basically yawn about the anti-Trump protester antics.

      Of course that is nothing new for them. They yapped incessantly about how “dangerous and violent” the Tea Partiers were without any actual evidence of it while cheering on the law breaking Occupy Idiots as bands of valiant crusaders.

  35. Not a single one of these Self-superior elitists realizes that THEY created Trump!

  36. lol dude that whole thing cracks me up man.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

    1. This bot gets it.

  37. Stephen King and 599 other writers who demanded Barack Obama be given the absolute authority to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to whomever he wants now balk and panic at the idea of a non-Democrat inheriting that power.

    1. Well, to be fair, RC’s Iron Laws are secret.

  38. Guccifer has plead guilty to hacking into Clinton’s email in federal court while Clinton claims she never created any security risks by using a private server.

    *scratches head*

    I see.

    The same people who claim Hillary did nothing wrong are cheering his conviction. Cognitive dissonance with a heapin’ helpin’ of hypocrisy is a hell of a dish.

  39. Yeah, Nick, when I’m thinking about who to vote for, the first thing that goes through my mind is who Stephen King and Jane Smiley like. Here’s a hint – if anyone, ANYONE, is at all impressed by this, look in the mirror and realize you’re no different from the idiot backing Donald Trump because he’s got Kid Rock’s support except for the fact that you probably have nicer wardrobe.

  40. the funny thing is these people think anybody cares what they think

  41. Any non-US writers who want to sign a petition against Trump can go here: http://www.ipetitions.com/peti…..-on-trump/

  42. The only thing to enjoy this application is to download showbox apk and select the movies and programs you like to have fun watching all day long. You can watch unlimited movies, TV Programs, Serials, Cartoons and programs from online, live streaming of Cricket matches etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.