Donald Trump

Trump Has Turned America Into a One-Party State

The real political tragedy of the Trump campaign.

|

The real political tragedy of Donald Trump isn't only that he's annihilating the Republican Party—which, let's face it, was the stated point of his campaign when it started—or that he says odious and dangerous things all the time. It's that his presence allows most of the media to ignore the corruption, recklessness and policy failures of Democrats, who now function without any genuine ideological opposition.

This week offers a vivid example of this dynamic. Trump, allegedly a tell-it-like-is tough guy, is adept at nicknaming his enemies, but lacks any comprehension of long-standing ideological debates in this country. People love to complain about the duopoly, but it doesn't exist solely because plutocrats prefer it. There's a real-life, organic right-left cultural and economic divide in this country that has evolved over decades. While the plight of the white working class is important, there's a lot more to this argument. One side still clings to partisanship, but has abandoned the philosophical debate.

When Trump was told this week that Hillary Clinton once unveiled a massive "infrastructure" plan—including a state-run "infrastructure bank"—he retorted, saying, "Well, I would say at least double her numbers, and you're going to really need more than that," before repeating a slew of liberal shibboleths about how the country is falling apart. If Trump loves debt, how can you be critical of Clinton? A majority of Republicans are now powerless to make a case on the issue.

Instead, we focus on crying babies and an aggrieved gold star family (which, by the way, makes it far more difficult to debate the genuine problems with allowing unvetted immigrants from war-torn nations) because Trump has gifted them the higher moral ground. This would go on for four to eight years if he became president. Democrats would be happy to focus on his personal scraps and vendettas at the expense of legitimate debate. Why wouldn't they?

This week, for example, President Obama authorized a month of airstrikes against ISIS in Libya. If former President George W. Bush were bombing a country using a decade-old authorization of military force that has nothing to do with Libya, the event would consume the news cycle, forcing politicians to answer some questions. And rightly so.

And political implications are now being ignored. I imagine most Republicans support these bombing efforts, but Clinton has claimed she was the chief architect of our intervention in Libya. She was the one who urged Obama, over the strong misgivings of others, to intervene. Actually, Clinton has claimed that the U.N.-authorized Libyan air campaign in 2011 was a model of successful foreign intervention. She maintains that her decisions as secretary of state have prepared her to be commander in chief. I realize that Trump is supposedly against intervention (although he's constantly claiming he would annihilate ISIS). The problem is that today we're talking about how Trump reportedly asked numerous times during an hour-long briefing why America can't use nuclear weapons, making Clinton seem like the rational one.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Obama administration airlifted $400 million worth in cash to Iran, which coincided with the release of four American hostages in Tehran. "Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials," the story reads. Considering what we already know about president's penchant for empowering the Iranians, it's not surprising. The idea that the United States secretly paid off a state that sponsors terrorism and holds American servicemen hostage should be a huge story. Instead, the media can readjust its focus and talk about how the Republican nominee is facing fraud and racketeering charges, among others, for his role as founder of Trump University.

It's partly the media's fault. Of course most of them would rather talk about Trump than Obama. That is what Trump was supposedly going to overcome.

Lately, one of my favorite pastimes is watching journalists pretend they didn't want Trump to be the GOP nominee and say his presidency would be bad for the country. In fact, Trump offers the best of both worlds for most of the media: He's great for ratings and terrible for Republicans. This contention, I've been told, is a "conspiracy theory." But I don't believe there was any secret, concerted effort to help Trump. The Trump advocacy was taken on by many individual outlets acting completely on their own, out in the open.

A report from the Harvard University Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, which analyzed all the major traditional print and broadcast outlets, states that positive media coverage of Trump in 2015 gave him a boost during the primaries. Any reasonable person can see that coverage has radically shifted since he became the nominee.

But Republicans helped make that possible. While the GOP candidate still has the support of loyal partisans—or those who believe Clinton is unacceptable no matter who the Republican nominee is—the nation is really only left with one party. While Republicans fight rearguard actions against conservatives, clean up their candidate's messes and rationalize his nonsense, Democrats have the field to themselves. That's a dangerous event in a free nation.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Movie Review: Suicide Squad

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. Completely wrong. Trump’s early debacle is a huge victory for the country. This kind of dynamic is inevitable – the rise of the strongman – and we successfully resisted. Yes Hitlary is horrible, but it opens up the field for others and forces us to consider them – creative destruction. Also she chose relatively dovish Tim Kaine. This is a good sign. Ye of little faith. 🙂

    1. The real political tragedy is Johnson/Weld’s refusal to review issue positions with each other before getting out on stage. It’s just heartbreaking.

      1. This is all simply a variation on the “information overload” problem. The Trolls of the Net, not Trump, are to blame for the cancer infecting our society. Some choose to focus on little political quarrels; others might focus on the outrageous “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated, liberal judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case. Would Mr. Harsanyi himself even be capable of focusing for longer than three minutes on such a case? Of pondering its cultural implications? Is he ready to take action to stop the Trolls? See the documentation at:

        http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        1. As A troll I say this is a full on revolt, and a target rich environment =D

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_JF8oSxXtM

          1. How long does it take to watch the linked video? Is it easy viewing? My time is very limited. Perhaps someone can tell me if they are still talking about Khizr Khan, or have the media moved on to something else now that we’ve enjoyed ourselves with that? I do see the smears are spreading all over the Net now, that should certainly help dissolve any abiding “interest” in the matter.

              1. That’s around a minute longer than my attention span. There are simply too many things I have to look at. A quick digest is always useful. One can skim through certain items and get a loose sense of what it’s about, and that should be enough. Basically, there is too much speech out there, which is hopefully a problem the next administration will tackle with the appropriate degree of aggressive energy.

        2. Talking to yourself is a sign of mental illness.

          1. Only if you expect a response, and don’t get one.

      2. The real political tragedy is Johnson/Weld … getting out on stage. It’s just heartbreaking.

      3. The no-shit fascist in this election isn’t Trump.

        1. Exactly. People have made far too much hay of Trump’s ill-informed strongman braggadocio and impolitic flailing about. He’s an egotistical lunatic with a platform, playing it off the cuff because he basks in media attention. Let’s be fair to aggressive political operators with no-shit dictatorial ambitions, Trump does not have the ideological influence or ground game that a nation-tipping fascist movement requires.

          1. Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’ll get it right next time.

            1. Are you retarded or did your mom drop you on your head when you were a baby? Cause it’s one hundred percent obvious that Hillary is a no shit fascist.

              1. Oh honey. When you talk to me like that it makes me feel like you’re not listening to me.

    2. I’m making over $16k 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,… Copy This Link inYour Browser…. http://www.Trends88.Com

    3. If Trump’s elected, he’ll do as he’s told or they’ll put a bullet in his head. Have we learned nothing from sixteen years of one, continuous Bushbama presidency?

    4. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, pretty cool. working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started.. Go this website more info work… http://bit.do/oMaVAv

  2. I have said this before. Hillary. Bernie, Trump, and Johnson are all Statist Democrats ideologically.

    1. And I’ve said this before.* Shit Pyrate is a racoon.

      Opinions = Assholes = Everyone has one.

      *Not really.

  3. Of course vote for whoever you want to, and push your Tyranny upon your neighbors. I am sure they appreciate it.

    =D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04F4xlWSFh0

  4. What philosophical debate? For about 20 years, democrats have wanted the big government of Europe, while republicans want the big government of about 5-10 years ago, whatever year it is. They meet in the middle and give us a growing and growing fed gov. There’s no philosophical debate.

    Republicans have devolved into a purely reactionary party, trying to cobble together some coalition of southern Christian pro-military by convincing them that, whatever the democrats want, surely it will ruin this country, but not for any reality-based reason. We can’t talk about the screwy pseudo-economics behind Bernie Sander’s proposals, or Hillary’s “everyone gets free college paid by someone else” silliness. But we can talk about how horrible it is that she just doesn’t get ISIS.

    They deserve to lose. For a while. they’re not bringing anything to the table. For a while, it may appear that all matters of government debate are settled, then. Well, all the meaningful ones, anyway.

    1. Join the Agorist Cadres Brian, and we will fuck these Statist Assholes.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBMVZdE97l0

    2. Bullshit. The Tea Party showed that the nerve endings for limited government are still there in the GOP; they’re long since burned out in the Dem party.

      By your logic the past 8 years would have been the same if the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress and the presidency the whole time.

      Just because you disagree with both of them does not make them equally bad.

      1. Bullshit. The Tea Party only reared its silly head once Obama was elected. Where were they for the 8 years preceeding this? Whining and dutifully voting Republican.
        After watching a few cycles of politics I’ve come to realize that partisanship trumps principles for the VAST majority of people. In my opinion conservatives, with their natural predisposition to seek unity/loyalty/cohesion are worse partisans than leftists.

        1. They showed up after the bailouts. There was a huge movement to stop the bailouts where they all called their congress critters to stop it. It worked, the house votes no. They then turned around and passed it on a 2nd vote. That’s when they lost their shit and the Tea Party movement started. It had nothing to do with Obama. They aimed their attention at Republicans who passed the bailout and were successful at ousting some of them and putting more fiscally conservative free market minded people in.

        2. I could be wrong, but I thought the Taxed Enough Already party had started in 2008.

          1. +1 Ron Paul

          2. The first I remember was the Bridge to Nowhere by the Senator from Alaska. This was not the trigger, but there was growing outrage, moreso than usual, at the spending and corruption. I peg this as the start of the blowback and beginning of this movement. The last straw were the bailouts. There was never a good organization, though, so things just settle back down. This is what the establishment always relies on and this is why both Democrats and Republicans became rabid about bashing the Tea Party as it threatened something more organized and powerful enough to oppose them.

        3. There was the bailouts, the sudden trillion dollar deficit, the urban liberal president promising to spread the wealth around while all the republicans had to offer was the war guy (who for those too young to remember, was the democrats’ favorite republican before he dared to stand up to the chosen one). And the tea party is pretty well known for being terrible partisans, costing the republicans some key elections.

        4. @Eric. Exactly. The GOP has been doing this for decades. You can claim, as some people here do, that Republicans “lost” the fiscal moral high ground recently, but it’s debatable whether they ever occupied the high ground at all. For decades, most of the GOP’s commitment to fiscal restraint has been rhetorical, at best. Reagan increased welfare to the military-industrial complex; Bush One moved the ball along by greatly expanding the regulatory environment; and Bush Two capped it off by expanding drug coverage and bailing out the banks. In fact, the most fiscally conservative presidencies we’ve had in the post-WWII period have belonged to Democrats, recognizing of course that control of Congress complicates this picture. (You can read the details here: http://www.cato.org/blog/presidential-spending-0)

          1. And in addition to being spenders, the Republicans are incredibly conformist and retrograde, especially on stupid shit like social issues. The one aspect of this election that really makes me chuckle is the degree to which the GOP sheeple defend Trump on issues that have traditionally repulsed them. The ongoing drama over Melania’s girl-on-girl portfolio, and the extent to which sexually-repressed, prudish evangelical grandmas across America are forced to swallow every inch of their principles, just tickles me to death. Would they be so accommodating of a Bill Clinton centerfold in Playgirl? Maybe a shot of him spooning naked with Bernie Sanders?

            I’m loving every minute of it.

            1. Democrats = progressivism left.

              Republicans = progressivism right.

              With either faction of the UniParty the Constitution is treated as a mere piece of paper.

      2. No, by my logic, the last 8 years would have seen some expansion of the government (Obamacare), mitigated to some degree by republicans looking for a wedge issue, but not really debated in any sensical way, while any concept of limited government is largely ignored.

        Oh, look: reality.

        1. Yes, the Democrats have functioned without any genuine ideological opposition for quite some time now.

        2. Really, I just live in a constant state of shock that we have no politicians actively running on a campaign to reduce taxes as a major point.

          Hillary wants to tax the rich more. As if that will really help normal people, no mention of off-setting anyone else’s taxes with it.

          Trump talks about lower taxes sometimes, when he’s not hyperventalating about Islam or the Khans, or whoever said mean things about him recently.

          Given the political choices, I assume I live in a nation populated by working sheep, who think that forking over 15-25%+ of their income to the fed gov is a great way to go about planning for the future, and the only thing left to figure out is how much the rich people should be allowed to keep, strictly for the feelz good fairness of it all.

          Sorry, but I can’t really be asked to give two fucks about politicians debating the details of exactly how my money is going to be wasted.

          1. Trump talks about lower taxes sometimes, when he’s not hyperventalating about Islam or the Khans, or whoever said mean things about him recently.

            Or when he’s not taking about how terrible NAFTA was, or how he’s not going to touch Social Security, or how important eminent domain is, or how he’s going to spend twice as much on infrastructure as Hillary Clinton.

            There is literally NOTHING limited government about Trump. No, not even his hyperventilating about Mexicans and Islam.

          2. I just want someone who’s actually serious about reducing the debt, though what we really need is a population who cares enough about it.

      3. Sure, and then the TP abandoned it’s limited government principles and voted for Trump.
        Which proves that they really were just a bunch of racist douchbags the progressives always said they were.

    3. It’s not a debate so much as a difference of tactics… Democrats spends all their time finding ways to covertly advance progressivism, while Republicans spend all their time overtly apologizing for conservatism.

      1. I would say the Repubs spend their time pretending to oppose progressivism.

  5. It was long past time to MAKE, AND to KEEP, the existences of ANY political parties ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL!!!

    1. Making Political Parties Illegal ???

      Where’s the fun in that ???

      =D

  6. It’s that his presence allows most of the media to ignore the corruption, recklessness and policy failures of Democrats

    Yes, because up until this point, the media has been utterly unflagging in its duty to expose the corruption, recklessness and policy failures of all politicians, not just the Democrats.

    1. Look what that mean ol’ Trump made the media and republicans do! Trump has turned the country into a single party state all on his own.

      1. I had no idea Trump was this powerful.

        1. His power knows no limits, did you not know?

    2. The point is that Trump is making it easy for the media to ignore the Dem scandals. In years past they had to struggle to justify running stories about panda cubs being born or the 50th anniversary of Queen Lizzie on the front page while scandals were relegated to the bottom of page 14 if covered at all.

      Now they can point to the fact that there is a major party candidate for president who is saying and doing a bunch of crazy shit. That’s justifiably a big story.

      1. Yeah because they were so hard on Obama before Trump.

      2. The DemOp apparat did perfectly fine job of ignoring Obama’s manifest failures and scandals in 2012. They can burn an infinite number of news cycles on trivia – “binders full of women”, “dog on car roof”, blah blah.

      3. The Trump stories aren’t anything special, most are hardly news at all, and are given drastically undue attention by the media. You must be getting caught up in it yourself.

      4. This is temporary. Trump will lose in November and everything will go back to normal. Ignoring scandals, burying stories about Democratic corruption, blowing up stories about Republican imperfections.

    3. Reason is super derpy now.

    4. For some reason I thought the MSM had been carrying Team Blue water since the dawn of time. I had no idea it was actually Trump’s fault.
      Is “But Truump” going to replace “But Buuush” as the all purpose scapegoat?

  7. We have been in a one party state for years. Name anything that Obama is doing that W Bush would not either propose or go along with?

    Bailouts?

    Wars for Globalism?

    Government medical care (Obama Care, Prescription Drug program)

    Turning a blind eye to illegals

    Government debt

    Spying on Americans

    etc

    Homosexual Marriage (W Bush would have gone along with it if the Supreme Court had ruled it legal)

  8. The Republicans turned America into a one party state. Trump is just a symptom, not the cause.

    1. That’s just a weird statement. It’s like saying the German Democrats turned Germany into a Nazi State, or the White Party is at fault for Stalinism, or the Nationalists for Maoism.

      1. Hitler ran as a German Democrat?

      2. To expand: Republican party ignore / anger base. A big chunk of the base turns to anyone other than Jeb/standard party candidate.

        The anger at Boehner and now Ryan – over immigration, the omnibus deals, etc – and their implied coziness with the establishment drove people to Trump.

        shorter version: Party doesn’t listen to base. Base reacts. And it’s somehow Trumps fault?

        1. That hardly means we have a one party state. It’s like a dysfunctional Republican party made the Libertarian, Green or Constitution parties go away.

    2. This. Let’s not absolve the unimaginative reactionaries from their role in the matter.

    3. Really, that’s why we have one party controlling Congress and another one controlling the White House. How is that a one party state.

      1. When they operate as the same party in practice.

    4. I understand to some point. When you have 16 candidates from the “party leaders”, and none represent more than a token segment of the population, your party is doing something wrong. (You see the same thing, to some extent, on the left with the rise of Sanders)

      What do you do when the parties are entrenched and have made it nigh impossible to break/replace them, but they no longer represent the will of the people? Not even a little bit?

      1. Learn a trade. Like woodchipper maintenance.

        1. Sure, then when the nation is smothered in mulch it’ll be the tech bubble bursting all over again.

  9. “It’s that his presence allows most of the media to ignore the corruption, recklessness and policy failures of Democrats, who now function without any genuine ideological opposition.”

    I’m pretty sure that Comey letting Hillary Clinton go scott free wasn’t Trumps fault.

    1. Or the Reason Magazine policy of 10 anti Trump articles for every 1 anti-Hillary article

      1. To be fair, DJF, my sampling showed the ration more at 5:1, although the inevitable “But Trump” in any article critical of Hillary complicates the math.

    2. Hey David Harsanyi, it’s a shame that Trump has kept you from writing about Democratic corruption. I feel for you. Obviously, your hands are tied.

      1. It’s easy to write about, but if no-one will publish it…

      2. BANG.

      3. Harsanyi is one of the very few real libertarians still left here at this dump. Unlike the DuPont Circle cretins, he is actually very evenhanded and goes after the democrats a lot.

      4. The article is largely about how corrupt the Democrats are, but that Trumps’ shenanigans overshadow it.

        1. How corrupt the Democrats are has never mattered to the media before, so it is unlikely it doesn’t matter now because of Trump.

          1. True, I was mostly responding to the comment that this article neglects to mention how corrupt Clinton is.

    3. No it wasn’t. But Trump makes it easier for them to ignore that story and get away with it.

    4. This argument says Harsayni is in denial about the depth of the rot in the journalism profession. Sure, Trump is a buffoon who tweaks the conventional wisdom in a way that gives the press the excuse to clutch their pearls. However, they were going to do that anyway, even with the blandest GOP candidate (see Romney’s “binders full of women”). The press is going to bury Democrat scandals as much as they can, because they want the Democrat to win, not because the GOP is outrageous or not.

  10. Trump, allegedly a tell-it-like-is tough guy, is adept at nicknaming his enemies

    That’s debatable. He just picks random negative adjectives and starts using them as replacement first names.

    If he was adept at nicknaming his enemies the election would be more fun. Who wouldn’t want to wake up to a fresh batch of headlines about what “The Nutcracker” Hillary Clinton and Tim “Drying Paint” Kaine were up to?

    1. “Crooked Hillary” is a pretty damn good nickname. It’s no Block Yomomma, but it’s solid, pithy, accurate, and works all around.

  11. *sighs deeply*

    I guess I’ll try again next week and see if this absolute fixation on Trump will tamp down a bit.

    ‘bis Montag, alles.

    1. Right, how come Reason is posting articles about a major party’s nominee for president in an election year.

      1. The Hillary deluge – yeah, it is a bit much. Perhaps “fixation” was a word you missed?

  12. If Trump’s infrastructure spending actually resulted in construction, that would be a huge improvement.

    I would hope that is one area he actually knows something about.

    1. The only thing he’s ever “constructed” is buildings, which is not what most public infrastructure is. That’s assuming he even knows something about construction of his buildings beyond throwing money at people who take care of it.

      1. That’s assuming he even knows something about construction of his buildings beyond throwing money at people who take care of it.

        Pretty sure he doesn’t. I’d be shocked if he even knows what drywall is.

      2. *money that is loaned to him. Remember, it’s pretty easy to throw other people’s money around.

        1. Sounds like a perfect endorsement to become an exemplary elected official then.

        2. He should earn his own money, like Hillary.

  13. It’s that his presence allows most of the media to ignore the corruption, recklessness and policy failures of Democrats,

    Sorry, not buying it. There’s a solid point you’re making, but this isn’t part of it.

    The media’s been ignoring (and Reason is only a little better) the corruption, recklessness and policy failures of Democrats long before Donald Trump came on the scene. Remember how Mitt Romney was going to put black people in chains and lock women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant? Was that somehow Donald Trump’s doing?

    1. Trump makes it easier for them to justify doing that. They don’t have to have 24/7 coverage of British coronation anniversaries and panda cub birth watch to avoid covering the scandals this time… they have a legitimate story: the GOP candidate being a crazy idiot.

      1. You’ve repeated this line about 4 times now and it just gets stupider each time. You know damn well the media are burying Clinton and Obama’s skeletons with or without Trump as a distraction.

        1. Exactly. If there weren’t a record of the media aping the Democratic narrative in every single election in the last twenty years, I might buy into the “Trump’s made it easier” line. It’s obvious that it was never really that difficult to start with.

      2. Moreover, they get to feel extra-righteous this time. Making “Mister Nice” Mitt Romney look like the love child of Scrooge McDuck and Charles Manson is one thing, but they think Trump is Hitler! As they see it, ANYTHING is acceptable to save the country from the likes of him.

  14. Yes, it’s truly tragic how Trump’s impolitic response to a straw-man attack from a tragic-noble Muslim man (Gold Star dad [[sob]]) forced the media into a week long hysteria which complete,suppressed lesser stories like Hillary’s connection to the selling of defense secrets to Russia, the resignations of the DNC leadership brought on by scandals, and irrefutable evidence of Hillary being a pathological liar. Not to mention the exposure of coordination between the DNC and various respectable media outlets.

    1. Trump forced Clinton to play the Muslim hero card.

    2. It truly is remarkable how silly this Khan nonsense is and the attention it’s garnering; especially on CNN.

    3. If the Khan’s didn’t want to get Trumped, they shouldn’t have prostituted the memory of their dead son for dyed in the wool fascist like Hillary. They are the ones who let the Democratic Machine use them as a cum-dumpster.

      1. Of the two duopoly candidates, which one was a principal architect of the ongoing war Khan’s son died in?

        I would like to know why the Dems picked this guy and why he agreed to do it.

        1. why the Dems picked this guy and why he agreed to do it.

          Stupidity. Retardation. Next question.

  15. Another Trump article? Here’s my shocked face!

  16. Donald Trump vanquished 16 other GOP candidates, one by one. Including some establishment types, business types, evangelical types, and rebellious types. He won because the majority of Republican voters love what he has to say.

    Trump is just the messenger, Harsanyi. Your problem is with the typical GOP voter. They’re destroying the party.

    1. majority of Republican voters

      Math escapes you as efficiently as do height and intelligence.

      1. Hate to break thi to you, but by the end of April, Trump was getting we above 50% of the GOP vote in nearly all the primaries, including 70% in Cal.

        But then, you’re not real bright either, are you?

        1. You said Trump got the vote of a “majority of Republican voters.” That is completely untrue. Trump received around 13.3 million votes while just Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz received 15.5 million votes among them.

      2. Read and weep about your precious GOP

        http://www.politico.com/2016-e…../president

        I bet you’re one of those voters.

        1. Read and weep Trump getting a total 45% of the vote? Not sure how that’s a majority.

    2. Yeah, those crazies destroyed the party by giving the Republicans control of the House, the Senate, the majority of State governorships and legislatures.

      1. Tell it to Harsanyi.

      2. BANJOS! Damn, good to see you on here (assuming I haven’t missed you earlier)? Done breeding little libs? Have you been keeping sloop from jumping off the bridge?

        1. The only thing that would cause Sloipy to jump off a bridge is sanctions on An Ohio State University.

        2. I tied my tubes. My pregnancies were becoming increasingly worse. I would be sick for nine months straight. It started to become more and more difficult to care for babies and be bedridden. So I stopped after #3 and tied myself up. I think Sloopy is secretly hoping that he gets me pregnant again for the bragging rights. Sloopy has been focusing on golf lately. I don’t blame him.

          1. I tied my tubes

            The entire liberty community has a sad. Now we have to start converting people again.

              1. One of the local libertarian radio hosts here in Denver covered this (we have arguably 4). Stupid ass ANDCAPs doing stupid ass shit. They really don’t want to be successful. That is the cancer of the LP.

                1. Which host Clich?? Caldera?

                  1. Ross Kaminsky,

                    John is ok but he HATES the LP. He is the cuckolded hubby of the Colorado Rs. He keeps believing they will be small government and he keeps being disappointed. I like Mandy she is rather entertaining, and of course Uncle Nasty who is a registered Libertarian.
                    (Some might say that Michael Brown – yes THAT Michael Brown who was the head of FEMA during Katrina – is libertarian leaning but I think he gets wrapped around the wrong axels some times).

                    I miss both Michael Corbin and Rick Barber, may they rest in peace. Both were excellent broadcasters and hella good libertarians.

    3. Yeah, cause none of the traditional Dem voters have jumped ship and joined the GOP after the democrat party has shown an absolute hatred for them over the last 8 years.

  17. Can we have another article about transgender bathrooms?

    1. Wait till Trump is forced to answer questions about transgender bathrooms at the debates.

      1. “Here’s my transgender!” /points proudly to a Divine lookalike, right out of the floorshow from one of his Vegas hotels.

      2. How are they going to keep Trump from talking about all of the Hillary corruption stories they have kept the Voters from knowing about. I am sure they have a plan

        1. Bury the debates opposite Monday Night Football and Sunday Night Football so nobody has to acknowledge any of it.

        2. Of course they do, and the plan is to have Dem partisans running the debates, asking the questions, and running interference for Hillary.

          Same old, same old, in other words.

          1. It might be interesting to see just how blatant they will be about jumping in to save her.

  18. Yet another decade late, $10,000,000,000,000 short, myopic article from the brain trust at Reason.

    Any notion that we didn’t have a One Party State was settled when the REPUBLICANS, with the White House AND Congress sewn up, passed Medicare Part D and added $11,000,000,000,000 to the accrual basis debt. It PROVED that the Republicans were just as Statist and collectivist as the Democrats. That regardless of their rhetoric, the Republicans were effectively to the left of JFK. Medicare Part D was the biggest addition (to that point) to the collectivist transfer State since The Great Society.

    REPUBLICANS!

    There has been ONE Welfare-Warfare Party for going on two decades now, the logical conclusion to the 100 years of ramping up Statism since 1913 – the Central Bank and the Individual Income Tax that effectively put the Federal Government completely and directly in charge of the economy and the ability to directly harass the individual. After WWII, any inclination the Republicans had to undo these cancers ended. And by the ’80’s, when the trap was springing closed, Reagan – an FDR Democrat who still thought well of the fascist cunt – crammed the stopper of “unlimited” debt to keep the jaws of the clamp from closing. That stopper is about the snap in two and the jaws slam together.

    The distillation of the One Party presages the gentle, loving treatment were going to receive from our Ruling Class. It was in the cards all along once the dismal year of 1913 closed out.

  19. I see no reason (drink) to split hairs when the basic point here is sound: Trump is Hillary’s prefect escape hatch. If she were running against a generic Republican with an atom of common sense she’d be toast right now.

    Because as absurdly anti-government and extreme as the media attempted to portray Mittens 4 years ago was it would still be better than the corruption and lawlessness that entails Hillary Clinton. Romney would be crushing Hillary right now as would just about any other Republican because they are at least competent enough to pick a message and stay on it.

    Trump apparently can’t help damaging himself by going on personal vendettas against anyone critical of him.

    1. If she were running against another Republican the media would be doing to him what they did to Romney and Hillary would likely be in better shape. The idea that the media would be not be going insane and covering for Hillary if only there were a reasonable Republican is absurd. They portrayed Mitt Romney as a crazy libertarian racist for God’s sake.

      1. They would certainly try but voters wouldn’t be buying it. Just look at her unfavorability ratings despite the fact that her opponent is an asshole.

        In any case Romney’s biggest liability was his long career in finance. I think enough independents would find the allegations of Romney being out of touch absurd when Hillary was making $500K giving speeches to Goldman Sachs.

        Add in the fact that Hillary wouldn’t be bringing in Obama’s coalition of minorities in sufficient numbers and you have a Romney victory fairly easily.

        1. Whatever fewer voters wouldn’t have bought it would have not made up for the people who just wouldn’t have voted because they knew the Republican was going to sell out on immigration and trade. So it would be a net zero gain.

          And if you don’t like Trump, wait until you see what you get in 2020 if Hillary wins. You will on here talking about how if only they could run someone reasonable like Trump.

          And then there possibly that we could see an actual domestic insurgent movement. That is what is coming if things don’t change. And you know who such movements always targets? Hack journalists. They always do. The media is so profoundly stupid they have no clue what they are setting themselves up for.

          1. Whatever fewer voters wouldn’t have bought it would have not made up for the people who just wouldn’t have voted because they knew the Republican was going to sell out on immigration and trade. So it would be a net zero gain.

            Assuming that’s true and it’s a push then that leaves independents. Okay, so who do they break for? Romney won them last time against Obama, why would they go for Hillary when she has major scandals and the weight of Obama’s failures on her?

            1. I think the media would have torn any other republican apart in the same way.

              Can you imagine how many times they would attack Rand for hating black people because of that Maddow interview over the CRA?

          2. Yeah, predictible.
            “it doesn’t matter that we nominated a mentally ill fascist, because Hillary was going to win anyway.”

            Suck it up, retard. You made your fucking bed. get ready to lie in it.

            1. “Suck it up, retard. You made your fucking bed. get ready to lie in it.”

              You do realize that you get to share the Hillary Clinton bed with the rest of us, don’t you?

              1. That’s why I’m so fucking mad.

          3. Once Hillary gets CU overturned and guts the first amendment, it’s going to be easy to justify attacking DemOp journalists (most of whom work for corporate unpersons).

            Civil liberties aren’t so much fundamental human rights, they’re more like a pact between communities, like an intranational, political version of the Geneva Conventions.

            The first amendment is a pact saying “we agree not to respond to speech with violence”. If the VLWC breaks the pact and uses state violence to silence its opponents, then their propandists should also be silenced with violence, until they agree to return to the pact and (as the ones who breached it) make the necessary amends to regain trust.

        2. They would certainly try but voters wouldn’t be buying it.

          Yes, yes they would. It wasn’t just that Romney was rich that they were tarring him with. Remember the whole “war on women”? It wasn’t all that long ago.

      2. That’s the wonderful thing about divergent counter-factual conditionals. They all have exactly the same truth value as “I’m not going to look but is Schroedinger’s cat alive or dead?”

        1. You can only do the Schroedinger trick nine times.

      3. I didn’t think they were terribly successful painting Romney as some kind of scary super-conservative. It was just too absurd applied to such a moderate candidate. I think he could have won against Hillary. Obama just had too much cult of personality going for him.

        I could be underestimating people’s gullibility, though, I suppose.

        1. You just forget. Remember the 47% comment? They made just as big a deal about that as anything Trump said.

          1. Yeah, I may well just remember how fucking stupid it was while forgetting how many people just went along with it all.

            1. The Kahn thing is just as stupid. And actually what Trump said about Kahn more reasonable than what Romney said. Yet they went insane over both.

        2. I could be underestimating people’s gullibility, though, I suppose.

          Well, yeah. You’re probably at least in the top 10% of informed people in the country. You know enough to know better. But for a lot of people, when Eva and Lena come on the television and tell them that Romney wanted to lock women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant and lynch black people (because that’s just the way Massachusetts governors roll), they just assume where there’s smoke there’s fire.

      4. Yeah, I don’t buy it. The media plays the same game every four years and demonized the shit out of the Republican candidate. For once, the Republican candidate is fighting back and the media is losing their shit. “How dare he defend himself, he’s so thin skin, she should take the insane demonization and lies against him with grace, the egotistical asshole.”

        I still think Trump is going to pull off a win. The fearmongering only works for so long before it backfires, like what happened in Brexit. The reality is, there’s no excitement for Hillary. There’s excitement for Trump and hatred for Trump but no excitement for Hillary. This isn’t going to translate to votes for Hillary. The average voter doesn’t show up to vote against someone, they show up to vote for people. That’s why Romney and McCain lost, there was massive excitement for Obama and none for the Republican candidates. The people who showed up in droves to vote for Obama are staying home this year. For the record, I thought Romney was going to lose 4 years ago.

        1. I can’t believe repubs are still trying to blame the media. This may have been valid when it was NBC, CBS and ABC plus a few prominent magazines. Today, blaming “the media” is like trying to blame “the internet”.

          1. Do you think the majority of people receive their news from huffpo and drudge or from their newspapers and televisions? And how old are you?

            1. It’s like he thinks the vast majority of the mainstream media are not dominated by Democrat party hacks.

        2. I handicap Trump at least 5% in polling because I’m convinced a large number of people prefer him but won’t admit to it.

          Problem is that Hillary’s lead is well beyond. Polls are often wrong but for Trump to pull this off at this right they would have to be historically wrong like they’ve never been before. It’s possible but unlikely IMO.

          1. The quality of polling has gone down dramatically in the last decade. They’ve become increasingly inaccurate. This is mostly due to cell phones and very small polling sizes (less than 1,000 people, sometimes less than 500). The poll I’ve been keeping my eyes on is the LA Times which has been polling 3,000 people. Their poll has been showing a tight race. If Hillary starts taking a big lead in the LA Times poll then I’d start reconsidering my assessment on the election.

            1. That explains why Nate Silver was so wrong about the 2012 election.

              1. He was dead wrong about ’10, I don’t remember ’14, and I know he was waaaay wrong about the recent republican primary. Hazel, I get it, you’re a glamour, socially signaling, Postrel, Cosmo type. And there’s nothing you hate more than someone as uncouth as that “vulgarian”. But don’t let your biases blind you.

                1. You don’t have a clue, Brian.
                  I am not at all glamorous (I don’t even wear makeup), and I am allergic to social signalling.
                  Most of the time, I’m the vulgar person in my social signal who can’t resist blurting out the un-PC thing, because it’s true, and because I can’t help tweaking people’s sacred cows.

                  I loathe Trump because of his economic beliefs. Because he’s the antithesis of a libertarian on economic issues.

                  You Trump supporters keep making the same argument that we just hate him because he’s un-PC. But that’s not it at all. His un-PCness makes him an idiot and a bad candidate, but the core reason for hating him is because his policy positions are anathema, or should be, to most libertarians.

                2. ” I get it, you’re a glamour, socially signaling, Postrel, Cosmo type.”

                  This is just the Trumpist’s version of the leftist “you hate Obama because you’re racist” false argument. “You hate Trump because you’re just virtue-signaling!”

                  For once maybe the Trumpists could respond to the factual basis of the criticisms against him, instead of just inventing arguments and putting words in his critics’ mouths.

                  1. Not a Trump supporter. Thanks for playing.

        3. I still think Trump is going to pull off a win.

          I’m still 50/50. Its early fucking August, fer chrissakes. This Kahn thing will barely be a memory by the end of the month.

          Prediction: Hillary and her allies in the media will continue to flog every Twitter gaffe as hard as they can. Bad news, though, works in Trump’s favor. Its a race between the shallow frothing of operatives and rapid-cycle news, and real events. This race will be decided by what happens out in the big world in September and October.

          Example: Obama is trying to set up a win for Hillary by demanding that Mosul be re-taken before the election. That could well turn into a giant clusterfuck of a disaster, if ISIS fights well and the Iraqis fight, well, typically. If so, it will hurt Hillary, badly. If the battle goes well, it will probably help her, a little.

          1. This Kahn thing will barely be a memory by the end of the month.

            True, because by that point Trump will have uttered about a 100 other things that are even more retarded.

            People can barely remember half the ridiculous shit that comes out of Trumps mouth, there’s just too much to catalog.

          2. Trump needs to go error-free until the election. The odds of that are slim.

            1. Not really, errors aren’t necessarily additive, and his are mostly gaffes rather than scandal — the constant attempts to conflate the two make him a sympathetic character to people who are increasingly aware of the VLWC.

              Hell, I’m sympathetic. We have Nick here today drawing a moral equivalence between Hillary’s pay-for-play State Department, Obama handing ransom money to Iran, and Trump misremembering what he saw on the news.

              That doesn’t make Trump look like an ass, it makes Nick look like an ass.

  20. Trump is a standard-issue prog who boasted in Art of the Deal that, unlike other developers, he didn’t want a complete repeal of rent control in NY City. No, he simply wanted to prevent rich people from getting rent-controlled apartments – by coincidence, Trump’s own apartments were aimed at a rich clientele.

    But otherwise he was fine with rent control, it didn’t hurt him and it made him look compassionate, I suppose.

    1. Trump is a left of center Democrat circa 1988. Yet the media has convinced themselves that he is the American Mussolini. The reaction of assholes like Hyrsanni is pathetic

      1. Well, Mussolini was pretty much a leftist. Quick – name me three planks of Hillary’s platform he wouldn’t be okay with.

        1. Chicks with dicks?

          But what do I know, maybe Mussolini was fine with it.

          1. Wait, I still need to think of two other planks.

            1. Shouldn’t chicks with dicks count as two planks?

          2. Pro-abortion would be one, I suspect. Italy being pretty damn Catholic, especially 80 years ago.

            1. but wasn’t Mussolini a good anti-religion socialist of the old school? – although he might have objected to an abortion license as being contrary to the demographic health of the nation

              1. “but wasn’t Mussolini a good anti-religion socialist of the old school? ”

                Not when he signed the Vatican over to the Catholic church.

  21. How the fark does Reince Priebus still have a job?

    1. Who will replace him at this point? There’ll be a shake up after the election; Exhibit A will be that idiotic “pledge” he made everybody sign when he was afraid the Don would actually finance an independent campaign… which turned out to be a complete bullshit.

      1. Ivanka Trump. If DT stepped down for anyone else, it would look like he was surrendering. He’d still be seen as a winner if he stepped down for her and she won (which I’m sure she would).

  22. I read somewhere — indeed, it was a conservative strongly anti-Hillary (and anti-Trump) website — that stories about Trump get substantially more clicks than stories about Hillary, even those highlighting scandals (remember, this was on a conservative website; even their anti-Hillary readers don’t seem to care about her anymore).

    1. It’s our collective attention spans. Hillary has just a handful of scandals at a given time, which are huge, but you don’t regularly learn anything new about them, and the average voter eventually tunes them out. Trump gives us a new story every week, and if he doesn’t, the media invents one, like the obviously sarcastic remarks about Russia hacking Hillary, because now they’re dependent on him for content. Watch him continue to dominate the news cycle for months after his loss

  23. Well, I’m kinda hoping Julian Assange will keep his promise to take down the other party’s candidate.

    1. The fact that Hillary is still a viable candidate, much less in the lead, given all that is already known about her proves that there is no information in the world that can stop her.

      1. Hey, don’t burst my bubble, man.

  24. Media outlet decries attention paid to Trump by media outlets!

    1. This x 8,000,000

  25. Trump Has Turned America Into a One-Party State

    Reason staff finally discovers what the commentariat has been bitching about for decades. Tom morrow they will learn the Darth Vader is Luke’s father.

    So to work for Reason, do you have to hit yourself in the head with a ball pin hammer first thing every morning? What is the explanation for such utter stupidity?

    1. PEEN it is BALL-PEEN

      DAMNIT! Tow the lion around here. For all intensive porpoises that is literally worse than Hitler.

    2. Most of the Reason staff of today (not Harsanyi though) is fully in support of our one party state.

      1. I don’t get this. You guys see Weigals all the way down. I don’t see it.
        First off, Harsanyi is not a staffer he is a contributor, and he used to be a Denver Post Columnist before moving out east.

        Second, ENB brings a decent sex angle that I haven’t really seen covered in depth before here and I haven’t seen her shill for any particular candidate.

        Welch and Gillespie are both Johnson supporters as far as I can tell.

        Rico, Scott, and Suderman often get lumped together but I see vast differences.

        Ron has stayed out of the race from what I have seen and that is fine by me. Same as Root.

        KMW has been silent since the promotion…she must be too busy smoking Welch’s cigar stash.

        Brian is, as the closest thing they have to a big L, in for GJ as I see it.

        Jesse and Jacob have not changed one bit that i see.

        the interns…well, leave them alone, they are just little guys

        Where is all this “Reason is a shill for X” coming from?

        Do I miss 2chilli? Cavanaugh? Balko? LUCY? hell yes, I will say three of those four had some of the best writing on the intertubes. Is this Reason bad? No, just different.

  26. I don’t have time now to check if someone above has already pointed out the obvious: The US has been a two-faction, one-party state for a long time run by turf-protecting sociopaths. Trump’s disruption is merely hastening the collapse of what has been an unstable red-team-blue-team con game.

  27. Trump Has Turned America Into a One-Party State

    Is this a sci-fi movie where Trump goes back in time or something?

  28. The logic of electoral college politics will push the system back into a two party dynamic. The real question is whether the D’s can prop the R’s up to keep them around as a useful foil, or whether the R’s will collapse and be replaced by the Libertarian Party.

    That and how many election cycles will it take. It can die now, and Gary Johnson can take over as the other “binary choice”, or we can wait an election cycle or two as the rotting hulk of the GOP gets dragged around in the harbor just far enough away for the average voter to avoid noticing that it’s manned by corpses.

  29. I don’t believe the conspiracy theory that Trump is a plant to get Hillary elected. Hillary isn’t that competent and no one could have guessed that Trump would actually have made it, but if such a theory were true and there WAS a scheme to hand the presidency to Clinton in 2016 they could not have picked a better patsy than Trump.

  30. What I don’t think the hypothetical conspirators who convinced Trump to be a mole in the Repub party anticipated was the global anti-establishment wave. Hillary is square in its cross-hairs (you could hardly be more establishment than Hillary), and Trump is a pretty decent avatar of it. Whether it will carry him to a win depends, I think, on how many more high-profile failures of the establishment can penetrate the Twitter-driven news cycle.

    1. The real question is did Hillary work with the Donald to do this or did she just let loose a rabid dog? If A he may yet betray her as his support increases and if B he may be the equivalent of a sigfried and roy tiger, either way Hillary is probably as shocked as everyone else at how well he has done.

      1. The other question is whether, if it was a con, he did it as a favor or under duress of some sort. I think that Trump had a common friend with Bill in Jeff Epstein, and catching him on video getting it on with a 15-year old hooker doing some sort of Ivanka roleplay could be adequate motivation for being the Clintons’ bitch.

        1. a valid and insightful hypothesis…

  31. This is ridiculous. Trump isn’t “allowing” the media to ignore anything. They’re dead set on it. Also, the Republican Party’s failings were decades in the making and entirely its own doing.

    Trump is the one man in this race who isn’t responsible. The horrible media, the corrupt Democrats, the faithless Republicans. They’re all the manufacturers of their own faults.

    Trying to pin all this on Trump is laughable.

    1. Yep. Not that he isn’t a shitbag all on his own, but he is no way responsible for the actions of the Axis of Tyranny (the DC establishment and international power brokers, and their media allies).

  32. The media never has exposed Democrat corruption. The theocrats have killed the Republican party long ago.

  33. Yeah, that wasn’t him who did that. And as far as I can tell lately, it looks like the LP is now part of that one-party system. I don’t like Trump and don’t trust him at all, but if it’s the one-party vs. him, I’ll take my chances on Trump.

  34. The Khan incident could have worked to Trump’s advantage had he shut up, gathered information, and offered a respectful rebuttal of the whole situation, while going after Hillary and her foreign policy. But that’s not Trump’s style.

    It’s almost as if this is on purpose. He’s supposed to be smart, strategic, etc. but he took the bait the campaign set out for him. Hillary plant? I mean, he donated to her and many otger liberal dems, so why couldn’t he be?

  35. Here’s a good example why I have little respect for journalists. I get that the brightest college kids aren’t pondering whether to study nuclear physics or journalism, but is it too much to ask that journalists know at least something about something, or that they see the almost 100% propaganda and almost 0% journalism in their own profession? Most journalism is nothing more than people sitting in cubicles, surfing the net, writing nonsense articles based on nothing more than the reading of other nonsense articles written by others who just sit in cubicles surfing the net. It’s a giant circle-jerk of ignorance passed off as journalism.

    We’ve had a one-party state since the midterm election of 1934… the first election since the start of the New Deal and the final battle between conservatism (now called “libertarianism” by the Repubs) and liberalism. The Repubs dropped to holding

    1. Why allow a comment to be 1500 characters, but cut off all but the first 896?

      1. As I was saying:

        We’ve had a one-party state since the midterm election of 1934… the first election since the start of the New Deal and the final battle between conservatism (now called “libertarianism” by the Repubs) and liberalism. The Repubs dropped to holding

        1. You could mention that “less than” signs aren’t allowed.
          As I was saying:

          We’ve had a one-party state since the midterm election of 1934… the first election since the start of the New Deal and the final battle between conservatism (now called “libertarianism” by the Repubs) and liberalism. The Repubs dropped to holding less than 33% of the Senate and less than 25% of the House. The massive new regulatory powers and massive new spending plans caused an army of lobbyists to descend on DC, as the government, not the free market, now decided the winners and losers in business. The Republican party saw that they could jump on the openly corrupt, big government, tax and spend, nanny state, progressive, liberal gravy train or they could become extinct. There are NO ideological differences between the two parties today; picking a party has no more significance than picking a favorite football team.

  36. As I was saying:

    We’ve had a one-party state since the midterm election of 1934… the first election since the start of the New Deal and the final battle between conservatism (now called “libertarianism” by the Repubs) and liberalism. The Repubs dropped to holding

  37. When it comes to constitutional government, the whole left-right, conservative-liberal, Republican-Democrat, even Christian-secular paradigms are, for the most part, an illusion. Over most of the last century, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, and Christians and secularists have collectively jettisoned constitutional government in favor of a Welfare State, a Warfare State, a Nanny State, and a Police State.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/b…..win919.htm

  38. RE: Trump Has Turned America Into a One-Party State

    We all know this country has been a one political party for many decades. But is that a bad idea? No. A one party political system has worked out well in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, etc. One only has to examine the wonderful social, international and economic successes these one party countries have enjoyed in the past decades to fully appreciate the wonders, the glories and humanitarianism these one party countries to fully appreciate them. Democracies are messy and create chaos. They also create the nefarious side affects such as economic freedom, choice and allowing the collective to do what the want instead of what The State wants. Whereas one party rule breeds uniformity, conformity and obedience not to mention efficiency in government that pleases the ruling elitist turds to no end. However, the two ruling political parties in this countries are wisely blurring their policies into they become one. This way, our obvious betters can control the little people so much better at their expense. But what is freedom compared to control? Who doesn’t want to be controlled?
    Who in their right mind wants to enjoy freedom and all the benefits that go along with. So let’s all embrace the idea of a one party dictatorship so we call all live better lives in the Gulag State our ruling class elites wants for all of us.
    They know what’s best for us, and they will be the first to tell you so.

  39. Thr real tragedy is that the Lying Republican Party of 1%ers lost middle America in this Century. Thsy is ehere I csme from snd I remember. I am now smart, educated, professional, affluent, etc. Just the voter Paul (“what will fool you now”) Ryan is seeking. But the Republicans can only fool me once. Hillart is a Crook (beating Nixon there) and the Party of George Will is a pack of losers. So I am for Trump.

  40. the founders said if anything would destroy this country it would be factionalism. factionalism is the end result of having a ‘two party shitstem’. only two choices, blue or red.

    enjoy the remnants of it while it lasts. i look forward to seeing some of you on the other side

  41. I would say the vast bulk of America believes we have one Party. That differences in the two Stated Parties are only for mass consumption, but the masses are vomiting back, the allusions the two parties take credit for.. the masses are regurgitating the B.S…
    both parties have far more in common, that they have in differences but do try to maintain they are deferent.
    All of them are about self advancement, more than fulfilling any promise, at the top of a list of promise purpose is the ideal of an agenda.
    Rino’s have no agenda actual.
    Are there instances where there is a actual difference, of course, there is an actual difference in everything in the universe, but like the universe, there is a set of laws governing the universe. The law of representation is no longer ‘of the people, for the people’ and people ae more aware of that everyday,,,
    yet stuck with choosing which end of a T@rd to choose from..
    There is only one T@urd, there is only one party.

  42. The entire mindset of this article uses the talking points and cliches of the Left from which to frame how we should view Trump — sad. I expected something better from this website. Example: The reason we are focusing on Gold Star families is that Trump was smeared on this incident and David Harsanyi bought into it instead of using “reason” and reading comprehension. Khizir Kahn accused Trump of making no sacrifices but neither has any other candidate made such supreme sacrifice. Moreover, Kahn is an immigration lawyer with a grudge toward Trump because Trump would probably take away his livelihood. So Trump correctly responded that Kahn viciously attacked him unjustifiably and that his wife had no voice as a subjugated Muslim woman. As an attorney Kahn posed an unanswerable trap question to Trump like: “when was the last time you beat your wife?” (or sacrificed your child in a war). This is a conclusionary question. Trump answered that he made a lot of sacrifices. What he meant was that he was sacrificially running for office and was opposed to the Iraq War. Harsanyi might as well be working for FAR LEFT MEDIA in swallowing Kahn’s framing of Trump instead of analyzing it rationally. It is Harsanyi who has been infected with the media contagion of framing Trump and who is irrational. Please don’t post his articles on this website as they are full of nothing but confirmation bias.

  43. I was going to buy my way to the top post but realized the Hillary is starting to do that here at Reason.

  44. Hudson . although Henry `s article is flabbergasting, last thursday I bought a brand new Buick after having earned $7028 recently an would you believe ten-grand this past-munth . it’s actualy the most-comfortable job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and practically straight away started making a nice at least $83.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.