Donald Trump

Anti-Trump Protestors Attack Trump Supporters, in Apparent Effort To Help Trump Get Elected

Acting out says a lot about the shallowness of the mainstream left's anti-Trump rhetoric

|

Anti-Trump riot
|KBCW

Some anti-Trump protesters in San Jose eventually started to follow Donald Trump supporters back to their cars after a rally, attacking at least one young man, destroying property, and also attacking a police officer, as CBS San Francisco reports. The link includes footage of the riot from KCBW. It's shameful stuff that says a lot more about the caliber of anti-Trump rhetoric from the mainstream left than anything about the rhetoric that supposedly triggered it. Violence against political speech arises from a milieu were all kinds of unfavored speech are treated as trauma or violence.

In this age of perpetual grievances, showing up to protest at the Trump rally has become a chic social signaling thing to do. Acting out at Trump rallies, including by threatening, harassing, and even physically assaulting Trump supporters, is a natural continuation of the culture of safe spaces and triggering speech being nurtured in college campuses around the country. It reveals the total flim-flam that academics and professional left-wing protesters have too often wrapped up in high-minded ideas about fighting the power structures or whatever else. Donald Trump today holds no political power. If he wins the presidency, he will pick up where President Obama left off. The same kind of people cheering anti-Trump protesters would recoil at anti-Obama protests. (Think: the type of people who called anti-war sentiment "sexist" when directed against female politicians who voted to bomb Syria.)

The Obama administration, for example, has conducted more deportations than any predecessor has. Obama has also expanded George W. Bush's war on terror while dropping the terminology—the U.S. now kills military-aged Muslim males as a matter of routine with little in the ways of accountability measures or checks and balances. An authorization for the use of military force against the perpetrators of 9/11 and their "associated forces" is being used to justify the targeting of individuals who were far too young on 9/11 to have anything to do with it except sharing the same religion as the perpetrators.

Donald Trump displays a stunning disregard for constitutional limits on the presidency, but he's not the only one. Hillary Clinton also regularly promises to work without Congress—just as Obama has done repeatedly during his presidency. She's even insisted that she'll curb Americans' Second Amendment, dismissing the co-equal branches of government that are Congress and the Supreme Court.

And that gets to the heart of the matter. The definitions of safe spaces, triggering speech, "political correctness," hate speech, and all kinds of related concepts dependsentirely on the perspective of the person wielding the definition. It's about the rule of men genderbeings not the rule of law. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less," Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. All that mattered, Dumpty explained, is who was the "master" of the words.

That explains the way so many American leftists branded Charlie Hebdo as "punching down" in the wake of an Islamist massacre at their offices. That Hebdo consistently targeted nexuses of power, be they religious or secular, didn't matter to American leftists, who were interpreting the event not based on its context but their own.

Reading about the Trump riots I'm reminded of an incident at the University of Oregon where a pro-life activist preacher was attacked by pro-choice students who insisted they were triggered. What if the pro-lifer said he, too, was triggered, by the millions of unborn babies that have been killed in the U.S. and around the world? It gives him no more right to attack the person or property of pro-choice activists than pro-choice activists have a right to physically attack those they disagree with.

Donald Trump could be one of the worst presidential candidates in history. Hillary Clinton is not much better. And as a former secretary of state and a U.S. senator who voted for war, she actually has blood on her hands already. If Donald Trump won, he could end up being a fascist. But the imperial presidency that makes that possible has been a decades-long project, made possible by both mainstream parties and their supporters, who worry about the centralization of power in the presidency and the abuses government can commit right up until the point when the president and the government start doing things of which they approve.

The U.S. war machine hasn't gone anywhere in the last eight years, even if the left-wing anti-war movement largely has. Attacking Trump's supporters because of the danger Trump poses as an imperial president is an exercise in blame-shifting. Those so concerned about what Trump might do to the country that they feel called to stalk and attack Trump supporters should take a long look in the mirror instead. It'll have the added benefit of not building more support for Trump, as violence against his supporters certainly will.

Also see Jesse Walker's late night Twitter rant for much needed context. As Walker, who has reported from Trump rallies, notes, Trump's real world supporters aren't the same as the online trolls that have come to represent him in an Internet-driven election cycle.

Advertisement

NEXT: Libertarian constitutional law scholars on the threat posed by Trump

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. Re-elected?

    1. no spoilers!

  2. With the flag burning and calls for socialism and over-the-top misbehavior, I’m kind of inclined to think this was staged by the other side.

    But then it is California.

    1. It’s California. It’s not a false-flag operation by Trump. He doesn’t need to spend money such things. (But George Soros might well be funding some of it.)

      1. This is exactly how you get Trump elected. Maybe Soros is a Trumpster.

        1. It has been pointed out that Soros has made billions in times of economic turmoil, so maybe that’s what he’s thinking….

    2. It looked like there was some group of “California belongs to Mexico!” folks.

      1. Is it strange that I’m rooting for that segment to win? Either CA to Mexico or fall off into the Pacific. It’s a win, either way.

        1. No, it’s not. If they want Southern California so bad let them have it.

      2. It looked like there was some group of “California belongs to Mexico!” folks.

        These people were clearly Brietbart plants

      3. Trump could engage in masterful trolling, and side with the protesters. Promise to give away California and rid the country of a major left-wing voting bloc.

  3. So much for those cocktail-party invitations.

    That’s OK, there’s always tractor-pulls and pig-pickings.

    1. Demoliton derbies are pretty fun.

    2. Well he did say Hilary was better than Trump.

  4. the U.S. now kills military-aged Muslim males

    When we aren’t bringing them into the US as refugees/welfare cases.

  5. I was told Reason would not be commenting on this.

    1. We’ll never know, but I wonder how much the feedback provided by the commentariat affects Reason’s editorial decisions.

      1. Robby got sarcasm pretty quickly.

      2. Robby got sarcasm pretty quickly.

          1. You deserved that.

  6. Some good news as an alternative to Trumpalos and Berntards

    Stanford researchers studying the effect of stem cells injected directly into the brains of stroke patients said Thursday that they were “stunned” by the extent to which the experimental treatment restored motor function in some of the patients. While the research involved only 18 patients and was designed primarily to look at the safety of such a procedure and not its effectiveness, it is creating significant buzz in the neuroscience community because the results appear to contradict a core belief about brain damage ? that it is permanent and irreversible.

    1. The old theory about irreversible brain damage in older people, was shot down years ago. I really hope no actual scientist holds it as a “core belief” by now.

  7. If Donald Trump won, he could end up being a fascist.

    *Rolls eyes.*

    1. Oh! Let’s make this about immigration, too! DO IT!

      1. What do the Mexican flags tell you, Crusty?

  8. Donald Trump could be one of the worst presidential candidates in history.

    It turns out that some crazy how he’s actually one of the best. Articulating no clear policies beyond a few vague yet terrible ideas, he’s been able to springboard off the assaults on his candidacy to a level of mindless following most cult of personalities could only dream of.

    If I thought his campaign was savvy enough, I would almost think he’s been peppering these protests with secret agents to act out. But his handlers (if he even has any) aren’t savvy enough, but the opposition is sufficiently undisciplined enough to act as their supposed cause’s own worst enemy.

    1. Articulating no clear policies beyond a few vague yet terrible ideas, he’s been able to springboard off the assaults on his candidacy to a level of mindless following most cult of personalities could only dream of./blockquote>

      You mean since Obama?

      1. Eggs-fucking-zactly like Obama. The Trumpbots are on track to be just as bad as the Obamabots (although luckily this time around not likely among those we rely on to report the news).

        1. This time around they have hats. *throws up in mouth*

        2. Hmmm, so you’re saying voters seem incapable of judging past the most superficial?

          We can draw a few conclusions:

          1) The average IQ of the American voter makes a sustained, responsible, functioning democracy untenable.
          or
          2) The nature of democracy promotes and subsidizes qualities in the electorate that make responsible governance untenable.
          or
          3) Both 1 and 2.

          My feeling is Trump is no worse than any of the other options. I’m gonna vote for the candidate most likely to promote polarization within USA. Not sure yet whether that’s Trump, Hillary, or Bernie.

    2. I would almost think he’s been peppering these protests with secret agents to act out.

      He doesn’t need to. The Protest-American community is more than stupid enough to do everything he could possibly hope for, and more.

      1. Exactly. Does Fisto not remember the Years of the Mache Heads?

        1. Is this anything like that Limey Spitting Image nonsense? And yes, now I’ve been triggered by the memory of Genesis’s “Land of Confusion” music video. You fucks.

  9. Good piece ed.

    The headline gave me the impression you were going to borrow an M.O. from one of your colleagues, and suggest that the worst thing about these protestors is that they are inadvertently “helping elect such a shitty person”…

    ….rather than acknowledging, as you do, that the violence and irrational hysteria is wrong in itself, regardless of its eventual outcomes.

    It seems like the mainstream media today (*w/ exception to the WaPo, who ran a story with a shockingly unequivocal headline = “Ugly, bloody scenes in San Jose as protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally“) mostly decided to downplay what happened in San Jose as “rowdiness” or “clashes” *(suggesting it was being provoked by both sides); not so much covering for any bad-actors, but avoiding declaring anyone’s really responsible for it.

    The NYT managed to run coverage of the “clashes” without including a single picture. I can’t imagine why that would be.

    1. The headline gave me the impression you were going to borrow an M.O. from one of your colleagues, and suggest that the worst thing about these protestors is that they are inadvertently “helping elect such a shitty person”…

      In fact, the worst outcome from these protests would be if they are “successful” and Hillary actually wins. Because you get more of what you reward if violent protests are rewarded with political victory, we will get more violent protests.

      Its not irrational at all for someone to support Trump because of these protests. In fact, that’s the best way to disincentivize violence in our politics – to punish it with defeat.

  10. I have it on good authority that this article does not exist on Reason.

    1. *looks around*

      What article?

  11. On that idiot Vox editor, apparently he clarified, “It’s very simple: All violence against human lives and bodies is categorically immoral. Property destruction is vastly more negotiable.”

    What I love is that his mandatory proggy lingo undercuts his whole argument. He has to throw in the word “bodies,” because Ta-Nehisi Coates uses that word and it’s cool, right? But that draws a line between lives and bodies. And it’s quite clear that destroying my property is violence against my life. Torching my car – or worse, my place of business – has a massive effect on my life. I don’t see any way of wriggling out of that interpretation, because then why distinguish life from body?

    1. It’s very simple: All violence against human lives and bodies is categorically immoral.

      So Vox is anti-abortion now. Good to know.

    2. Also amusing is how it’s fey, prissy urban hipster types like this guy who advocate violence. My daughter could take that guy’s lunch money and give him a swirly, and she’s in elementary school.

  12. It’s reprehensible. No place for it, and I’m glad you called it out, Ed. I’m sure Reason did the same when a Rand Paul supporter stomped on the head of a move-on member at a rally. Well, I couldn’t find any outrage here, but there must have been I’m sure.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ra…..meditated/

    Just like all the times you called out the Tea Party for violence and threats at town halls.

    1. Here is a link for some of those incidents you let pass.

      http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry…..cc9a7215bd

      1. I love excusing violence, too.

        1. The super cute part is the joe is pretending that someone that rushed Hillary wouldn’t be tackled and rough up.

      2. Yeah, that shit totally happened, which is why nobody presented any evidence of it.

    2. Well, I couldn’t find any outrage here, but there must have been I’m sure.

      That’s a tall order.

    3. Whatever happened to that story after it circled the drain of the left-wing echo chamber?

      Oh, and plenty of outrage was expressed over Lewandowski although it seems unlikely that any charges will stick.

      1. Sorry, can’t really respond now…still looking for Ed’s outrage when one on his side engaged in violence. Or when the Beloved Tea Party did…it’s here somewhere…

        1. …looking….

    4. Shorter Jackend Ace:

      But Clinton Bush the Tea Party!

      1. Jackand Ace, the master of deflection and equivalency game.

        1. Thanks. I am good at it!

      2. “Shorter Jackend Ace”

        Is that even possible?

    5. Are you suggesting that incidents related to Trump are somehow given more attention here than incidents regarding other individuals or groups have gotten at other times in history?

      1. Tell you what…you find the article that condemned the Rand Paul violence or the Tea Party violence. I’ve given up. Didn’t happen. It was all A-OK when it was done by groups supported here at Reason.

        1. Remind me – when was it that a Tea Party mob chased someone down and starting punching them, or surrounded a car and started kicking it, or threw rocks/bottles/eggs at anyone, or set anything on fire? Anything worse than the horrors of LOUD VOICES!?

          1. Read the link I posted about violence from the Tea Party, nitwit. Getting spit on, kicked, epithets, and vandalizing a home. All done by Tea Partiers.

            I take back nitwit…nitwits show more reading comprehension than you.

        2. I haven’t found the article wherein you condemn violence by the Nazis, Jackass. I suppose you think the holocaust was A-OK?

          1. You know who else didn’t condemn violence by the Nazis?

          2. Here’s a tip…I don’t write articles at Reason.

            1. If you don’t write about something you support it. Jackass confirmed for Nazi sympathizer.

        3. Performing all that counter-cherry-picking for you wouldn’t really relate to my point, which was that this place is obsessed with all stories relating to Trump. In fact it pretty much would say the opposite wouldn’t it, if I dug up a uniformly distributed set of articles covering all misdemeanors and mean words which occurred in a political setting.

          As for your cries of bias generally, though:
          1. Uh of course this place is biased. They never claim otherwise.
          2. A bias isn’t necessarily wrong.

  13. Here’s something I’ve been thinking about lately, which was brought into sharper focus the other day by a Vox(?) thing about how Elizabeth Warren isn’t just the “perfect” choice for Hillary’s VP, but the ONLY choice (aside from Biden, anyway).

    Seriously- the Democratic Party is a stagnant cesspool of nobodies whose “ideas” are a noxious warmed over mishmash of failed social engineering experiments, wealth envy and substanceless whining about “privilege” and “fairness” .

    People talk about how fucked up the Republicans are for having such a rabble of primary candidates. Name a dozen Democrats who could have been even remotely plausible Presidential candidates; I’ll wait.

    1. I can’t name 3. Jim Webb made too sense and got about 3 votes.

      The dynamic in America has always been that the Progressives yank the window toward some fringe issue. The normals would grudgingly go along, kicking and screaming, so that the Overton Window gradually shifted in the direction of the loonies. All of a sudden, the normals appear to have simply let go of it. Set loose of that tether, the American Left is rocketing off into madness.

      “Rocketing off into madness” is a good description for the DNC.

      http://thezman.com/wordpress/

      1. “The Blue-Eyed Devil
        The Sacred People
        The New Sacred People
        Minorities That Get Into Stanford”

        LOL

        1. The Z Man rocks. Has become a daily read.

          1. He seems heavily influenced by Sailer and Moldbug. [looks at blogroll. I’m a genius]

    2. Seriously- the Democratic Party is a stagnant cesspool of nobodies whose “ideas” are a noxious warmed over mishmash of failed social engineering experiments, wealth envy and substanceless whining about “privilege” and “fairness”

      And it sells, very well.

      Why change the tune if everyone is still dancing?

      1. Someone close my tag for me, willya?

        1. *Dons PPE, reaches gingerly for keyboard*

      2. It isn’t selling so well anymore. They are getting destroyed at the state level. Since Obama was elected, they have lost 11 governorships, 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, and 913 state legislative seats and 30 state legislative chambers.

        http://www.politifact.com/pund…..latures-o/

        1. Don’t you go giving me hope that people have some semblance of a brain!

    3. It’s a pretty common refrain now (and I think Matt or Nick like to hammer on it). The Dems really have a weak bench. Everyone they talk about today is decrepit and their policies harken back to the 60s (or to Europe). Try to imagine who they can run in 2020 or beyond… Andrew Cuomo? Assuming he’s not in jail by then. Cory Booker? I get the feeling he’d rather stay a legislator. Some will inevitably emerge, and I’m curious what they will believe. I suspect a fair number will be churned out by the overly sensitive college environment, and that will be fun to watch.

      1. Cory Booker will run. He made a sacred promise to the nonexistent drug dealer who died in his arms.

      2. their policies harken back to the 60s (or to Europe).

        Or to 60s Europe.

        You know, when Europe was still recovering from WWII.

    4. The Democrats have no one. Obama did so much damage to the party. The Democrats have gotten killed at every level below the President since 2008. You can’t be a national figure until you are a local one. And every Democrat that is not from a deep blue district or state, has been kicked out of office over the last six years. You think it is bad this year, what will it be in 2020? Hillary is nearly 70. Bernie is over 70 and Warren is around the same age. And there is no one behind them.

      1. Please God, let it be true!!!!

    5. Mark Warner seems like by far one of the most sane of the bunch. Maybe Bill Nelson? It’s kind of scary how hard it is to come up with serious names.

    6. how Elizabeth Warren isn’t just the “perfect” choice for Hillary’s VP, but the ONLY choice

      No.

      Hillary will choose a young, vaguely-gay hispanic man = Julian Castro

      (if she’s smart, anyway)

      She can’t choose a woman. *(for reasons that are a combination of political psychology and practical optics)

      And she can’t choose a man with equal (or more) experience.

      She needs to choose a man who is younger, a little more junior, and who has ‘different qualities’ (i.e. a Soul, and a personality) which appeals to some very-important voting cohort.

      This is why i think he’s the only choice.

      1. This is my expectation for how it goes, as well. I don’t think Castro’s a “good” candidate, but he’s got solid optics and gives the illusion of a bright future for the party.

        1. Castro has great name recognition with Bernie crowd…

          1. Exactly. Roll eyes.

  14. I’m predicting a Trump landslide based solely on him making all the right enemies – and those enemies convincing most voters that they truly hate them.

    1. Yeh. If this is how the fringy left acts now, I can’t imagine how bad it will be in the general election.

      The optics on this farce in San Jose with the gang signs and Reconquista fantasists play right into Trump’s successful message about immigration.

      Move of this and middle America will swing strongly to Trump. Might see a good jump in the black vote as well in the midwest and eastern swing states.

      At this point its either Trump implosion or Trump landslide and not entirely clear which it will be.

      1. Someone around here mentioned (in the last couple of weeks) the irony of people who talk so much against stereotypes, and yet do just about everything they can to reinforce it.

        Brilliant comment, and playing playing out now on a much grander scale.

  15. Time to lock and load. Because I don’t run.

  16. TRUMPALLNACHT

  17. It’s shameful stuff that says a lot more about the caliber of anti-Trump rhetoric from the mainstream left than anything about the rhetoric that supposedly triggered it. Violence against political speech arises from a milieu were all kinds of unfavored speech are treated as trauma or violence.

    I have seen several articles in the past few months which decode pretty much specifically as, “Will no one rid us of this meddlesome priest Fourth Reich authoritarian dictator?”

    I’m starting to think somebody is going to try to whack Trump before summer is over.

    NOT

    COOL.

    1. It’s going to be an interesting summer, both here and in Europe.

    2. I hope Trump can use Mike Madigan as a human shield.

  18. I thought I hated the left before, but now they’re making me feel sorry for Trump’s dimwitted supporters, so my hate is now rapidly expanding.

    1. ^This^

      I want to hate Trump and his supporters so much. Then these guys come along who are so much more hatable. It’s like a instinctual natural reaction to despise these assholes.

    2. No one should have eggs thrown at them for showing up at a political rally. The worst part of this is that it puts everyone else into an impossible position. Ignore it and they feel empowered and do more. Retaliate and you risk starting a circle of political violence. These people are scum.

      1. Pretty much, yeah. I happen to think Hillary Clinton is pretty much evil personified, but the notion of showing up at her appearances to intimidate and attack her supporters never, ever enters my head.

        A silly observation – something that really ramps up the hate is seeing those clowns wearing bandannas on their faces. Ooooooh, such badass tough guys that they’re….afraid to have their faces shown in the media.

      2. Sticks and stones may break my bones but eggs will never hurt me.

  19. “”The Obama administration, for example, has conducted more deportations than any predecessor has.”

    citation?

    1. That’s both right and wrong. He has deported more but they also changed the definition of deportation to pad the numbers.

      1. Last I heard some new tech late in the Bush era caused ‘catch and release’ to be reclassified. I’m wondering if there’s some newer story all the journos are referring to or if they’re just lying like usual.

    2. “Tracking Obama’s deportation numbers”:

      Each year of the Obama administration has seen more deportations than any preceding president; the pre-Obama high of 358,886 removals in FY2008 came during President George W. Bush’s last full fiscal year in office.

      “U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013”:

      The Obama administration deported a record 438,421 unauthorized immigrants in fiscal year 2013, continuing a streak of stepped up enforcement that has resulted in more than 2 million deportations since Obama took office, newly released Department of Homeland Security data show.

      Some immigrant advocates have dubbed Obama the “deporter in chief” over the fact that his administration has deported about as many immigrants in five years as the George W. Bush administration deported in eight years.

      I believe Obama managed to double Bush’s two term deportation record last year.

      1. It makes you wonder if it has nothing to do with the administration and everything to do with a bureaucracy getting more power.

      2. One distinct feature of the record number of deportations is the increasing share of deportations by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after border apprehension. In 2013, 25% of all deportations were carried out by the agency, up from 17% in 2012. Meanwhile, the number of deportations carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which deports people caught both at the border and the interior of the country, fell in 2013 compared with 2012.

        IOW this “deporter in chief” stuff is all bullshit.

      3. The deportation statistic is a total lie. Obama counts anyone who is turned away at the border as a deportation. Actual deportations, as in people who are in the interior are way down under Obama.

        1. From what I have read elsewhere, the methodology for categorizing deportations changed in 2006 and since then there no longer is a deportations category.

  20. Immigration is working just fine in California. Looks like that “libertarian moment” will happen any day now. Nothing to fear, I’m sure all those hispanics will soon be voting for a smaller government. And just like Muslim immigrants, they’re so tolerant and peaceful towards opposing views!

    1. It’s interesting to me how many people want to make their home into the shithole they got the hell away from.

      1. Anyone who lives in Virginia can testify to that one. The hordes descended on this state from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York over the past 15 years, and immediately set about voting for elected officials and policies identical to the ones that led them to want to move away in the first place.

        1. It’s a shame but I knew Virginia was in trouble when carpetbagging sleazeball Terry McAuliffe won the election.

      2. If most human beings were fundamentally rational and spent a lot time seriously thinking about stuff and challenging their assumptions, the incredible success of the United States would by osmosis have transformed pretty much all of the Americas into free market capitalist success stories by now.

        Not only has that decidedly NOT happened, but the exact opposite is taking place and this new wave of immigrants is bringing all their shitty, failed ideas and infecting the United States with them like a virus, and the results are going to be utterly disastrous for all of us.

        1. Yes, it’s the immigants giving us social programs and onerous regulations.

          Next time you’re pulled over or given a citation, thank a Costa Rican!

          1. They are disproportionately voting for politicians who want to expand the state.

            1. So… they’re voting for republicans?

              1. OK: They are disproportionately voting for politicians who most want to expand the state: Democrats.

      3. What The Grinch said times a billion! Flee from Mexico/South America to the US. Then openly demand the US becomes like Mexico/South America. Brilliant!!

  21. I don’t want to hate Trump. He’s not worthy of that level of energy or engagement. I want to go back to not thinking about him at all. Unfortunately…

    1. Hell, even after everything, I don’t hate him. I still find him amusing and otherwise not worthy of consideration.

      I have some hate for his supporters, but then I have hate for most passionate voters.

  22. God help the person that decides to kick a dent into my car door.

    Also, yes. Events like this will only help The Donald gain popularity. And idiots like these violent lefties are kinda making it difficult to not like Trump at least a little. I mean, he seems to piss off the types of people (proggies) that I detest the most.

    1. At some point they are going to run into the wrong person and get their heads blown off. As much as that will be justice served, the media will go insane about what poor victims they were.

      1. I’ll be the asshole who admits to wanting to see this happen in my darker moments.

  23. I hate everybody involved in this. I hate the violent asswipe leftist thugs… and I also hate Trump and his drooling moron supporters. If ever there were two categories of worthless shitstains that deserve one another, it’s them.

    Misanthropy ftw.

  24. Donald Trump could be one of the worst presidential candidates in history. Hillary Clinton is not much better.

    Here we have prima facie evidence that the Reason staff are in the Hillary camp. I have yet to hear an honest Democrat supporter make such a ringing endorsement for Hillary.

    1. I caught that too. How is Hillary any better? You have to have your head pretty far up your ass to think Hillary is better than anyone short of Satan.

      But that is reason. The Mo is always “sure the left is bad but it at least it is not as bad as the Republicans”. They are the picture of what a neutered opposition looks like

      1. Reason: “Hillary Clinton is the second worst presidential candidate in history, next to only Trump!!”

        Republican-Apologist Reason Commentators: “REASON IS SHILLS FOR HILLARY!!”

        Fucking hell, guys. I personally believe Clinton is much, /much/ worse than Trump. But if I state my sincere belief that “Stalin was one of the worst dictators around, Hitler was not much better”, only a complete fucking moron would think I’m issuing a ringing endorsement of Hitler.

        1. Why do you like Hitler???

        2. Go fuck yourself you poser.

      2. Welcome back, Red Tony.

    2. And apparently the real problem here is not the rise of mob violence in politics. The real problem is that it might be benefiting Trump!! Oh noes!!

      1. OR, stay with me here, I know you’re ideological lens as a republican apologist who is incapable of seeing non-republican apologists as anything other than democrat apologists, but consider this theory:

        Maybe, just maybe, the author isn’t doing it to say the worse thing about the protests is that it helps Trump, but to point out the IDIOCY of the protesters in addition to their immorality for doing something that only helps Trump and makes them look like the bad guys.

        1. There are worse things about it. Ed just didn’t bother to mention them. You are all over it there tiger.

  25. I support anti-Trump Republicans, but I want Hillary to lose, too.

    Yeah, I understand the implications of that.

    And, no, I’d never support Bernie over Trump.

    But I’d still support anti-Trump Republicans.

    It’s like that.

    1. I always tell the never Trump whiners that God doesn’t owe you a good choice. Sometimes a choice is so bad you have to whatever is necessary to stop it. The left is always that choice. Time and again they have risen to power because people refused to support the only choice available to stop them because that choice wasn’t perfect or even good. Here is the thing, anything is better than the left taking power. If you can’t figure that out, you are a useful idiot.

      1. If the only choice is Trump or Hillary, I’ll vote Johnson.

        If the only choice is Trump or Sanders, I’ll vote Johnson.

        When the choice was between Romney, Obama, or Johnson, I voted for Romney.

        There is no pragmatic choice between Trump or Hillary. It’s a despicable person with horrible policies vs. an evil crook.

        I’ll support the anti-Trump people even as I vote for Johnson and hope that Trump defeats Hillary.

        There are never only two choices, and choosing to starve the process of whatever legitimacy your participation might lend it is always a perfectly valid choice.

        1. “I’ll support the anti-Trump people even as I vote for Johnson and hope that Trump defeats Hillary.”

          The thing is, I don’t feel like I should have to wait for Trump to defeat Hillary before I start opposing him.

          And I don’t see any reason why opposing Trump should mean that, under the present circumstances, I hope he wins.

          It’s not that I’m being self-contradictory either. It’s that two sided politics is too simplistic to account for the complexity of real world. And I’m working from the perspective of the real world–where you sometimes have to hope a blowhard jackass, with all the wrong policies, will beat out an even worse alternative.

          Fuck Donald Trump.

          Fuck Hillary.

          Between the two of them, I hope Trump wins.

          But fuck Trump.

          1. But you said “Fuck Trump” so even if you hope Trump beats Hillary that means you’re REALLY in support of HILLARY!!!!!!!!

            /Republican Apologist

            1. “A choice of three for “democracy”
              And they’re all parasites!

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LwDYdTBTQ

          2. Exactly. I hate Trump. But, if he gets elected we get the upside of possible mass suicides and voluntary deportations among SJWs. And, perhaps telling other politicians to fuck off. There’s no upside to Hilary.

      2. Bullshit. There are more voters who favor statism than Liberty lovers, plain and simple. Pols are the squishiest organisms on the planet and reflect the voting base almost perfectly.

  26. Trump > Hillary

    Trump > Bernie

    Trump < Garbage

    1. Exactly. You are, no kidding, one of the best commenters here.

    2. I would say that Hillary’s central value is worse than Trump’s, but Trump’s standard deviation is bigger, so there is some chance Trump would be worse. (Hillary is the devil you know, while Trump is a loose cannon and you’re not sure of what he will do.) But it is much more likely that Hillary would be worse.

      Except for SCOTUS nominations — I think Trump would not be worse there.

  27. Dude seems to know whats going on over there.

    http://www.Complete-Privacy.tk

  28. So, my question is, when are the Sanders and Clinton campaigns going to denounce this sort of behavior? I remember quite a few voices (my own included, as well as quite a few other commenters and some of the columnists here) demanding that Mr. Trump denounce violence on the part of his supporters. I think the same should apply to the left. Unless Clinton or Sanders come out and forcefully denounce their ostensible supporters attacking people for their political views, I think all right-thinking people should assume they’re the sort of fascists who want this kind of thing.

    1. “So, my question is, when are the Sanders and Clinton campaigns going to denounce this sort of behavior?”

      I think Bernie’s side is holding off on denouncing it for fear that they might need to do the same thing themselves at some point, and Hillary’s side isn’t denouncing it because they don’t want to give the NeverHillary people any new ideas.

  29. Deportations haven’t gone up under Obama, they’ve gone down. The reported increase is nothing more than a change in what’s being counted as a deportee.
    This, as in most things, highlights the political cunning of Obama. He gets what he wants (fewer deportations), and still gets to poke fun at the Right for fear mongering.
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/…..story.html

  30. This is why I’m glad I’m a Texan. I can vote for Johnson with the full knowledge that it won’t help the Democrat nominee.

    1. Wish I was in the same boat. Looks like I’ll be voting trump to attempt to stop the thought crime thugs of the left in my blue state. Yippie!

      1. Yeah, I don’t have much electoral influence where I am, but currently feels like voting Trump will be the best way to give the finger to Hillary, Obama, and the entire left.

  31. Who is the better candidate? The guy who bested 16 competitors, some of whom were respectable figures, or the lady who can’t put away a 73 year old socialist?

  32. Absolutely outstanding article! I have long said that I am more scared of Bernie than I am of Hillary and this is why. I guarantee that the rioters are by far more “big fascist Bernie government” types than they are Hillary types. To be sure they are lefties who care nothing about free speech or thoughtor… the constitution. I could see the leftist anger seeds being sown in my college days. I’m sure it’s gotten worse since, and voil?! Beat downs for bad think. Thanks Obama!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.