Donald Trump

On Trump, Conservatives Have Little Choice but to Take it Issue by Issue

Trump is not presidential, competent or ideologically (or otherwise) coherent most of the time. The alternative doesn't sound that great, either.

|

Resist?!

Sure. What would you have us resist?

Everything.

There's an expectation—and often a demand—that movement conservatives be all in or all out on the Donald Trump presidency. Lock-stepping partisans of both varieties offer this false choice. The election phase of the debate is over. Traditionally, presidents offer a menu of policies that more or less comport with the worldview of their party. This is different. So while I don't contend to speak for all conservatives, I do imagine many are horrified/excited/sad/happy/content/embarrassed by what's going on—often on the same day.

For me, it's repulsive to hear President Trump and friends use authoritarian-tinged rhetoric when talking about the press. Telling the media to "keep its mouth shut" isn't something a person in a position of power should be doing, even if journalists are antagonistic. Although the administration hasn't yet inhibited the media in any way—by, say, illegally spying on journalists—this kind of statement is distressing because it exposes an un-American view of free expression.

Then again, Trump is also the guy who picked an originalist Supreme Court justice, who, if confirmed, will defuse Democrats' authoritarian efforts to empower the state to ban political speech outright by overturning Citizens United. Many of us assumed the court would be lost and state power unchecked. Changing the court would be a generational victory.

So why should we expect Republicans to act like only one of the above is happening?

Trump issued a statement commemorating International Holocaust Remembrance Day without mentioning that the Nazis' final solution was specifically aimed at exterminating the Jews of Europe. This is offensive, amateur and historically illiterate—and get used to it. Most Jewish organizations condemned the omission, as they should.

Then again, it's also highly unlikely that the Trump administration would send a billion dollars in cash in an attempt to placate an anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, nuclear weapon-seeking, terrorist-backing regime that openly threatens the lives of millions of Jews in the Middle East. That has been happening as well.

When Trump issues an executive order instating a temporary travel ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, he inexplicably pulls in green card holders. Although the hysteria surrounding the order is over-the-top, it's a mess written by inept people. Conservatives like to claim that immigrants who follow the rules will be welcome in the United States. When they ignore this promise, they undermine trust in the process and our nation.

Yet for many, it's heartening to see a White House that isn't going to pretend Muslim immigration is the same as Methodist or Hindu or Jewish immigration. Unlike the last administration, this one isn't going to talk about radical Islamism—the most pervasively violent and illiberal movement in the world; one that is not only about terrorism but also includes many Muslim theocracies—as if it were a fairy tale invented by conservative media outlets.

The fact that Trump installs a pseudo-intellectual chauvinist like Steve Bannon on the National Security Council is an assault on common sense, norms and decency. But Trump also has James Mattis, Mike Pompeo and other apparently competent Cabinet picks that align well with prevailing Republican worldviews. Most Cabinet members have nothing to do with Trumpism, yet Democrats act as if every selection is a fanatic. Take Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, who believes parents should have some measure of choice rather than having to condemn their kids to a failed public school system. This is something that's invigorating for a lot of movement conservatives and evangelicals. Why should they pick Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer over Donald Trump?

Despite the views of Congress and most of his Cabinet, Trump says waterboarding isn't torture. This is troubling. Yet the Trump administration also made a point to participate in the March for Life. If those who are anti-abortion had to choose between Trump (a person they might find crass or off-putting) and Democrats who now support unlimited abortion on demand until the moment of birth, who would they choose?

Trump will blatantly lie about crowd sizes to ease his petulant ego, and it sounds insane. Trump promises to gut the Environmental Protection Agency, and he signed an executive order requiring two regulations be reviewed for elimination for every new one issued, which sounds fantastic. These things happen simultaneously.

From my perspective, Trump is not presidential, competent or ideologically (or otherwise) coherent most of the time. The alternative doesn't sound that great, either.

I doubt I'm alone on this. In the best-case scenario, congressional Republicans do what ruling parties rarely do, which is hold their president in check. Trump's negatives might make him one day completely unpalatable for most conservatives. Today, what reason do they give to make common cause with morally preening liberals who overreact to every executive order and utterance? In this environment, it's perfectly acceptable—even preferable—to take politics issue by issue.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: "School Choice Makes Things Much Better for Everyone"[*]

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. You may not like Bannon, but he’s got an MBA from Harvard, a Master’s in national security studies from Georgetown, and… he managed to get Trump elected against all odds, FFS.

    A bit silly to brand him as “pseudo – intellectual”.

    1. Yes. It’s this kind of offhand dismissal or insult that makes the speaker look like a hack.

      I don’t know Bannon well and frankly could care less. But for all the angst he seems to generate, I have yet to hear one specific, factual issue with him. wtf

      1. He’s the new Valerie Jarrett – an unelected, unconfirmed member of the President’s staff wielding far more power and influence than befits his position.

        Say what you will about Dick Cheney, but he was at least an elected member of the Executive branch. These “advisers” running around acting like Bismarck are just another sign how far removed we are from our republican roots.

        1. Presidents have always had unelected advisors, and they’ve always been maligned as whackjobs by the opposition.

          Trump has Bannon, Obama had Jarret and Axelrod. GWB had Rove…

          1. It’s a difference in degree, not kind. Bush had the good sense to make Rove Assistant COS when he wanted some influence on policy matters instead of just overseeing the campaigns. Jarrett and Bannon are operate(d) as arms of the President in very high level areas while serving in no official capacity. Their being permitted to do so just ratchets us one step closer to the rule by decree that is the branch’s end goal.

      2. He worked for Breibart.

        As much as I appreciate the even-handedness of this article, it’s always difficult for me to take libertarian journalists seriously when they adopt the language and tactics of progressivism.

        In the minds of people like Harsanyi, it’s common knowledge that Breitbart is a haven of Alt-Righters ie nationalists ie white supremacists ie Nazis. Bannon worked for Breitbart, so he’s a Nazi, and Harsanyi doesn’t dare offend common knowledge, so he virtue signals by condemning Bannon.

      3. >> this kind of statement is distressing because it exposes an un-American view of free expression.

        And the blatant fact-twisting of the media isn’t distressing?
        What about Trump’s right to free expression? “STFU CNN guy. You’re a liar and I have no time for you.”

        >> International Holocaust Remembrance Day
        WTF? Trump isn’t Jewish. He’s not trying to suck everyone’s dick. He should have just IGNORED the event. Along with ML-fucking-K day and all the other bullshit “commemorations”. They’re dead. It’s the past. In another 25 years there won’t be a living person who remembers WWII. It’s already just pages in a history book to most Americans. (Not saying we shouldn’t learn from history – but there are only so many days in a year, so if I don’t celebrate your particular choice for “memorial” days… TFB.

        >> Conservatives like to claim that immigrants who follow the rules will be welcome in the United States.

        I’m so tired of immigrants abusing America, I’m about to the point of COMPLETELY taking up the “welcome” mat. DON’T come to America. Fester in your own cesspool. I no longer care about YOU.

        1. >> From my perspective, Trump is not presidential, competent or ideologically (or otherwise) coherent most of the time. The alternative doesn’t sound that great, either.

          You suffer from two debilities: 1) You have a preconceived notion of “presidential”, and 2) You don’t think hard enough about what Trump is actually doing.

          “Presidential” should be what is best for America.

          I didn’t vote for Trump. I thought he was a self-aggrandizing buffoon. While he may still be a narcissist, he’s not a clown. He’s actually doing the best things possible for America – regardless of what the flaks and libtards have to say about it. Both groups – the “media” (including the author of the piece above) and the libtards, have disqualified themselves from the conversation. The media lies – poorly and often. The libtards are simply insane with rage that Hiltery did not win.

          To both, I say, “Suck it up, Buttercup.”

  2. Question: why is the omission of the final solution in statement offensive and historically illiterate? It isnt like the final solution was mentioned and attributed to something else

    I dont really understand

    1. Jews have identity politics just as much as any other group. One is that if you talk about the Holocaust it has to be about how it was explicitly against them (and it’s not wrong to see them as the focus of it, Wannsee Conference and all that). The homosexuals, gypsies, freemasons and what-not are all secondary concerns.

      1. Ah. The thing is he put out a statement remembering it…. Seems trivial to nit pick.

        1. To a Gentile, sure, but again, Jewish identity politics. It’s not sufficient to recognize or condemn the event, it has to be in the context they want, same as any feminist bitching about how some politician discussed women in a speech.

          The secondary possible implication is that Harsanyi is worried this is a product of alt-right influence on Trump because he specifically avoided mentioning (((them))).

          1. The Holocaust?

        2. Jews aren’t happy unless they have something to complain about.

    2. Question: why is the omission of the final solution in statement offensive and historically illiterate? It isnt like the final solution was mentioned and attributed to something else

      I dont really understand

      I found David’s statement somewhat puzzling as well. It’s like he thinks we all need to be reminded what the Holocaust was about.

      1. Holo-what? Never heard of it.

        1. It was the Dark Time in the 1950s when Senator McCarthy rounded up all the actors in Hollywood and marched them to camps for simply owning a Woody Guthrie record.

          1. No, you’re confusing it. It was after the Great War on Christmas when Rosie O’Donnell rounded up Santa and his elves. They were marched to camps never to be seen again.

            1. I wondered what happened to all the elves.

  3. OK, David Harsanyi is a dope. Interesting.

    1. You still need to work on that name misspelling, Anal.

    2. What a shocker it is than an Obama momma assclown like you doesn’t like one of the only principled, genuine libertarians who contributes here.

  4. Trump issued a statement commemorating International Holocaust Remembrance Day without mentioning that the Nazis’ final solution was specifically aimed at exterminating the Jews of Europe. This is offensive, amateur and historically illiterate?and get used to it. Most Jewish organizations condemned the omission, as they should.

    …Holy shit. The sheer stupidity and whininess of this statement almost made me sympathize with the alt-right for a second.

    1. i dont get why this is an issue. Can someone fill me in? As it comes off as unnecessary whining. Perhaps if it was wrongly mentioned or something

      1. I covered it with your above comment, TL;DR version: Jewish identity politics.

        1. Sorry i had posted before i saw it

    2. Yeah, I figured it was implied — like one of those things everyone knows, so it’s kind of redundant to mention it. Like complaining that he said the sun rose this morning, but didn’t mention that it rose in the east.

      1. Never mind that more Russians were killed by the Nazis than Jews, many quite viciously… Or that the Japanese whacked more Chinese than Jews died too. Or that the holocaust mass murder bit only started when the Nazis realized they were going to lose the war (also probably more Himmler’s idea than Hitler), prior to that they were more than willing to just kick them out of Europe, but nobody else would take them. Or 6,000 other facts a WWII history buff might know.

        Stupid. It’s just looking for something to complain about.

        THAT ALL SAID, as far Reason Trump coverage goes this is more along the lines of what I would prefer to see going forward. Not that this was even much of a real article per se, but just the fact that they’re mentioning up sides and down sides is enough.

        They definitely seem to have been going 90% towards hating on the dumb/insensitive shit he’s been doing versus some of the AWESOME shit. Like the hiring freeze and saying he’s going to cut ALL federal department employment by 20%. Better not have 30 articles on that, otherwise people might think the world won’t end with him being president. Can’t have that! Even if everything were merely this balanced I’d be more happy.

        1. Or that the holocaust mass murder bit only started when the Nazis realized they were going to lose the war

          Nope. Again, Wannsee Conference documentation. The policy was established primarily under the logic of food distribution, not because they were losing the war (I.E. “We have food shortages, why the hell are we still feeding the Jews?”). This also ignores the massacres of Jews already taking place when the Nazis were ‘winning’.

          1. Also see the Hunger Plan for further examples of Nazi atrocities under the context of Germany being unable to feed itself.

          2. First: I’m not a holocaust denier or revisionist. The below is mainstream, but deeper level nuance to the story. Second: ALL the shit they did was horrible, and they did mass shootings before the more commonly thought of gassings began and true MASS mass murder began. I don’t want people thinking I’m a stupid Nazi or something, hence getting this out of the way.

            My father is an insane level WWII buff, so I’ve learned about this shit since I was a kid. As with most of history there is a lot of nuance to the reality. The Wikipedia article does not quiiite cover it all. I actually have been to the Wannsee house (when my father and I visited Berlin when I was a teenager we hit a ton of WWII historical sites) so I am aware of the conference and what happened there.

            Without getting into a huge discussion there were disagreements within the party as to what to do. In the earlier days in the 1930s they tried to simply kick them all out to anywhere that would take them. They encouraged them to move to Palestine, and helped them do so. It was more “Get them out of our land because we don’t want them.” than kill them. They actually offered to buy the island of Madagascar to GIVE it to the Jews as a homeland. That’s how open they were in the early days to finding ways to rid themselves of them. They kept doing this up through the beginning of the war, and during the war even to a lesser degree. They just wanted them gone from their territory.

          3. As shit progressed they changed their views, Wannsee happened, then the war turned. If you note during Wannsee they discussed enslaving, and possibly killing, all the Jews and lots of eastern Europeans. If you look at a timeline you see they slaved Jews for some time after this without actually even building any of the apparatus for gassings etc. That’s because they were sticking to the “softer” side of what they had decided. Hence what we think of as the main thrust of the holocause only happened once the war turned on them. They did plenty of brutal stuff, and exploratory things (gas vans etc), but never went full on until things got bad for them.

            In all liklihood they would have probably just slaved them all for the rest of their lives (however long or short those would have been) if they had won the war. Still not a nice thing to do obviously.

            The characterization that the Germans made this quick and instantaneous jump to full extermination is simply not true though. They DID go there ultimately, but it wasn’t their first choice because even for Nazis it was apparently a little tough to stomach.

            As for the comment about it being more Himmler than Hitler, that’s somewhat accepted by historians. There is literally not a single memo or document, or even verbal testimony that directly shows Hitler had ANY knowledge of the holocaust at all. In all likelihood he knew it was happening. He probably even knew some/all of the nitty gritty details. But there is zero proof.

          4. What IS known is that Himmler was possibly the most rabid anti-Semite of them all, and the driving force behind all of the latter day hardcore evil stuff, even though Goering and others were involved in the camp system earlier when it was mostly straight labor camp stuff. Hence the holocaust was Himmler’s show, even if Hitler did know about it he wasn’t handling details. That was all Himmler.

            So the mainstream way it is all portrayed is rather like an abridged version of a book that leaves out a lot of the small details. It all basically happened as the “end of the story” says, but what lead to it was more complicated than Hitler waking up one day and ordering all Jews be exterminated.

        2. Better check your facts. The Holocaust started happening in earnest long before Germans started losing. And yes, it was Hitler and yes, he was promulgating it from the start. The only things that changed was the actual methods used to kill them. Many other methods were used before the Zyklon B. That was the most “efficient” method they found. How to kill the most people at the smallest expense.

          1. See above. They killed plenty of Jews on the eastern front during the invasion, but the idea of “Let’s kill every single Jew in the world.” mostly came about as they realized the war was lost. It’s more complicated than the Readers Digest version of the story. But YES they were raging assholes, and YES they killed Jews all the way up and down the line from the early days to the bitter end. They were also mass executing Russian Communist leaders in the east during the invasion, but they never really planned to kill them ALL if they won. It was essentially the same thing in mind for the Jews: Eternal slavery as an underclass to serve the Aryan race. The was the more likely Plan A, but they had to go with Plan B when they started getting their asses kicked.

        3. Or that the holocaust mass murder bit only started when the Nazis realized they were going to lose the war (also probably more Himmler’s idea than Hitler), prior to that they were more than willing to just kick them out of Europe, but nobody else would take them.

          Yeah, cause just kicking people out of their homes and stealing their property isn’t so bad as long as you’re not actually murdering them.

          1. From family history I can confirm, it’s not as bad, no.

            1. Pan Zagloba, Nazi apologist.

          2. Never said they weren’t evil horrible bastards. Just that that level of horrible wasn’t Plan A. It was more like Plan B or Plan C. Doesn’t change that they did kill the 2nd or 3rd largest number of people in history, but I always prefer people know the full reality of a story versus cliff notes. The “best case” scenario with the Nazis would have been being enslaved for life and worked to death over a long period of time… So not a LOT of difference between Plan A and Plan C or whatever, but once again better to know the full facts than the cliff notes.

        4. The only commonality I find here with the way the Jews were disposed of was what the Russians did to those people in their own population that they didn’t like, and did it first. They too marched undesirables off to camps and then put them down. The criteria for inclusion and reasons why varied, but it too was done in the name of creating Utopia. This horrible practice happened before the socialist Germans took it up, and it continued after, being implemented by such illustrious heroes of the left as Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims, Castro, and a slew of others that don’t get their due credit simply because they didn’t manage to murder millions like their predecessors. The left has spent a lot of time trying to bury the fact their religion murdered over 100 million and imprisoned billions, which is why the these other instances don’t get the same traction as the horrific shit done by the Germans.

          1. Yeah they definitely don’t like admitting that Stalin and possibly Mao killed more people than Hitler. I’ve always been disgusted with how much they demonize regular Germans, most of which didn’t have anything to do with the atrocities beyond going to their job on the farm which may have provided a meal for a soldier or whatever, yet the actual direct perpetrators in Communist countries can’t be blamed for a thing! Hitler = Bad, Stalin = Bad is a fair statement. Hitler = Bad, All Germans = Bad, Mao = Hero is not quite acceptable to me for some reason…

    3. …Holy shit. The sheer stupidity and whininess of this statement almost made me sympathize with the alt-right for a second.

      You know, in a sense, comments like David’s are a microcosm of #whyTrumpGotElected (No. 4347230974102). Many decent, nonassuming people got fed up with the increasing frequency of charges of implied (or express) racism/sexism/bigotry from a self-nominated group of people parsing every letter of every word (spoken or, in this case, unspoken). Here, David’s ability to find something “offensive, amateur, and historically illiterate” in Trump’s commemoration of the Holocaust Remembrance Day rings so utterly hollow that it serves to actually draw those people closer to Trump.

      This article also demonstrates, I think, why so many libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives are becoming increasingly agitated with Trump coverage. We want, as this piece seems to suggest is appropriate, an issue-by-issue analysis of this administration’s workings from perspective of freedom and individual rights. But when that same article posits something ridiculously lopsided about Trump, readers can and should believe the author is playing with loaded dice.

      It’s a dizzying state of affairs.

      1. For almost everything these days, we are required to be hyper-inclusive. So it really smacks of hypocriticy to then whine when something isn’t made specifically about a single group.

        FFS, we all know what happened in the holocaust. Our grandfathers/great-grandfathers liberated the effin camps and flew interdiction runs into Poland to stop the trains.

        1. ‘…and flew interdiction runs into Poland to stop the trains.’
          I don’t think they did or at least not specifically. They certainly bombed the hell out of the German rail network. I’m not aware of any specific attacks on the railways to the camps.

          1. I’m only aware of the British bombing campaign, but they specifically avoided bombing railroads to the camps because it was seen as the Germans wasting resources that could have been used militarily.

            1. I’m not sure about that, the reason I saw was that attacking the rail links might have suggested that German encrypted communications were being read, which they were.
              But, I don’t really know.

          2. I was being specific. My grandfather flew fighter escort on multiple interdiction flights into Poland for this reason. confirmed with flight logs and a polish historian (who was in the very cool business of finding/recovering downed WWII planes)

      2. “This article also demonstrates, I think, why so many libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives are becoming increasingly agitated with Trump coverage.”

        Harsanyi pretty much is Exhibit A of a conservatarian. A couple years ago, pretty much all his articles would have comments from the conservative-leaning members of the board stating “Why doesn’t Reason publish more articles from people like Harsanyi.” But that’s mostly changed recently because many people think anyone who is critical of Donald Trump in a manner or to an extent they disagree with must be unreasonable, irrational, deranged, etc.

        I’ve also become annoyed with the double standards of many of the people pushing this argument. While it is true that a lot of criticism of Trump has been hyperbolic, and it’s fair to point that out, the vast majority of the people making these arguments said nothing when people on their side pushed hyperbolic criticisms of Obama (and in fact, some of them were the same people pushing that hyperbole). Just as Trump isn’t the next Hitler, Obama wasn’t the next Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong, but many of the people who get most upset about the former comparison rarely said anything about the people pushing the latter comparison.

        1. To be fair, some of Harsanyi’s criticisms are pretty ridiculous. The Trump administration not throwing money at an anti-Semitic regime and them not specifically mentioning Jews in a Holocaust Remembrance Day is a massive false equivalence. It’s literally “yeah, at least you’re not funding anti-Semites, but then you said something I thought was inaccurate, so it’s a wash.”

          1. I also thought that criticism was a little overblown, but it was a bit strange to specifically list out victim groups of the Holocaust and not mention Jews. I’m not saying it’s proof Trump is anti-Semite, but I can understand why it rubbed people the wrong way. If he had just given a generic statement and not listed groups, I would agree it’d be totally ridiculous to make an issue of it at all.

            1. The statement doesn’t list out victim groups of the Holocaust at all, it is a generic statement, which is why it’s ridiculous. In its entirety:

              “It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

              “Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest.? As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.

              “In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”

              Don’t get me wrong, if someone wrote a Holocaust statement that only went on about homosexuals and gypsies I’d be pissed too.

              1. Ok, I fully admit to being wrong on that. I could have sworn I read an article about the statement and it included mention of a few of those groups. I’m not sure if I’m misremembering or if the article was false. I agree it’s pretty weak to criticize on those groups. It’s short, but it’s not offensive. Virtually everyone knows Jews were the primary, though not sole, victims of the Holocaust.

        2. Yeah the double standard gets tedious.

          Why just above, Harsanyi was denounced for calling Bannon “pseudo-intellectual”. Why, don’t you know Bannon has degrees from Georgetown and Haaa-vad?

          Of course, Obama has degrees from Columbia and Haaavad as well and that didn’t stop many of the commenters from calling him a moron.

          Obama refuses to mention “Islamic terror” in his statements, and the conclusion is either “PC run amok!” or even “he’s in league with the terrorists!”

          Trump refuses to mention Jews in his Holocaust statement, and the conclusion is “meh, who cares, actions matter more than words”.

          If you’re going to hold Trump to a permissive standard, at least have the decency to apply the *same standard* to everyone.

          Moreover, at least as far as I understand it, libertarians tend to be anti-authoritarian in general. Well guess what, Trump is the guy in the position of authority now so he is the one who gets raked over the coals.

          1. Well guess what, Trump is the guy in the position of authority now so he is the one who gets raked over the coals.

            Perhaps the raking should be accurate, and not disingenuous claims like “Trump refuses to mention Jews in his Holocaust statement”?

            Please, provide me the sourced quote where he refused to mention Jews.

            1. refuse: Indicate or show that one is not willing to do something:

              https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/refuse

              He indicated that he was not willing to mention Jews in his Holocaust statement, by not actually mentioning them, by his own free will. He had the opportunity to do so and he declined to take it.

              Now I don’t know if his unwillingness to mention Jews was a deliberate slight or an innocent omission. I have no reason to think that it was a deliberate slight. On the other hand, I am having a hard time seeing why he should be given the benefit of the doubt, especially since all of the other previous Holocaust statements by previous presidents have at least mentioned the Jews.

              1. No, he did not ‘indicate that he was unwilling to mention Jews’. He did not mention Jews in that statement. That is not a refusal and you’re deliberately stretching the word’s definition to defend an incorrect statement. This isn’t about ‘not giving him a hard time’, this is about making incorrect, or deliberately dishonest statements.

                “Chemjeff refuses to recognize Armenian genocide.”

                1. “That is not a refusal and you’re deliberately stretching the word’s definition to defend an incorrect statement. ”

                  It’s not an incorrect statement. I think you are imbuing the concept of motivation into the definition of the word “refuse”. That is, a “refusal” must imply some dark, sinister motive. That is not in the definition of the word.

                  “Chemjeff refuses to recognize Armenian genocide.”

                  You’re right, I did refuse to recognize Armenian genocide in my previous statement. You may choose to believe that it was because I secretly harbor genocidal thoughts. But in reality it was because the Armenian genocide was not germane to our previous discussion.

                  1. I’m not assuming any motivation, I’m pointing out that you don’t understand how linguistics work and you’re refusing to recognize that. Refusal requires an action that is not present, and the fact that you accepted my statement as valid is reflective of ignorance more than any kind of motivation.

                    1. I’m not assuming any motivation, I’m pointing out that you don’t understand how linguistics work and you’re refusing to recognize that.

                      I suspect this moron knows damned well how linguistics work, but in order for that strawman he wants to beat down to be erected, he needs to twist shit up to the point it reaches absurdity.

            2. What I find most hilarious is people claiming he’s against XYZ group, when he clearly is pretty okay with said group. I think it would be fair to say Trump has some serious issues with Muslims. I think it would be fair to call him a “chauvinist pig” too. However calling him anti-Semitic… It’s ridiculous. His son in law in a Jew, and he talks about how much he loves that guy all the time. His daughter converted. It’s ridiculous on all levels.

              More or less the same with blacks and gays. He’s not really said/done much to draw their ire, but they treat the situation like he wants to put the blacks back in chains and feed the LGBT community to the lions or whatever. The other Republicans have some anti LGBT views for sure, and some of that made it into the platform, but Trump himself as an individual has probably been the most prop LGBT GOP President ever. With blacks he’s said in harsh terms that inner cities are fucked… But they are, and he has said he wants to try to help. Maybe you don’t like his ideas about how to help, but it’s a far cry from him being a KKK Grand Dragon.

              Give him shit where due, there’s enough ammo being provided to do that, but don’t get all silly like saying he hates Jews when he clearly doesn’t. Is that not reasonable?

  5. “Yet for many, it’s heartening to see a White House that isn’t going to pretend Muslim immigration is the same as Methodist or Hindu or Jewish immigration. Unlike the last administration, this one isn’t going to talk about radical Islamism?the most pervasively violent and illiberal movement in the world; one that is not only about terrorism but also includes many Muslim theocracies?as if it were a fairy tale invented by conservative media outlets.”

    The left is to be expected to take asinine views that Islam is not a problem in this world but it is disgusting that Libertarians would defend such an abhorrent ideology.

  6. So the author is shocked Donald Trump is not an actual conservative, or a Republican, or a Democrat, or a liberal, or a… ?

    If we must grasp at straws for a proper label in some feckless attempt to contextualize him it seems for most of his public life he’s been a New York Democrat. But the reality is he’s always been a Trumpian (Trumpocrat? Trumpublican? Trumpertarian? Trumparchist?). There is no spoon.

    1. “Trumparchist”

      That works.

    2. Trump is an old-school moderate liberal. There’s videos floating around of his political opinions 20-30 years ago….almost verbatim to what he’s saying now.

      The kicker is that those positions are now “conservative” for the most part, because the Dems have skewed so far left.

      1. Not just the dems, but their delineation of what is supposed to be a centrist. The standards that define today’s moderate not more than a couple of decades ago defined a hardcore leftist.

    3. By which you mean a politician who’s primary concern is advancing Trump’s interests? Sounds right.

      I think that kind of labeling fits pretty well for all politicians at that level of course. The difference is Trump’s personal interest is less tied to selling or returning favors to powerful party factions, i.e. less need to provide that “menu of policies that more or less comport with the worldview of their party”. Instead his reelection focus is more on that rather extreme faction of voters who elected him in spite of (with literal “spite” in this case) the party system.

      1. ‘ Instead his reelection focus is more on that rather extreme faction of voters who elected him in spite of (with literal “spite” in this case) the party system.’
        Politician supports policies popular with those who elected him, well fuck me, that’s never happened before.

    4. I would grade him as far more conservative than either Bush so far as he’s pushing for deregulation and didn’t nominate DC insiders for most Cabinet slots. He’s talking tax reform, Obamacare repeal, and budget cuts. Meanwhile these supposed conservatives in Congress aren’t doing shit.

      If Congressional Republicans were actually conservative, they could ram through some pretty audacious reforms and Trump would gladly sign them. They have neither the desire or the balls to do so.

      1. All fair points, Drake. Indeed.

      2. “and didn’t nominate DC insiders for most Cabinet slots. ”

        Why does nominating insiders vs. outsiders make one more or less conservative?

        1. Let me guess the answer:

          “Argle bargle, Paul Ryan stole our country robble robble.”

      3. I would grade him as far more conservative than either Bush so far as he’s pushing for deregulation and didn’t nominate DC insiders for most Cabinet slots.

        I think people are failing to realize that Trump’s appeal is as an establishment outsider. That’s why he comes across as both more conservative than a hardcore establishment republican and far more liberal than the left’s image of what constitutes an establishment conservative. And I think this rebellion by the plebes against the establishment is also why the establishment left is going batshit at this time. I think the establishment right hasn’t started foaming at the mouth because they would show their true color and allegiance, preferring to adopt a wait and see approach.

    5. for most of his public life he’s been a New York Democrat

      Ideologically he’s a New York Republican (think Giuliani / Bloomberg), which made him a centrist Democrat at the national level. New York Democrats are a different breed; there’s a reason why mayoral candidates from the party rarely win despite the massive reg advantage.

  7. “Despite the views of Congress and most of his Cabinet, Trump says waterboarding isn’t torture”

    Three problems with asinine statements like this.

    1) “views of Congress”. as if anyone should give a flying fart what Congress’s view is on anything. Approval rating in the teens does not bestow authority
    2) by most of his Cabinet, I’m assuming you mean Matthis. Generals say what they need to say. The Military has a position on these things for a very important reason. you should know this.
    3) most of the country doesn’t believe waterboarding is torture. Trump is in the majority.

    1. Are you serious?

      Rights violations don’t suddenly stop being rights violations based on polls or majority vote.

      Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Their approval rating is especially meaningless in the context of separation of powers.

      Are we really going to have defenses of torture on a libertarian site? Really? Then if so, perhaps start by presenting some libertarian-based rationales for it, other than “opinion polls”.

      1. I think your missing the point. Harsanyi is criticizing not the view, but Trump for having it in disagreement with what Harsanyi considers “authorities”.
        What I’m pointing out is that this is ridiculous, since Trump holds a view in line with the mainstream. Trump is not the one who is “extremist” or unusual for having this view and its a silly thing to point to. It’s particularly silly to use Congress as a benchmark, since the vast majority of the country has concluded Congress is a joke.

        We could argue endlessly about what is or isn’t torture….which has been done on Reason plenty of times. But that is a different topic.

        1. Well then, point taken.

  8. The author is trying to compromise with conservatives by saying that there are some good things of the trump administration. Rather than take the olive branch and/or maybe provide other reasons to agree or disagree with trump, comments are attacking his reasons for disliking the operation of the trump administration.

    Funny stuff. I guess maybe the author’s premise is wrong. You have to be 100% Trump or 0% Trump.

    1. Most of the comments are actually complaining about how poor his argumentation is, or how of course Trump isn’t a conservative, so why would you expect him to match up with conservative values?

  9. “Telling the media to “keep its mouth shut” isn’t something a person in a position of power should be doing”

    what nonsense. Freedom of speech doesn’t stop for people in power. Trump is free to say any damn thing he wants. Actions are the issue, not political speech or condemnation.

    1. When Trump starts throwing reporters in jail, or demanding that certain reporters be fired or certain news sites be shut down, then we can legitimately talk about him being anti-free speech. But he’s not under any obligation to make nice with everyone in the press. Particularly those in the press who a) colluded with the campaign of his election opponent, and/or b) have made it clear that they despise him.

  10. So this was a hot mess.

    I guess Trump (or his speech writer) was guilty of omission at the Holocaust speech. I care a lot more about actions than meaningless speeches to interest groups.

    Harsanyi is guilty of omitting the budget, tax reform, and Obamacare from this buffet of issues. The “Conservatives” seem to be completely absent on these issues.

    1. I guess Trump (or his speech writer) was guilty of omission at the Holocaust speech. I care a lot more about actions than meaningless speeches to interest groups.

      Essentially this.

      This election cycle has cultivated a kind of fallacy of ignored degree in which people equate (either through actual equivocation or in terms of coverage, etc.) concepts of immensely different proportions and declare the scales to be balanced. It’s maddening. Would the proverbial jury really be out on Trump if his administration were, for example, to slash corporate income taxes to 10-15%, largely curb estate taxes, nominate a strong candidate to the Supreme Court (generally done, but some here quibble about some of Gorsuch’s positions), implement some kind of voucher system, repeal the worst aspects of Obamacare, etc., and yet at the same time complain about crowd sizes, call CNN’s reporters jokes, and neglect to state the people targeted by the Holocaust (but nonetheless commemorate its remembrance day)?

      I’m not arguing on the object-level about whether he will or can do all of these things. Nor am I disputing that he has proposed some extraordinarily bad ideas (e.g., on trade, heightened libel laws, the infrastructure boondongle, etc.) I am simply saying that it is infuriating to review proposals like tax reform and a remark about crowd sizes as even in the same galaxy of importance.

  11. Good read. This is something I’ve noticed I do when acquaintances approach me about whatever Trump seems to be doing that day. I’ll typically respond with “oh that sounds good/not good.”

    Trumps philosophy (might not be the right word) is so nebulous, taking things issue by issue is the only thing we can hope for. Thankfully, as a libertarian Ive gotten used to agreeing or disagreeing with most policies based on practical reasons as opposed to ideaological ones.

      1. At least Trump gave us great memes

        1. Big league memes. The best memes.

          1. Yuge memes. Yuge. I guarantee it.

          2. Apologize!

  12. Taking Trump issue by issue is good advice for more than just conservatives. Mr. Reason Staff might benefit from it as well.

    1. No way. They have a duty to “take him to the woodshed”.

      1. All the “to be sure” throat-clearing in their articles is getting kinda tiresome. One gets the impression if Trump signed an executive order rescheduling marijuana they would be paralyzed with cognitive dissonance.

        On the other hand Shika has found room in her heart to actually praise Trump, so it could be worse.

        1. Well, Dems have given Trump exactly zero credit for cancelling the TPP, despite having made that a central issue of the primary campaign.

      2. Why shouldn’t Trump be taken to the woodshed?

        Why shouldn’t anyone in a position of authority be taken to the woodshed?

        Why should ANYONE in any position of power or authority be given the benefit of the doubt?

  13. “Trump is not presidential, competent or ideologically (or otherwise) coherent most of the time.”

    I guess this is the assumption from which everything else that follows flows.

    From where I’m sitting, Trump appears to be the most competent President we’ve had in at least 16 years.

    At this point in Obama’s presidency, he was busy creating ObamaCare and squandering $350 billion in future taxpayers’ discretionary income to bail out Wall Street investors (throwing good money after bad) and nationalize GM. Then he recreated Wall Street in his own image, reducing the flag ships of American capitalism from the progenitors of creative destruction they’d always been and turning them effectively into retail banks.

    Obama’s cabinet were unqualified to serve as Trump’s cabinet’s executive assistants.

    I don’t have to agree with you in order for you you to be competent. Some of the worst anti-libertarian people in history were competent.

    1. Obama’s cabinet were unqualified to serve as Trump’s cabinet’s executive assistants.

      This made me giggle, imagining a guy like Rex Tillerson hiring, say, Kathleen Sebelius to be his assistant and then firing her like three days later for incompetence. I’m imagining him then hiring some no-name 22 year old fresh out of the local public university and be perfectly content with that choice.

    2. Trump is not presidential, competent or ideologically (or otherwise) coherent most of the time.”

      That is just Harsanni saying “I am butt hurt”. You have to remember people like Harsynni have totally blown their credibility fighting Trump. He claimed that Trump would not only lose but lose so badly that it would cost the GOP the Congress as well and such an outcome was so certain that the GOP was justified in refusing to give Trump the nomination at the convention.

      The reason character limit prevents me from giving a full account of the number of times that events have made Harsynni into a complete fool over the past year. Beyond his election chances, Hyrsanni spent most of the fall claiming Trump was everything from a Hillary plant, to a secret Progressive to a Russian stooge. Anything short of Trump being indicted for Treason or starting a nuclear war over an insult on Twitter is going to reveal Hyrsanni to be the beltway hack he is. And a successful Trump presidency that actually accomplishes conservative goals is a possibility too dark for him to contemplate just yet.

      Hyrsanni is horrified by the idea of Trump doing well and the country prospering and proving him wrong. He is one hell of a patriot, you know?

    3. “Trump appears to be the most competent President we’ve had in at least 16 years.”

      People can’t separate competency from ideology, which makes most of them raving idiots when talking politics.

      Your statement is absolutely correct…..and I would even go back further than 16 years.

      Here, we have a POTUS who is enacting exacting what he campaigned on, in the first friggin weeks of his presidency. god help the left if this continues….they’ll completely lose their minds.

      People have ever right to complain about the ideology..but Trump is competent, have to give him that.

      1. Even if you are for stricter immigration restrictions you have to concede the implementation of that executive order was a complete shit show.

        Strike one for competency, imo.

      2. god help the left if this continues….they’ll completely lose their minds

        Um, that already happened about two months ago.

  14. I realized last June that Trump would disappoint me as often as he made me happy. The guy is a former Democrat from New York City, after all. But the alternative was the mendacious, corrupt Lady Macbeth, so I chose Trump by default.

    So far I’ve been pleasantly surprised. I might even buy a MAGA hat if he packs the courts with Gorsuch clones and successfully neuters the EPA.

  15. Uh, issue by issue is how any president should be evaluated unless one is a partisan lunatic. Did the author graduate with a degree in Tautology?

    1. I am pretty sure he did. And the implication of this article is rather curious. If Hyrsanni feels the need to point out that he is going to judge Trump issue by issue, the implication is that if the President were someone else, he would instead give his unconditional support no matter the issue.

      Basically the author is admitting that he is a partisan hack who is disappointed Trump’s presidency will force him to actually think about things. The horror.

    2. I was just about to type this.

    3. Well his target audience in this case is “movement conservatives”, who have a strong motivation to be tribal with respect to Trump, lest “the evil leftwing monsters win”.

      1. I don’t think anybody wants “the evil leftwing monsters” to win. Some of them are pretty nasty.

        1. Well as I read on another site, some people hate the left more than they love liberty.

          I don’t hate the left. I don’t regard them as monsters. If they propose something that I would regard as an increase in liberty, I’m willing to listen. But the tribalists would brook no quarter in the “cold civil war” against the left.

          1. I don’t hate the left. I don’t regard them as monsters. If they propose something that I would regard as an increase in liberty, I’m willing to listen. But the tribalists would brook no quarter in the “cold civil war” against the left.

            Cool story.

          2. I don’t hate the left. I don’t regard them as monsters. If they propose something that I would regard as an increase in liberty, I’m willing to listen. But the tribalists would brook no quarter in the “cold civil war” against the left.

            Frankly, I find this naive. Maybe this was a decent policy 40 years ago when the left was balanced between liberty and authoritarianism, but the modern left is on the crazy train to totalitarianville. There is literally nothing that they propose that would increase liberty. Everything is designed to expand the total state, even when nominally created to “increase liberty.” The only thing that libertarians can do with leftists is “compromise” with them, which means decreasing liberty in order to get the total state to treat certain identity groups more favorably. This, in turn, takes the social pressure away from the issue at hand, making any true increase in liberty all but impossible.

            Take, for example, gay marriage. Libertarians sacrificed increased liberty (getting government out of marriage) for a net decrease in liberty to allow the total state to treat homosexuals more favorably (equality). Now, government is more solidly entrenched in marriage, and there is no social or judicial pressure to change the system in a pro-liberty way

          3. If they propose something that I would regard as an increase in liberty, I’m willing to listen.

            Trouble is, that occurrence is becoming vanishingly rare in this day and age. Even when they do the “right thing”, like legalize marijuana, they completely fuck it up by fettering it with massive taxes and breathtakingly stupid supply-restricting regulation. You can’t count on the left to advance liberty 1 step forward without simultaneously taking 3 steps back.

            Trump, by my judgement, has been advancing liberty 2 steps forward for every 1 step back. Obviously, this depends on your preferences, since immigration restrictions don’t affect me they aren’t something to shit my pants over even if I disagree with them in principle.

            1. Yeah, you seem to confuse growing the nanny state with increasing liberty, because the left is all about the first, and not at all about the later…

  16. Clear-eyed analysis and commentary like this article are some of the reasons I keep reading Reason.

    The other is finding out the “1 weird trick that turns on any woman.” Awesome stuff.

    1. Have a ton of money?

  17. This is good advice for everyone. EVERYONE.

  18. Trump won the Presidency without people like Hyrsanni. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that he won precisely because he alienated movement conservatives. Movement conservatives are not that popular in this country. They are associated with ordinary Republicans who are also not that popular.

    Trump won because he outflanked his opponents by not being a typical Republican conservative. This is why the usual “he wants to put us in chains and is the RACIST” attacks didn’t work against him. Those attacks work on conservatives and Republicans, and Trump really wasn’t one of those.

    Whether that says good things or bad things about Trump is certainly up for debate. What is not up for debate is that people like Hyrsani and the rest of the movement conservatives who ran the movement as their own private fiefdom with no real concern about winning, happily working cushy jobs as the head of a neutered opposition, no longer matter. Trump won without them and can win without them again. In fact, courting them openly probably hurts his chances of re-election. So, its nice that Hyrsani is putting so much thought into this. I guess he has to have something to do.

    1. John, how dare you remind us that Joe Biden tried to divide us by claiming the GOP would put black people in chains. Uncle Joe unites us, he earned a Presidential Freedom Medal, he loves choo choo trains, and was the best vice president in history! The man is a saint because he lost a son to cancer and we should forget he was ever a vicious lying scumbag when engaged in politics.

      1. Don’t forget, it was Mr. Biden who taught us that even a black man, like Obama, can be “articulate” and “clean.” Thanks, Joe!

        1. Biden vs Trump 2020! Do it America! It will be the greatest debate ever (unless both get sedated to their gills beforehan).

        2. He also thought me that a democrat can get away with creepy and borderline abusive behavior that would immediately brand anyone else as a secual pervert and predator…

  19. Sorry, but this never gets old. Headline today:

    Dow rises 100 points after jobs report easily beats expectations; financials jump 1% at CNBC Fri 10:19am

    Krugman blogpost from the early morning hours of 11/9/16: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”

    1. Krugman is so blatantly partisan. Sad!

  20. Although the administration hasn’t yet inhibited the media in any way?by, say, illegally spying on journalists?this kind of statement is distressing because it exposes an un-American view of free expression.

    I really don’t think it does, despite the histrionics. I don’t see how it’s inappropriate to treat the media as a hostile witness, because they’ve shown themselves to be hostile to Trump. Get back to me when he does something that actually has the potential to compromise the freedom of the press.

    1. If the media is so pathetic it can be cowed by the President calling them the opposiition, Trump doesn’t have to resort to authoritarian tactics.

      Again,you have to remember what a complete fool Harsyanni has made of himself over the last year. He has spent the last year saying Trump is an American Putin. He like everyone else in the beltway, didn’t think Trump would win. So he didn’t worry about Trump ever proving him wrong. Free of the thought of ever having to live the counter factual, people like Harysanni engaged in an orgy of hyperbole and virtue signaling. Why not? The harsher things they said about Trump, the more they were rewarded in their social circles. Since Trump wasn’t, they thought, going to win, it was not like anyone could ever prove them wrong. It was all fun and games until Trump won. Now we get to live the counter factual and find out first hand how idiotic people like Harsynni actually are.

      Judging from this article, he doesn’t seem to be taking it well.

    2. The problem is, since Trump (or anyone in his place) is in a position of authority, his statements can have a chilling effect even when he does not directly attack the freedom of the press.

      Take for instance Trump’s treatment of CNN. He didn’t actually do anything illegal or unconstitutional. But, CNN certainly “got the memo” that if they want access to Trump’s administration, that they have to “play ball”. So if/when CNN, in the future, gets some bombshell scoop on some corruption within the Trump admin, they will think twice before immediately rushing to publish it, lest it risk their future access to the WH.

      1. Yeah. I mean it is like that time he called Fox News not legitimate. Or when he blamed the OKC bombing on Rush Limbaugh and the environment created by right wing talk radio.

        Democratic Presidents have been doing that since the dawn of time. Somehow the Republic survived and half wits like you didn’t even notice.

        Just shut up. This is embarrassing. If you want to shit on the threads post links to porn or something. Anything has to be less tiresome than this.

        You are the most boring troll this board has ever attracted.

        1. Jesus fuck, when you make a Canadian this angry…

        2. “Democratic Presidents have been doing that since the dawn of time. ”

          Yes, they have. When did I defend them doing so? I did not. Saying “they did it toooo!!!!!” is not a defense of the behavior. Aren’t you a lawyer? You should know that.

          “You are the most boring troll this board has ever attracted.”

          This is rich coming from our resident Trump shill.

          1. Yes, they have. When did I defend them doing so?

            My guess is your entire life. Sorry, you can’t come on here and play leftist concern troll on every thread and say shit like “I don’t’ think the left are bad” and then also claim you really did apply the same standards you are applying now to past Democratic Presidents. You can, but you have no credibility and there is no reason for any one to believe you or think you are doing anything but lying for convenience.

            Stop thinking everyone on here is stupid and will believe anything you say. This isn’t Daily Kos.

            1. Well, sorry not sorry that I don’t fit in to your convenient left/right tribalist formalism. Actually what I said was, “I don’t hate the left”. And it’s true. I don’t hate the right either, for what it’s worth. I think both sides have a few valuable ideas (and a LOT of terrible ones) and I’m willing to listen to any idea that I would regard as an increase in liberty. And until you can find a quote from me that extols Obama for hating on Fox News, or for spying on reporters – a quote that doesn’t exist, by the way – your ravings should be considered the disgruntled words of a Trump partisan who is upset that this place doesn’t fellate Trump as hard as your typical right-wing site does. Gee what a shocker, an anti-authoritarian website that is critical of those in positions of authority!

      2. But, CNN certainly “got the memo” that if they want access to Trump’s administration, that they have to “play ball”. So if/when CNN, in the future, gets some bombshell scoop on some corruption within the Trump admin, they will think twice before immediately rushing to publish it, lest it risk their future access to the WH.

        I certainly get the “chilling effect” argument, but think it applies much better to illegality than to access/criticism. I’ll buy that “hate speech” laws have a chilling effect on people expressing controversial views. I’m not sure I’d extend that to saying that harsh criticism of a controversial view (even if the criticism comes from an authority) has a chilling effect. Sure, there is some effect there, but I think “chilling” implies there is a fear of legal reprisal.

      3. if they want access to Trump’s administration, that they have to “play ball”.

        So nothing changed since the Obama administration, but it has a “chilling effect” all of a sudden.

        1. I find it quite telling that Obama actually had the NSA and the FBI monitoring journolist members, that his admin actually prosecuted a bunch of them for daring to give him bad press, and that in general he criticized them for not producing fawning ass-kissing output, but Trump is the one that’s chilling….

  21. W/O RTFA/RTFC Trump is a Hell of a lot more “conservatively consistent” so far than any other GOP president of my,or Harsanyi ‘s lifetime.

    1. I would love to hear Hyrsanni name ten conservative things George W. Bush did while in office other than kiss people like Harsayni’s ass. He doesn’t’ care that Trump isn’t a conservative. He cares that Trump doesn’t pretend to be a conservative and by extension pretend that the self appointed “conservative elite” matter.

      That is all that is going on here. Remember,. the Obama era may have been a disaster for the country, but it was a golden age for douche bags like Harsanni. They are all sorry to see it end.

  22. “If those who are anti-abortion had to choose between Trump (a person they might find crass or off-putting) and Democrats who now support unlimited abortion on demand until the moment of birth, who would they choose?” Why would you allow this offensive, incorrect statement to be printed? Democrats do NOT support unlimited abortion on demand until the moment of birth! This is a LIE. Trump said it during his third debate with Clinton, and very few people pointed out how incorrect–what a LIE– it is. All states define the point of “viability” in pregnancy (generally around 24 weeks) and abortions are NOT allowed after this point UNLESS the mother’s life is in danger. I, for one, think it is OK to save the life of an adult woman and sacrifice the fetus when this choice arises instead of vice versa. Printing this kind of lie shows poor journalism, and shows that the author has not researched the subject. I am surprised to see this on Reason’s site, and would love to hear an explanation.

    1. All states define the point of “viability” in pregnancy (generally around 24 weeks) and abortions are NOT allowed after this point UNLESS the mother’s life is in danger.

      And that is an utterly meaningless rule and you know it or should know it. “Unless the mother’s life is in danger” means, that the abortionist says it is and nothing else. Those exceptions are judicially created and effectively swallow the rule and become just another box the abortionist checks off when doing a late term abortion. It is meaningless.

      So before you talk about “lies” figure out the truth and stop telling them yourself.

      1. I call BS, John. You have no idea what you are talking about.

        1. I know exactly what I am talking about. If I am wrong, explain why.

    2. All states define the point of “viability” in pregnancy (generally around 24 weeks) and abortions are NOT allowed after this point UNLESS the mother’s life is in danger.

      Did you miss the women’s march where millions of women complained that the current laws were unduly restrictive to their “reproductive rights?” What would they want changed about the laws, except to extend the “right” beyond the point of viability? They’re certainly not marching for OTC birth control. They’re not marching for more restrictive abortion laws.

      Democrats do NOT support unlimited abortion on demand until the moment of birth!

      It’s too bad their party platform doesn’t have such nuance:

      We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion?regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose?and seek to overturn?federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

      1. No where in your ranting is there anything that says Democrats support abortion up until a few days before birth. You can try to read that into what is on the books, but the fact of the matter is that, by setting up the legal definition of viability, any non medically really abortion after viability would be murder. You boys need to educate yourselves a bit. Being if favor of safe, legal abortion is NOT the same as supporting abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. Access to abortion does not negate the viability consideration. I can tell that Trshmstr and John are really not Libertarians, but Republicans in disguise.

  23. He is presidential, competent or ideologically (or otherwise) coherent all of the time. It’s you that does not get it.

  24. I’m getting seriously fed up with you bastards hating on Trump. Your phony complaints and whining are putting you in the same biased box with the New York Times and the Washington Post.

    I’m seeing little difference now between you libertarian nutcases and the Democrat-Communist Party USA.

    1. Right on!

      The constant complaints, let alone the fake news Harsanyi is spreading here (see my comment_6736110 on crowd sizes below) do absolutely no justice to the “Free Minds” part of Reason’s mandate. What happened to the commitment to truth rather than fake news which Harsanyi clearly does not understand?

  25. Judge Trump by the policies he actually puts in place, not by his rhetoric…

  26. IMHO: For now! I think I’ll relax an enjoy Donald Tromp – who reminds me of a combination Don Rickles and Rodney Dangerfield. A lot better than anything I see on the left. . . . . Talk to you in two years.

  27. David Harsanyi, you say in this article that “Trump will blatantly lie about crowd sizes to ease his petulant ego, and it sounds insane.” But you’re simply demonstrating that you’re part of the fake news problem!

    You either just missed CNN retraction of their fake news photo, or you have no problem spreading fake news. The low-crowd photo was indeed a photo of the area, but it was taken a couple of hours before Trump spoke! See: http://americanactionnews.com/…..ze-coverup

    There’s more analysis at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..-was-huge/

    It’s disappointing to see such untruthful comments in Reason, supposedly dedicated to truth rather than fake news…

  28. Question: why is the omission of the final solution in statement offensive and historically illiterate? It isnt like the final solution was mentioned and attributed to something else

    I dont really understand

  29. Is Trump perfect? No. We all know that. There are hundreds or thousands of articles out there pointing out what people don’t like about Trump. Some think he’s too liberal, other think he’s too conservative, and others think he’s going to cause WWIII. All I know is this: if this country endures any more of what Obama dished out for 8 years, there will no longer be a United States of America, at least not one that we can recognize. Say what you will about Trump but he is delivering on his campaign promises. In the end, ISN’T THAT WHY SO MANY OF US VOTED FOR HIM? Sure, a Ted Cruz or a Rubio would have been better speakers, they would have sounded more presidential but so what. Each candidate had his/her strengths but I’m 100% confident that none of the other candidates would have delivered on their promises the way Trump does. Trump only knows that he made promises and he’s going to stick to them because he knows that’s why people voted for him. I’m glad he’s not just another career politician. Sure he’s not perfect, but we conservatives/libertarians shouldn’t be helping progressives by attacking Trump and making fun of him all day long. The Democrats are much more united and that is part of their strength. They march in lock step. The alternative to Trump would be far worse. Ok it’s fine to discuss this and that, but let’s not insult and mock him the way progressives mock anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

  30. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    =======
    ———>>> http://www.earnwithstyle.com

  31. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  32. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  33. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    =============================== http://www.cash-review.com

  34. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ========== http://www.net.pro70.com

  35. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

    ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.