Donald Trump

Trump-Loving Indian Teenager Kicked Out of Rally, Now Voting for Gary Johnson

'Why are all these white people allowed to attend and I'm not?'


Screenshot via CNN

You'd think the Donald Trump campaign should consider Jake Anantha an ideal supporter: he's a teenager, and the son of immigrants—two demographic groups the Republican presidential candidate has utterly failed to court. Trump should have taken the kid on tour with him.

Instead, Trump has lost Anantha's vote, and his parents'. That's because security removed the 18-year-old college student from a Trump rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, after presuming that he was there to heckle.

Anantha wasn't doing anything wrong, according to The Charlotte Observer. He was just standing around, waiting for the event to start, when a security officer tapped him on the shoulder and asked him to leave.

The man might have confused Anantha for somebody else—perhaps all dark-skinned rally attendees are presumed to be hecklers in Trumpland. "We know who you are," said the security officer. "You've been at many other rallies."

He was wrong. This was Anantha's first Trump rally, and he was there because he loves the candidate. Or used to:

Anantha says he stood outside the Convention Center watching a stream of white people enter.

"I thought (Trump) was for all people. I don't believe he is for all people anymore," he said. "Why are all these white people allowed to attend and I'm not?"

Anantha previously said Trump wasn't a racist, but now he isn't so sure:

Jake and Ramesh Anantha say they realize it was not Trump who personally ordered the removal, but they say the candidate is responsible for the people he hires and the tone he sets.

He's hoping for an apology—good luck with that—but plans to vote for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson regardless.

NEXT: 400 Types of Yogurt, Two Serious Presidential Candidates, & One Worn-Out Rap About 3rd Parties

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. FWIW I have seen his security throw out a bunch of white people, too. Including reporters.


    2. Who you counting as white? Sicilians? Hispanics? Persians and Arabs?

        1. Sicilians come from shit. Now, Napolitans are white, more or less. Calabrese, ehh.

    3. Were they being obnoxious, or just standing there?

      1. According to the article, he was just standing there waiting for the event to start. It is well known that Trump employees profile and also remove press. He’s not transparent about anything, including apparently, his rallies.

    4. This claim doesn’t disprove the claim that Trump or Trumps staff are racist. It’s not the counter-factual. There are many reasons one may be tossed from a Trump rally including being non-white.
      A counter claim would be pointing out that there was a non-white person or Indian person who attended the rally and was not removed against their will.

  2. So if Gary Johnson ever attracted enough attention to need security – they would all be open-minded libertarians? If not, that would make Johnson a bad person.

    1. Your comment is somewhat not relevent. Trump is responsible for the conduct of his staff at his rallies regardless of their personal leanings. In answer to your remark though, I think not. It is illegal to discriminate based on age, race, gender, religeon, or pollitical afilliation. Hiring security in a manner in which you suggested would make him not just a bad person but also a criminal. He CAN instruct his staff to behave in a certain manner while under his employ and as such is responsible for what they do on his behalf while on the clock but he cannot tell them what to believe. He will probably have little to nothing to say about who his security is though. Secret service guards presidential candidates, not privately hired security.

      1. But it IS legal and moral and ethical to discriminate based on criminal behavior.
        So if the security guard really made an honest mistake and thought he had seen this kid before on footage of violence at other campaign rallies (in other words, if this were not about race at all), he would have done exactly the right thing.

        So, how can any one of us here really know what was going on through the security guard’s mind? Was it an honest mistake? Probably not, but there is still a chance that it was. We should not, like the leftists/progressives, automatically assume it’s about racial discrimination without proof.

        1. Why not assume it was racial discrimination based on this young mans claims? Is there proof to believe the other claim, that he was seen at another rally doing something criminal? If the latter was true wouldn’t he have been handed over to the police or wouldn’t there be some database to peruse in order to stand by the guards claims? Plus, the guard never claimed the young man had done something criminal. He simply assumed he would be there to heckle. I don’t see how what he did was lega, moral or ethical even if he did think he saw the guy at another rally.

  3. it actually shows that even the trump campaign knows full well they don’t have a chance people who look like this kid.

    1. They would be right if his support is so weak rent-a-cop could talk him out of it.

      1. The “rent-a-cop” didn’t “talk him out of” anything. He went to a rally to support his candidate and was ejected by a member of Trump’s staff. This wasn’t a local rental, he had apparently worked enough rallies to recognize people. That’s more than enough to anger and turn away any but the most die-hard supporters. I know people who have stopped going to their favorite places for less.

        1. Random security people = members of staff now? Who knew.

  4. I think that Trump is just an anathema to this guy.

  5. I thought (Trump) was for all people.

    That kid is obviously not the sharpest crayon in the box.

  6. he’s a teenager, and the son of immigrants

    And he can vote!?

    1. Is your IQ high enough to vote? SON of immigrants. If he weren’t a natural born citizen, he too would be an immigrant. Naturalized citizens (immigrants who legally apply for and receive their citizenship) are allowed to vote and even run for some offices. People not born citizens of the US cannot run for president, but they can certainly, as citizens, vote for who represents them AS president. Educate yourself and stop being a racist wanker.

      1. Plenty of openly foreign-born citizens in office. For awhile I was “Represented” by a Hungarian.

      2. Get that sarcasm detector recalibrated.

  7. His name is Anantha, which sounds like Anathema, which means “something dedicated to evil and thus accursed”.

    They paused on letting him into the rally until they could figure out what’s going on.

    1. It’s also possible that they were spooked by a three-syllable word.

      1. We all are Hugh, We all are.

  8. Story could be a fake. How do we know Anantha was a Trump fan or hasn’t been to any of Trump’s rallies before?

    1. He could have been about to build a clock out of the security guard.

    2. Unpossible. Trump’s critics are all totally honest- pure as the driven snow.

    3. How do we know that the boy wasn’t legitimate? If he was not then the Trump security should have had video or film of the boy misbehaving at other Trump events. Absent such proof the Trump people owe the boy an apology.

  9. Anantha’s planned heckle: “The orange monkey I worship doesn’t shoot half-digested KFC out of his ass!”

  10. If your choice of a candidate is so weak that you’ll change your stance based on what happened to you personally at a rally then you were never much of a supporter anyway. A candidate I was willing to support would have to do something like skip alt-text before I changed my stance.

    1. True, but sadly, that’s about how much thought a significant part of the electorate gives to their choice.

  11. NOT OKAY

    1. Trump is NOT OKAY obviously

  12. I’m suspicious.

  13. You guys are really phoning it in today, huh?

    1. This is way more important than Trump touring flooded areas of Lousiana while Obama golfs and Hillary gets a software upgrade some rest.

      1. It’s a Friday, and summer’s almost over, I get it. But I dunno, just put an abortion article or a story about public accommodation and let the commentariat duke it out until the P.M. Links. This just seems like reaching, to me.

      2. Thank you Drake.

        30,000 people out of their homes, nearly 10,000 living in shelters and Obumbles cant put down his golf club. Trump will take La easily so they cant be bothered. What is funny is that a large proportion of the people effected by the floods are probably dem voters.

        I remember when Katrina was all GWB’s fault and he dropped the ball etc etc – blistering criticism. Obumbles naps while Louisiana sinks and we get crickets from the press. Such slimy lying fuckers.

        1. Maybe the rest of America just has flood fatigue. We all had to suffer through Treme and you people still haven’t moved out of a flood area yet.

          1. Maybe Obama is afraid of gators.

        2. I’m waiting for Kanye to announce that Obama doesn’t care about black people.

        3. And a visit from Trump or Obama helps somehow?

          1. Trump did bring food for them. Or at least handed some out.

            1. And he could have handed a lot more out if he’d just paid some people who don’t require heavy security to do it for him.

              1. They have food and supplies when before they didn’t. The man can’t win for losing here.

        4. Truth be told, I’d probably be golfing too. If I’m tired and suffering from a natural disaster, I would actually be annoyed to see a demagogically douche show up for a photo opportunity, pretend to care four a few hours, before getting back on his private jet to go home to his mansion. Let him send his condolences, but beyond that it’s just pretentious. I really don’t care for all the presidential photo op visit nonsense that goes on these days.

          1. Thing is, Obama slammed W. for his tepid response to Hurricane Katrina, so the hypocrisy is riding high in this particular case.

            Obama would be in the right if he had not attacked W.

      3. Meh. Neither is important at all.

  14. I am suspicious as well.

    CNN has this as one of the top stories. CNN generally only sends very narrowed messages.

  15. perhaps all dark-skinned rally attendees are presumed to be hecklers in Trumpland

    You must be this pasty to ride the Trump-a-whirl

  16. This is a story?? At least in the other Trump stories, he was personally directing security to throw people out. This one was just uniformed meatheads doing what uniformed meatheads usually do.

  17. Nonsense. Security clearly mistook him for someone else, that is all. Trump probably knows nothing about this. If he finds out he probably will issue an apology and invite to another rally.

    Racism is something we should discuss in detail sometime. The meaning has become so foggy and all encompassing as to have no meaning at all.

    1. The security saw someone who looked vaguely hispanic and assumed her was a heckler. Either that or all hispanics look alike to them.

      1. Someone besides this obviously Indian guy? Are you reading some other article about hispanics?

        1. All brown people are ‘Hispanic’ to Hazel. Its sort of like how all soda is “Coke” in parts of the South.

      2. “We know who you are,” said the security officer. “You’ve been at many other rallies.”

    2. He does resemble the idiot protester that got clocked at the rally here in Tucson.

    3. Whaddaya mean “no meaning at all”? It has a very clear meaning: the condition exemplified by being a white person who votes Republican or Libertarian, or who criticizes Obama or BLM.

    4. Trump definitely knows about it now. How he reacts determines how three people vote. He needs all the support he can get, now. This is a gift. His campaign could easily reach out, appologise, fly the kid out to a rally, put him on stage and make a huge warm fuzzy moment for all of his supporters. Is probably not going to happen, but were I in their shoes, I’d be looking for any opportunity to try to make Trump appear to be a good guy, not the unstable, out of touch monster he is.

    5. I agree.

      People need to understand that profiling is NORMAL and natural. Even animals profile.

      It is simply because it is too energy- and time-inefficient to always do in-depth inspections of every other animal that one meets.

      When it comes to determining justice (blaming someone and punishing them), one cannot and should not profile, but when it comes to making quick threat assessments without the luxury of time to do in-depth inspections, profiling is a must.

      This is ultimately why the cops are always between a rock and a hard place–their job requires profiling because violent attacks on them usually happen very rapidly, but they are part of the justice system, which requires that they not profile. Cops will always be caught in this paradox, and many will fail to do justice (not profile when not profiling is the right thing to do).

  18. perhaps all dark-skinned rally attendees are presumed to be hecklers in Trumpland.

    And perhaps all Trumpers are presumed to be bigots in Soaveland.

    1. Robby is basically playing the same part as this news anchor, who feels compelled to tell viewers to ignore their lying eyes and accept her generalizations.

  19. I think this was longhair-phobia, not racism.

    Specifically, some long-haired hippie type was disrupting their rallies, and this fellow resembled the hippie.

    1. *resembled,* not *was the same person as*

    2. Well, he looks all muslimy, doesn’t he?

    3. They all look alike, them longhairs.

      1. How many crew-cut-wearing men, of any race, get ejected from these rallies?

    4. I think you might be on to something.

  20. I’m not really surprised, but ha ha, o wow.


    1. No need to yell. We all know you still love Daddy.

      1. I have repeatedly stated that i’m voting for Hillary, and i await her inevitable victory with some impatience.

        You need to up your nag-game

    2. First they came for the… ah, fuck it.

  22. I’ll take “Things that Didn’t Happen’ for $900, Alec

    1. My first reaction.

      “How’d it go, ‘Anantha’?”
      “Great, Hildawg – they bought it hook line and sinker.

    2. Agreed, it’s transparent bullshit. Reason parroting this nonsense is just sad.

    3. Alec? Come on. Alright, ‘x’ is next to ‘c’ on the keyboard so I guess I’ll forgive it.

  23. Call me crazy but I suspect there may just be a little more to this story than what’s being told here.

    1. You’re cray cray as sha-nae-nae.

      1. OK, GILMOUR, if you be old enough to remember, “Sha-ne-ne,” you be too old to be sayin’, “Cray Cray.”

        It’s like a polo and a tailored suit, or a button down collar with a double-breasted suit: Doesn’t. Work.

        1. if you be old enough to remember, “Sha-ne-ne,”

          i thought it was just a standard-name for “sassy black lady”. And a dance people are supposed to watch you do.

          1. i thought it was just a standard-name for “sassy black lady”

            The Ur Example for this trope – Also, the Trope Namer.

        2. Also, please = enough with the francofying my nizzame

          1. enough with the francofying my nizzame

            I’m really sorry about that, GILMORE. Been in Euro-landia so long, it’s just habit to “hear” a certain phonic, and type it reflexively. I honestly have been reading as the other version for a while. Apologies!

            Thanks for letting me know!


            The “Cray Cray” “Sha-ne-ne” rule also applies to “fashnizzle the nizzle”-speak, too…. (grins)

  24. Im a little upset Robby didn’t even flag the other news item in the Charlotte Observer right next to the “Trump =RACIST” story du-jour

    Libertarian US Senate candidate Sean Haugh recovering from heart attack

    1. Not enough faux outrage clicks.

  25. “but plans to vote for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson regardless.”

    He’s already chosen a new candidate with fairly different views? I don’t know who goes to rallies but it seems like they’d have to be big fairly big supporters. Seems like quite a jump.

    1. I think you give the average voter too much credit.

      1. Maybe but he’s not an average voter, he attends rallies! (Goodness, I hope that’s not average).

    2. Is it really so hard to choose one? If you’re a Trump voter, you probably hate Hillary with the burning passion of 10,000 suns and I don’t particularly see the jump to Stein.

  26. Sorry Jake, you can’t be the next Michelle Fields.

  27. Who the fuck cares? One guy got treated badly be security. Says nothing about Trump or anything of interest.

  28. Hoping to get called up to TMZ, Soave?

  29. Take a successfully assimilated child of immigrants on tour with him? What would that do to his Stranger Danger narrative?

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


  31. Unionaire Agent
    Carrier Agent
    The first site services in Egypt provides maintenance services adaptations brands and provides all original spare parts and huge discounts on maintenance engineers with extensive experience in maintenance

  32. OT: Do you think court-ordered alimony should be abolished?

    The main justification I hear for alimony is that the woman (and let’s be honest – alimony is almost exclusively for females) should be paid since she presumably made sacrifices in her career to take care of the household. But since when is it one party’s duty to pay the opportunity cost to the other party? If I turn down a job offer with some start-up and worked at some other place, then that start-up became the next Microsoft, would I have the right to pursue a large cash payment from my current employer since I lost out by passing up the job at the now-booming start-up?

    Of course, if the couple decides to draw up some kind of post-divorce financial arrangement and put it in the contract to which they both agree, I don’t give a shit. That’s freedom of contract. I’m just against the government extraction of the man’s wages to pay the woman.

    1. The alimony isn’t to pay for the woman’s opportunity cost, it recognises that in most marriage arrangements a woman provides a lot of her value up front, while a man provides his value over time. What do I mean by that?

      Let’s look at the marriage as an arrangement where the woman provides sex, domestic help, and child rearing services and the man provides extra financial resources. The value of the woman’s contribution peaks when she’s in her twenties, but the man’s income probably won’t peak until his forties or fifties. If we don’t have a commitment institution such as marriage, a young woman will be better off getting together with a middle aged man, who can offer her full value for her services as they are rendered. In a marriage, a young man is essentially saying “I can’t pay you market value for your services now, but I will commit to paying you over market value for your services later.” Without the marriage commitment, a woman having a relationship with a young man runs the risk that he won’t uphold his end of the bargain later.

      This story of deferred payment suggests that some amount of alimony is often justified, so it doesn’t follow that we should void a crucial aspect of most existing marriage contracts because they weren’t explicitly written in the manner preferred by libertarians. That said, if the courts are doing a really bad job, perhaps some reform is in order.

  33. Yep. This is much like the situation Mr Dooley described for the ‘poor, dissolute, uncovered wretches,’ in the Philippine Isles, or George Orwell described in Burmese Days. The Klan went largely Republican after they cost Whiskey Al Smith the 1928 election. Like their buddies in the Prohibition Party, they are still there. Collectivists are predictable, if nothing else…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.