Donald Trump

Donald Trump and the Sad Triumph of Right-Wing Political Correctness

The president isn't attacking P.C., as he once promised. He's sanctioned its use among his followers.

|

Time.com

Back at the 2015 event at which Donald Trump announced his bid for the presidency, his daughter Ivanka introduced her father as, first and foremost, an implacable foe of political correctness. "My father is the opposite of politically correct. He says what he means and he means what he says," she said, shortly before Trump characterized Mexican immigrants as disease-ridden, drug-smuggling rapists ("Some, I assume, are good people," he granted). In the first Republican primary debate, held in August of 2015, Trump himself reiterated that being anti-P.C. would be the hallmark of his political life, declaring, "I don't frankly have time for total political correctness."

It's ironic, then, that perhaps Trump's greatest accomplishment so far as president is to make it OK—or maybe even mandatory—for his followers to engage in the worst excesses of political correctness, especially its attempts to shut down debate and heterodox opinions through bullying, appeals to ad hominem attacks, and unthinking "whataboutism."

Among the Trump faithful, there are never legitimate grounds upon which to disagree with anything the billionaire says or does. If Barack Obama's most strident defenders were sometimes quick to claim any criticism of him was racist, thereby delegitimating honest disagreement, Trump's supporters are equally quick to denounce any dissent as proof positive of secret membership in Antifa, a pro-Hillary voting record, or a desperate attempt to look good among the communists who run the much-discussed-yet-little-seen Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit.

And thus it has come to pass that the president of these United States, who hates political correctness at his very core, didn't "frankly have time" to immediately and unambiguously denounce by name violent right-wing protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia who last week carried torches and Nazi flags (complete with swastikas) around town while chanting "Jews will not replace us" and the Hitlerian slogan of "blood and soil." Sure, Trump had time to talk to the public. But even after a car ran into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one and injuring 19 others, the president only issued a statement vaguely condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides." Reportedly pushed by advisers, including his daughter Ivanka, he eventually called out the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists specifically and boldly averred that "racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs." Within a few hours of delivering those remarks to generally poor reviews, even among his fellow Republicans and conservatives, the president whined via Twitter that "once again the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied…truly bad people!"

But the president wasn't finished with disquisitions on Charlottesville. He called a press conference on August 15 at which he rendered his second, explicitly anti-Nazi statement inoperative by stressing the presence and violence of left-wing protesters, the bias of the media, and the pressing need to preserve statues commemorating Confederate war heroes (a cause that was not mentioned in the posters recruiting protesters for the Unite the Right rally).

IMGFLIP.com

As Allahpundit of the conservative site Hot Air summarized:

Short of [Trump] overtly endorsing the alt-right, which he can't do (I think?), I don't know what more he could have said here to make them happy. He stressed that not everyone who was at the demonstration in front of the Robert E. Lee statue on Friday night was a white nationalist, that some perfectly decent people were part of the group. This group? The one carrying torches and chanting things like "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us"?

Trump's last comments on the matter drew praise from former KKK leader David Duke, who tweeted "Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa," and ethno-nationalist Richard Spencer, who texted The Atlantic's Rosie Gray to gush, "Really proud of him."

Is it politically correct to expect the president of the United States to unequivocally denounce the racial theories and violence of neo-Nazis and white supremacists? For Donald Trump and his supporters, the answer is unambiguously yes and so even libertarian critics of the president who are unsurpassed in their contempt for collectivist racial theories and their defense of free speech (something Trump himself is not so good on) must be attacked for calling out Nazis as stupid, bigoted, and, well, definitionally un-American (didn't we fight a war against Nazism?). Don't you understand, Trump's supporters insist, that we need to fight progressives with the same tactics they use? If you hold him to basic standards of decency, competence, or comportment, they continue, you're as bad as the left (typically defined as libertarian-leaning Republican Sen. Jeff Flake and anyone to his left).

That sort of thinking may keep Trump happy and insulated in the Oval Office and his fans energized and ill-tempered online, but it also means there will over time be fewer and fewer of them. In fact, Trump's approval ratings, never good to begin with, continue to set negative records. According to Marist, just 35 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing and his support among Republicans has dropped 12 percentage points since June, to a new low of 79 percent. It seems unlikely that Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly for him, would be bamboozled by media bias, doesn't it? Perhaps Trump's falling approval rating has less to do with President Obama, the press, or the supposed power of Black Lives Matter to somehow cloud our minds and more to do with his inability to get much of anything done, to turn around the economy (the recent claim that he created an "unprecedented" number of jobs in the first six months of his presidency is flatly wrong), or to speak bluntly and honestly to the American people. On that last score, a recent poll for CNN found that just "36% of respondents said Trump was honest and trustworthy, while 60% answered that the description 'does not apply.'"

Yeah, yeah, I hear you already, Trump's P.C. loyalists: CNN is biased, what about all the people killed by Black Lives Matter at its rallies (zero, in truth), your gal HILLARY CLINTON would have been worse, why aren't you condemning Antifa and left-wing violence (been there, done that, and will continue to do so)!?!?

You are playing not a dangerous game so much as a losing one (as Trump's adviser Steve Bannon says, the alt-right is filled with "losers" and "clowns"). "The Left" is hardly ascendant in American life, especially if you use the imprecise measure of the number of Democrats who hold office in the United States; certainly Democrats in Congress aren't the reason why the GOP and the president can't produce balanced budgets, entitlement reform, or market-oriented health-care legislation. (Of course, from a libertarian viewpoint, we've got plenty of statists around, but they hail from all points on the conventional political spectrum, and that's a different argument altogether.)

Confidence in major American institutions (including the presidency and Congress, held by the GOP) are at or near historic lows and Trump's brain farts on Twitter and at press conferences aren't the tonic needed to change any of that. You're forgetting that most Americans actively despise left-wing political correctness for all the ways that it chokes off even the possibility of meaningful debate about all sorts of issues that matter to us all. Far from wanting a right-wing variant that squelches discussions before they can even get going, we want a social sphere we can talk honestly, work toward common ground, and agree to disagree.

You're not offering any of that, which helps explain why your man in the White House's numbers are sinking. Nor are you offering a positive vision of the future. Instead, you're merely standing athwart over Confederate statues, free trade, and economic innovation, and continuing ethnic diversification yelling Stop! Good luck with all that, but when you fail, please remember not to blame anyone but yourselves. For a change.

Related Video: "Trump Denounces Racism in Charlottesville. Too Little, Too Late."

NEXT: Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, a wife concluding that she is lesbian, and child custody

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. Uh-oh.

    Does this mean Nick really does read the comments and just pretends to be too cool?

    1. Trump’s supporters are equally quick to denounce any dissent as proof positive of secret membership in Antifa, a pro-Hillary voting record, or a desperate attempt to look good among the communists who run the much-discussed-yet-little-seen Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit.

      I know, right.

      1. That circuit involves actual cocks and real tails.

    2. He is on Twitter. And probably has to look at the facebook page from time to time.

  2. “The president isn’t attacking P.C., as he once promised. He’s sanctioned its use among his followers.”

    I for one am sickened by Trump’s P.C.
    Why doesn’t he just say what he really thinks?

    1. The thing is, Trump is constantly shifting on positions or pandering to people. What in the past would have been called “flip flopping” is now “4D chess.”

      1. Is anyone worth listening to calling it 4d chess?

        I ask because only the true sycophants called Obama’s plays 4d chess, and they were roundly ridiculed.

        1. It’s routinely called that (or something to that effect) by his followers online.

          It’s not so much the title, it’s the fact that his supporters often justify him being contradictory and/or vague by saying it’s ok because it’s some part of a masterplan to piss off the media and the left, or distract from something else.

          1. The underlying problem being that his politics, which is the politics of the Republican party even if other members are less vulgar and insane, contains no actual policy ideas, but is entirely an exercise in blowing raspberries at perceived enemies, usually liberals.

            I am not one who thinks there ever was a great tradition of conservatism in this country (it’s always been racist and reactionary), but it’s not even pretending anymore.

            1. Tony — brainwashed as badly as Trumpsters!

              (conservatism) has always been racist and reactionary.

              Shame on you for being manipulated.

              Goldwater and Reagan were defending homosexuials in the 70s — two decades before Clinton signed both DOMA and DADT … and FOUR decades before Obama “evolved.”

              Goldwater defended gays in the military, saying you only need to SHOOT straight. He famously said, “Any good Christian would give Jerry Falwell a kick in the ass.” And warned that the Moral Majority was a major threat to his party. Correctly.

              As Reagan was about to announce his winning Presidential campaign, California’s Briggs Initiative was way ahead in the polls, to ban gay school teachers. In the closing weeks, Reagan came out against it forcefully ? largely by ridiculing its sponsor, the nationwide, anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade (which soon collapsed aftr losing in a landslide). “Homsexuality is no threat to our children, because it’s not communicable like measles”. KAPOW

              Reagan’s re-election was opposed by Falwell and Robertson. who accused him of all talk and no action (a devout and public Christian, but ignored their agenda). Guess what? Their Christian Right followers ignored their own preachers to stand instead with Reagan.

              Today’s GOP is a moral atrocity, like Dems. But HOW DARE YOU say conservatism has always been as fascist as your tribe? (They were actually libertarian)

              1. Kick Tony’s ass, Hinh. Figuratively speaking, of course.

              2. My tribe has never been fascist, thank you. If it ever were, it wouldn’t have been my tribe.

                We’ll leave it to historians to decide what role Goldwater played in race politics. EYEROLL.

                “Homosexuality is no threat to our children, because it’s not communicable like measles”

                Well thank god it’s not communicable. We wouldn’t want any of our children to catch the gay! If it were, then we’d have a real problem I suppose.

                Reagan, champion of gays!

                I presume your entire post is satire. Funny, really.

                1. Tony
                  My tribe has never been fascist, thank you. If it ever were, it wouldn’t have been my tribe.

                  Denial is what tribal means. You accuse the right of the same arrogance you just copped.

                  I mostly defend you from Gomers. Now you prove my point, being a shameful asshole when your tribe is humiliated.

                  We’ll leave it to historians to decide what role Goldwater played in race politics. EYEROLL.

                  SHAME ON YOU FOR CHANGING THE SUBJECT … BECAUSE GOLDWATER WAS DECADES AHEAD OF YOUR TRIBE ON GAYS

                  ***Do you have anything specific on Goldwater and race? If not, then you are GUILTY of PRECISELY the bullying you (properly) accuse many conservatives of.

                  AND YOU DO THE SAME FOR REAGAN!!

                  “Homosexuality is no threat to our children, because it’s not communicable like measles”

                  Well thank god it’s not communicable. We wouldn’t want any of our children to catch the gay!
                  Reagan, champion of gays!

                  I’ll ask everyone to review Reagan’s role in defeating the Briggs Initiative … to see how TOTALLY SHAMELESS Tony has been.

                  For those who came in late. Tony is PISSED BY FACTS HE REFUSES TO ACCEPT. JUST LIKE A BIRTHER

                  See details in my original. Goldwater and Reagan were defending gays in the 70s … 20 years before Clinton shamelessly signed the fascist DOMA and DADT … 40 years before Obama “evolved”

                  See again Tony’s response. He attacked his ONLY (occasional) supporter here.
                  So very Trumpian!

                  1. Is there bold-lock key that one can leave on accidentally?

                    1. No. I do it only for ridicule, and since I demonstrated that ridicule was justified … .
                      Or responding to cyber-bullies (but that’s mostly ridicule also, because they are)
                      Thanks. I should have clarified, but 99% of the frequent commenters routinely hate Tony for being in a different tribe, with purely personal attacks, but I repeat myself on cyber-bullying.

                2. Tony is in his time machine going back to October 4, 1961, when Lenny Bruce was arrested for Hate Speech at the Jazz Workshop in San Francisco. Tony cheers as the Hate Speech Police arrest Bruce.

                  Tony is in his time machine going back to December 2, 1964 at UC Berkeley. Thousands of students are supporting ‘free speech’ which is actually code for ‘hate and thought crimes.’ Tony and fellow SJWs chase the ‘free speech’ crowd from the University and then set vehicles and buildings on fire to celebrate their victory.

                  1. Rockabilly provides his typical tribal hatred — here of Tony, thereby CONFIRMING what I described immediately above him or her. Life is BLESSED!

          2. “It’s routinely called that (or something to that effect) by his followers online.”

            And they qualify as people worth listening to in your world?

            1. No, they don’t. I wasn’t arguing they were, sorry if that was confusing.

              1. Then my original question stands.

                1. I just answered your original question. What are you referring to?

                  1. “Is anyone worth listening to calling it 4d chess?”

                    I don’t believe you did answer that.

                    And it was my original question.

                    1. Ok I looked at a post lower down, and you kinf of addressed it and ageeed that no, no one worth listening to is saying it.

        2. Is anyone worth listening to calling it 4d chess?

          Plenty of his sycophants, but they’re not worth listening to, so no.

          I ask because only the true sycophants called Obama’s plays 4d chess, and they were roundly ridiculed.

          The irony is that many of the people who ridiculed Obama’s sycophants for doing it are now the ones claiming that Trump’s the 4d chess master. I also find it ironic that a lot of Trump’s most slavishly devoted cultists also used to rip on Obama’s cultists as “brain dead Obamatons” yet they unthinkingly soak up everything Trump spews at them every bit as much as those “brain dead Obamtons” slurped up Obama’s. Even as cynical as I am, I find myself surprised by the rank hypocrisy and total lack of self awareness put on display daily by partisan mouth breathers of all stripes.

        3. Is anyone worth listening to calling it 4d chess?

          I ask because only the true sycophants called Obama’s plays 4d chess, and they were roundly ridiculed.

          No. No one worth listening to is saying it. It’s said by journalists and others on the left to try to equate Trump supporters with Obama fanatics actually.

          Occasionally it is used facetiously to antagonize journalists and others on the left in much the same way that most words are used these days.

      2. I thought it was less flip-flopping then that Trump has the attention span of a goldfish and cannot always remember what his last thought was on a particular issue.

        1. It’s probably a little of column A and a little of column B. I just find the hypocrisy from his followers who insist he always means what he says to be obvious.

          I’ve also seen this defense (he’s just saying that to get attention, distract, piss off, etc.) for some of his more outrageous comments that some of his followers don’t want to defend.

          1. Why are you spending so much time on people you already agreed aren’t worth listening to.

            There are reasons they aren’t worth listening to, and the things you mentioned are among them.

            1. They’re not worth listening to, but considering they form the base of support for the current President of the United States, they aren’t irrelevant.

              1. But you keep bringing up WHAT THEY SAY and the ARGUMENTS THEY MAKE, as though they have ANY credibility.

                No one said they were irrelevant. Just not worth trying to have a conversation with.

                1. Ok? What is your point? Because they aren’t worthy of a conversation, I can’t bring up their hypocrisy?

                  1. Because they aren’t worthy of a conversation, I can’t bring up their hypocrisy?

                    Doesn’t matter what you say. He’s stalking you. That’s what they do. Shout down opposing views .. as we saw in their violence, mayhem and murder last weekend.

  3. “the recent claim that he created an “unprecedented” number of jobs in the first six months of his presidency is flatly wrong”

    How can something undefined be flatly wrong.

    1. microaggressions?

      /I’m just spitballing

      1. I guess what I’m saying is, what metric is Leatherskin using, and, why does he think that’s the metric Trump would use.

        Because Trump could easily just say “has anyone ever done what Obama did” or something similar, and be technically correct.

        1. I guess what I’m saying is, what metric is Leatherskin using, and, why does he think that’s the metric Trump would use

          So you and your god have your own “metric” (definition) for unprecedented .. and confuse a definition and a metric

    2. How can something undefined be flatly wrong.

      Umm, unprecedented means larger than ever before. But keep trolling and bullying for your orange-haired god.

      1. “unprecedented’ means without precedence–it means something that has never happened/been/existed before.

        It has absolutely nothing to do with size.

  4. “Is it politically correct to expect the president of the United States to unequivocally denounce the racial theories and violence of neo-Nazis and white supremacists?”

    No, it’s not.

    At the same time, completely separate from Trump’s own checkered history on race, there are some ‘libertarians’ who have indeed fully embraced identity politics and I think a lot of people do find that to be hypocritical. This is not to distract from Nick’s point which is generally correct.

    1. Is it politically correct to expect that everyone in government to respect the First Amendment and let people judge what constitutes repulsive beliefs?

      I can make my own judgement and don’t really need the President or any politician to tell me what to think. I’m far more concerned about a large-scale movement of people with a mission of shutting down free-speech than I am about a couple hundred neo-nazi types who actually played by the rules and got themselves a permit.

      1. This is the first comment I vehemently agree with. I thought Reason was a Libertarian publication, but I’m starting to see too much left versus right in both the articles and the comments. After reading this article, I’m not sure that Nick knows what politically correct even means. Political correctness is anti-free speech since it tells people they have to speak in a manner that is unoffensive rather than speaking their minds (which may be offensive). By standing up for free speech for anyone, regardless of whether he agrees or not, the President has condemned political correctness.

        1. By standing up for free speech for anyone, regardless of whether he agrees or not, the President has condemned political correctness.

          He fooled you too. Sad.

          That may explain your confusion on Reason vs its commentariat. This may help. Reason is libertarian — fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 48 years. The dominant commentariat is authoritarian.– fiscally conservative and socially conservative.

          If you step back a bit, extreme fiscal and social conservatism is ,,, CONSERVATIVE! As proof, they snarl “progtard” like programmed robots, for ANY socially liberal position.. Being kinda dumb, like all authoritarian cultists, they cannot fathom that progressives are NOT fiscally conservative. Watch them.

          You may have referenced the commentariat SCREAMING — as they do on this page — that Nick is a progressive stooge, attending librul “cocktail parties” — or that Reason seeks politically correct approval by progs.

          The split traces to Ron Paul’s authoritarian con job — the philosophical base of the alt-right. — which postures extreme conservatism, fiscal and social, as libertarian. That’s why the most absolutely craziest elements of his cult — Bannon, Alex Jones, all four factions of the alt-right — self-label as libertarian. Go figure.

          See part two

          1. Part two

            Ron — reflecting his south Texas roots — updated the KKK to the 21st century. He legitimized their fascist version of states rights, calling it federalism, exactly as like the Klan and all southern racists. When he says states have rightful power to deny equal rights to gays ? he uses the IDENTICAL themes as when Orval Faubus activated his state militia, naked force to keep 9 black kids out of Little Rock’s Central High School. (The 9th Amendment SEVERELY restricts which powers states retain in the 10th)

            THINK. Ron says we have NO defense of fundamental rights, because states have powers never delegated, denying a government of ONLY delegates powers, balance of power between threee co-equal branches, even checks and balances against government. Yes, precisely that fascist.

            A Cato survey found that over 60% of voters would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Just see the rapidly growing acceptance of marriage equality. Call them “Nolan” libertarians, because he invented the definition.

            Now add Ron Paul. On the same survey, 91% of those libertarians REFUSE to call themselves libertarian. Indeed 25% of them accept the fiscally/socially mix UNLESS it’s also called libertarian. If you understand branding, you’ll know ours has been destroyed. And I just explained why (short version)

    1. barf

  5. That’s a whole lotta words to VIRTUE SIGNAL.

    1. Way to make Nick’s point. Do you have an actual argument to make to the contrary (essentially, do you have a theory of the case where Trump ISN’T doing these things?), or do you just have – as Nick said – “bullying, appeals to ad hominem attacks, and unthinking “whataboutism”?

      Argue the point at hand. Don’t turn this in to an argument about the argument.

      1. Here’s my point, I refuse to get outraged over Trump’s words or lack there of.

        1. Will you get outraged (or maybe just mildly putout) by the objectively shitty job he’s doing?

          1. I’m no longer outraged by shitty presidents, I’ve become numb to it.

            1. Yep. All of these idiots on here acting like there’s a snow balls chance in hell we’re going to have a president who obeys the constitution in our life times.

          2. Prove to me that he’s doing a shitty job without once using value judgments or any reference to moral arguments, and I will entertain the possibility that maybe you are not virtue signalling. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Trump or what he’s done, but if you want to convince me that he’s done anything bad it better be so Rational and objective that Mr. Spock would blush. I have a nose for TDS poppycock.

            1. I will graciously accept your deft turn of the tables: this was supposed to be you making your case. If you indeed think Nick’s article is wrong, I’d like to hear your case for Trump and his followers NOT engaging in their own version of sycophantic “political correctness” afterwards.

              In any case, it’s more about what he hasn’t done than what he has:
              – He failed to achieve, or even begin to achieve, any of his policy proposals (such as they were). In some cases he has made it even more difficult to achieve what he said he wanted to achieve (see: Muslim Ban, healthcare)
              – Despite not having done anything of substance, he continues to bleed popularity. It is common for a president to trade “political capital” for legislative achievements. Trump is pissing away whatever political capital he may have had while NOT getting anything passed. This is strongly indicative of serious PR missteps.
              – The well-documented and very public spats and firings with his various advisers has led to Trump relying on a quickly shrinking amount of people, several of which are notably related to him and incidentally completely ill-equipped. This should be concerning to anyone who wishes for a functional Executive Branch.

              I agree that a lot of the breathless coverage of Trump is noisy (even if I wish we had a POTUS with the propriety to not do this shit), but I find it increasingly difficult to see why anyone with an interest beyond pissing off liberals would still support this guy.

              1. Counterpoint i/r/t his achievements via the Atlantic

                High level: border crossings continue to decline despite no wall, Gorsuch on SCOTUS, placing young, consevatives on lower courts in record numbers, and other executive actions, often rollbacks of Obama’s

                http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/535458/

            2. Virtue signalling is a memorized soundbite which confirms Nick”s point about rightwing PC.

      2. MJ is parodying what the Trump apologists say (because he’s a regular here). Of course it’s telling that what should be an over-the-top satire of what these knuckledraggers say is indistinguishable from the real thing.

        1. THAT is an over the top satire to you?

          JFC…

      3. He made Gillespie’s point, but Gillespie’s point is also kind of stupid and self-serving

  6. Among the Trump faithful, there are never legitimate grounds upon which to disagree with anything the billionaire says or does.

    Tautology is tautological.

    1. tautology is tautological.

      Bullshit is bullshit.

    2. The same holds true for those who worship Obama (or the left wing ideology to be exact) as well. It’s like comparing alligators to crocodiles when you don’t want either in your swimming pool!

      1. Left – Right = Zero (still)

  7. Uh-oh – riling up the fart-sniffers brigade. The comments section will be a bloody free-for-all today.

  8. “or a desperate attempt to look good among the communists who run the much-discussed-yet-little-seen Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit.”

    *giggles into his cocktail

    1. I just assumed Nick was distinctly not notified about the change of ownership!

      1. Now, that’s over-the-top satire.

        I hope.

  9. There’s a lot of good points here – except for the fact that it’s Nazis on all sides and this is what “burn it all down” looks like. For somebody who believes there’s no longer anything worth saving, that only a small handful of people still believe in the principles this nation was founded on, all you can do is laugh to keep from crying over these rats fighting over a corpse. They all want power, they all want to be in charge of the machinery of government but the machinery is broken and rusted and the wheels are falling off. $20 trillion in debt that’s never going to be paid and the fools still want more spending. A police state that goes after the petty criminals because it can’t do shit about the big ones, and they want more laws and more criminals. Massive government programs to order our lives and not a damn one of them works and they want more programs. Endless military meddling that makes bad situations worse, and they want more interventions. Cities and states teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, its over-taxed citizens fleeing because the government’s top priority is to feed itself and there’s still this fantasy that government exists to serve the people rather than the other way around.

    1. I’ve about given up hope that any appreciable number of people are going to come to their senses and realize that government is the source of many of their problems, that government is power and power has its own agenda, that our founding fathers were wiser than you know when they sought to limit the power of government. Trying to fix things inevitably makes things worse, go do your own thing and leave everybody else alone. Except for the people who keep trying to fix things by dragooning you into helping fix things – those people need a severe beating. And unfortunately at this point, that’s just about everybody. Everybody can go to hell as far as I’m concerned, have fun on the trip, motherfuckers.

      1. Kinda sums up my thoughts. I find it amusing how outraged people are over Trump’s responses/equivocation. They certainly seem more outraged over words than the actual murder of the woman.

      2. Trump is not the cause of all this shit, all this shit is what caused Trump. Try to wrap your head around the fact that Donald Fucking Trump is president. A crazy-ass retarded baboon got himself elected president of this place, proof positive this is the sort of place that will elect a crazy-ass retarded baboon president. And you know why we elected a crazy-ass retarded baboon president? It’s because a crazy-ass retarded baboon was the best option we had. You really think there’s anything worth saving?

        1. Actually he was by far the worst option of all available in 2016 and probably the worst option of all candidates who’ve ever run (but who’s counting at that point?).

          It’s just that Hillary had a (D) after her name, cankles, and a private email account, you know.

          1. And the Ds in Mich, Wisc, PA etc decided not to show up for her. Weird.

          2. If you ignore her long history of incompetence and corruption, then yes, that was all.

            1. Out of the two of them, only one had a former KKK member as a mentor.

              1. Trump’s father was arrested at a KKK rally bro. That little disingenuous dumbass talking point just got awkward.

                1. Based on an article from 1927, with no available police records. And wasn’t charged, nor was there proof he was a member or even necessarily part of the riot.

                  http://www.snopes.com/donald-t…..-kkk-1927/

                  1. Well OK then only Hillary is the one with secret ties to the KKK then, since you brought it up. That’s a totally plausible and reasonable accusation to make considering especially that Trump is all over the news giving cover to Nazis.

                    1. Give cover: “Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to all that we hold dear as Americans.”

                    2. An under-duress statement that he later totally bitched about having to make.

                      You’re the one accusing HRC of being a secret KKK member so why don’t you shut the fuck up with your parsing?

                    3. So where’s the cover again?

                    4. “There was violence on both sides. Also the statue defender side had some really terrific people.”

          3. Tony|8.18.17 @ 1:25PM|#

            Actually he was by far the worst option of all available in 2016 and probably the worst option of all candidates who’ve ever run (but who’s counting at that point?).

            It’s just that Hillary had a (D) after her name, cankles, and a private email account, you know.

            Fuck you Tony and fuck your gun grabbing commie queen Hillary Clinton.

            Your socialist god FDR appointed Hugo Black, a klan member to the supreme court. When will you disavow FDR, your racist socialist god?

            No, I did not vote for Trump. Fuck you leftist scum bags and your fucking centralized socialist state. YOU fucking leftists fucked up the USA. Fuck all of you!

            1. No, I did not vote for Trump. Fuck you leftist scum bags and your fucking centralized socialist state. YOU fucking leftists fucked up the USA. Fuck all of you!

              It would be funny if not so tragic, when rightwing scum attacks leftist scum. Or vice versa.

              How many retards swallow the insane bullshit that the “alt-left” charged Trump’s fascist assholes with clubs?

              Or that the assassin’s car had been attacked with ball bats breaking his windows?

              1. How many retards swallow the insane bullshit that the “alt-left” charged Trump’s fascist assholes with clubs?

                Only the media and people like you, Michael.

                The sane people realize that it’s just the left, not ‘alt’, not ‘fringe’.

                And the dodge’s windows are clearly unbroken in the video. The tint on them was the subject of a number of pieces.

                You have to HAVE links, Michael, they don’t just magically appear when you turn the text orange

        2. Nick’s just upset that Trump’s tweets are the only thing standing between us and The Libertarian Moment.

        3. ^This ( and your comments above and below, thank you).

          1. aimed at Jerryskids (not sure if that got lost)

      3. IDK. I think Trump has done a near masterful job of diminishing the office of the Prez itself – and that has for a century (prob since Teddy R) been the biggest obstacle to effecting the sort of change you’re talking about. Now it might take a few more elected halfwits before all the many sides of stupid stop looking for the pony of charisma hidden in the pile of manure. But at least the way forward is there now.

        1. I’m not getting my hopes up. I’d like to be more optimistic, but I bet that a “normal” president will be elected in 2020 and we’ll get back to the same old shit.

      4. Again, Jerryskids reveals his total contempt for consent of the governed and will of the people.
        Anything else is called authoritarianism. His.

    2. Actually there were real Nazis on one side and the other side was protesting the Nazis. But WHATEVER.

      1. Real Nazis had better equipment than tiki torches and bike helmets.

        1. Not at first.

          1. No, even at first.

            1. Well do I look worried? Our fascism is supposed to come bearing a bible and flag, and Trump is not only not a Christian and is a Russian stooge, he doesn’t seem to care all that much about pretending otherwise.

      2. There was no “other” side. Fascists vs. Communists is just a single group of jack-booted thugs arguing amongst themselves over whether you stomp people in the face with the left foot or the right.

        1. socialist on all sides to be clear….
          national socialists, international socialists it’s socialist all the way down

        2. There were two sides. It’s just that both are worthless.

          It’s just “everyone who doesn’t agree with me about everything is a goddamn communist” thinking. Both sides are stupid, identity politics collectivists. But they differ.

          Too much binary thinking all around. It’s not us and them. It’s us and them and them and them…

          1. It’s you and me against the world, Zebby.

          1. You don’t seem to be aware that linking arms to block the path of people is a form of violence.
            It is, also against the law. If the police hadn’t stayed away, it would have been incumbent on them to clear the way for the permitted marchers to do as the courts had ordered they be allowed to do.
            Those “peaceful” counter protesters were doing severe harm to the Constitution by acting to prevent others from exercising their right to “peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
            Picking nits about whether one group “charged” or not, in a video that captures a minute in time is disingenuous, at best. More like the big lie.

            1. You don’t seem to be aware that linking arms to block the path of people is a form of violence.

              (pees pants laughing)

              (the video shows he’s full of shit on locked arms — a lie he has now stated four times)

        3. Except for the fact that one side wanted those in charge to be of a particular skin color and the other didn’t care what color that was, they both have the same ideology – totalitarian socialism.

          1. totalitarian socialism.

            Until that nasty bigotry, the comment was only semi-biased.

      3. Tony|8.18.17 @ 1:11PM|#

        Actually there were real Nazis on one side and the other side was protesting the Nazis. But WHATEVER.

        Fuck you Tony, you fucking commie scum. And fuck your Karl Marx and your Che t-shirt.

        1. Rockabilly is a bully and a thug. Let’s jam the truth up his ass as PROOF

          Actually there were real Nazis on one side and the other side was protesting the Nazis. But WHATEVER.

          Fuck you Tony, you fucking commie scum. And fuck your Karl Marx and your Che t-shirt.

          (snort) Even talks like a fucking nazi!

          Also up Liberty–Equiality’s ass below (at this time)

      4. The difference between Nazis and Anarcho-Communists is a matter of rhetoric.

        1. The difference between Nazis and Anarcho-Communists is a matter of rhetoric.

          Agree, the alt-right is the moral equivalent of Stalin.
          But let’s stay on topic, Charlottesville.

    3. $20 trillion in debt, yet fools still want more military spending, and to give away even more to the rich in tax cuts and corporate welfare, to ensure that the debt can never be paid. To make our government solvent, restore the tax rates on the rich we had in the 1950s, stop bombing countries that have not bombed us, stop trying to install governments in other countries, and legalize drugs (drastically cutting government expenditures, increasing personal freedom, and providing a strong new source of revenue).

  10. “There are no racists, Donald Trump is basically Jesus, and black people just need to stop being lazy. I’m not sure what the deal is with the Jews.”

    –practically every commenter at your website

    1. ….C’mon man. Is that necessary?

      1. Absolutely not.

      2. It is not. But he can’t help himself.

    2. Right. HR, Stormfront, no difference. None at all.

      1. “No difference.” Hmm, where have I heard that before ad nauseum? Oh yeah, nearly every commenter here discussing the two sides of the protest in Charlottesville.

        1. So you spend an inordinate amount if your time at a site that is essentially no different than Stormfront?

          1. He doesn’t understand.

            1. He doesn’t understand.True, but RG has the same free speech rights as rational folks.

          2. I am the neoconfederate fairy. I attempt to cleanse libertarianism of its neoconfederates, and they leave me a dollar.

          3. So you spend an inordinate amount if your time at a site that is essentially no different than Stormfront?

            Please don’t confuse this website with all the nazis and racists now trolling the comments, defending their violent heroes last weekend..

            1. defending their violent heroes last weekend..

              You got a permit for that strawman?

        2. They should be ashamed of themselves for such complex thinking.

    3. I’m curious to know if you honestly don’t understand what you read here or if you do understand but refuse to engage. Could you possibly clear that up?

      1. Pretty sure he just wants cake.

      2. It’s what I don’t read, namely, swift and multiple condemnations of the right-wing racist freaks much in the way you’re so quick to condemn me for not wanting poor children to die from easily curable diseases.

        1. If you’re talking about condemning them for their racist ideology, it’s been done ad nauseum. Stop lying.

          If you’re talking about condemning them for the temerity to speak, you can find that, but probably not at a libertarian hangout.

        2. Tony, we can’t argue with the trolls we want; we argue with the trolls we have.

          1. Tony, we can’t argue with the trolls we want; we argue with the trolls we have.

            The vast majority has been defending alt-right racism and fascism on this topic, the polar opposite of libertarians who oppose the aggression that disgusted most Americans last weekend.

            1. Both sides were fascist, one side was openly racist, the other more quietly so.
              But one side was doing as the Constitution allowed, while the other was trying to stop them.
              That puts the latter group in the wrong, regardless of the awfulness of the former group’s message.

              1. Both sides were fascist, one side was openly racist, the other more quietly so.

                (yawn) Your FOURTH repeat of the same lie — proven by the same videos. linked here

                https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6938003

                Why are you stalking me down the page, repeating the same bullshit? Regarding the same video proof?

                In fairness, you do admit Trump is full of shit. Here
                https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6938061

    4. If Donald Trump is Jesus, then the Jews are all right, I guess? Since they share Donald?s ethnicity.

    5. Yet the other side goes “There are no non-white racists, Donald Trump is basically Hitler, and white people just need to stop using this 500-page list of words we don’t approve of.”

      Also, you sure you’re describing this site and not Breitfart?

  11. That meme is pretty funny.

  12. Do we WANT confidence in government institutions to be high?

    1. Depends. If you’re going to emphasize “rule of law,” then I think you would want confidence in institutions to be somewhat high.

  13. “Trump’s supporters are equally quick to denounce any dissent as proof positive of (1)secret membership in Antifa, (2)a pro-Hillary voting record, or (3)a desperate attempt to look good among the communists who run the much-discussed-yet-little-seen Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit.”

    (1) Not secret membership. But there is lots of “simpatico” there. How else can you explain the deafening silence re Antifa?

    (2) It cannot be denied that the seismic shock of Hillary losing is yuuge. There is plenty to criticize Trump for, but the hyperbole is TDS via Hillary’s fail.

    (3) Yes, 95% of the HnR commentariat are all hallucinating the same observation that Reason has pivoted and pivoted hard.

    1. (3) Yes, 95% of the HnR commentariat are all hallucinating the same observation that Reason has pivoted and pivoted hard.

      The large pool of long-time regulars who defected were a very cosmopolitan bunch who regularly defended the editors from criticism. Then they finally realized the simmering statist frog pot of a website was rising to full boil.

      1. That’s weird. I took them to be the opposite. They all ran off to Galt’s Gulch because they got fed up first.

        1. It was a lot more complicated than either that or what SIV said. But SIV is right that they (the ones who departed pretty much en masse) are quite a diverse and cosmopolitan group.

          1. And their site is a cesspool of suckitude.

            1. Cosmopolitan =/= Cosmotarian.

    2. How else can you explain the deafening silence re Antifa?

      Hardly a factor here. Even if they were, this is about all the violence and murder initiated by the KKK/Nazi/Alt-Right thugs.

      Yes, 95% of the HnR commentariat are all hallucinating the same observation that Reason has pivoted and pivoted hard.

      Dumbfucks who never knew that libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially tolerant for 48 years,
      How can ANY sentient being assume that Reason would support the aggression, violence, mayhem and murder committed by the alt-right last week?

      1. No matter how many times you link to that video, it is still a moment in time that shows the counter protesters initiating the violence by blocking the path of the ones who were there with court approval.
        Only fools think that blocking someone’s free movement is “peaceful”.

        1. Only fools think that blocking someone’s free movement is “peaceful”.

          Only dumbfucks say that STANDING STILL means INITIATING VIOLENCE. And you’ve done it six times! NOW you have NO CLUE what “peaceful” means! (sneer)

      2. Even if they were, this is about all the violence and murder initiated by the KKK/Nazi/Alt-Right thugs.

        I’m seeing this sort of reasoning quite a bit in the last few days.

        If we can only talk about this incident, then it’s simply an isolated incident that occurred in a vacuum.

        If it’s an example of the violence of right wing protests and part of a larger pattern of said violence, then we are free (and, IMO, need) to discuss the behavior of all involved in the various protests and rallies and how such behavior may be leading to escalation/counterescalation (arms race of sorts).

        If it’s the president’s fault because of his rhetoric or somethine he said/didn’t say, then we are free to talk about those things in context, which means we’re going to bring up why he might have said/didn’t say certain things and that will, once again, necessitate talking about other groups/people involved.

  14. Strangely relevant again…
    This one’s for you, Nick!

  15. If Barack Obama’s most strident defenders were sometimes quick to claim any criticism of him was racist, thereby delegitimating honest disagreement, Trump’s supporters are equally quick to denounce any dissent as proof positive of secret membership in Antifa, a pro-Hillary voting record, or a desperate attempt to look good among the communists who run the much-discussed-yet-little-seen Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit.

    Thank God we don’t have to worry about any that bullshit here. /sarc

  16. a desperate attempt to look good among the communists who run the much-discussed-yet-little-seen Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit.

    Thanks for admitting it Nick.

  17. Bannon is an extremely shrewd businessman. He was ahead of many others who realized the marketing potential to a huge cross section that was already there to target: a loose collection of isolated internet conspiracy theorists, garden variety tribalists and white nationalists. He knew that to market to one, you had to market to them all. And so he took that group that was already in place and growing on the internet since Bush and 9/11 (Alex Jones watchers etc) and saw a great investment in media. A very high monetary return potential.

    It certainly wasn’t surprising to learn that Bannon thinks of this loose assemblage as a “collection of clowns” and “losers”, because his point wasn’t to be one of them, but rather leverage their potential as a consumer target, and eventually, a voting bloc.

    1. Well nobody’s ever consulted the far right because of their sparkling insights.

  18. Trump acolytes and the white nationalist subset of them never apply to themselves the rhetorical standards they impose on others.

    They view any criticism of Trump, no matter how level-headed and reasoned, as betrayal. Any opinion that disagrees with theirs is “virtue signaling”. Only they’re allowed to signal their virtues.

    I mean, what the hell is a Nazi flag if not a giant virtue signal? They feel that they are virtuous, and they signal it. But to call them out on supporting an ideology of obligate racial purity by force — that’s the TRUE oppression, apparently.

    They simply can’t handle criticism. They got their talking points from their down-the-rabbit-hole propaganda of choice, and if you try to induce an original thought, they only know how to reply with “libtard/cuck/globalist/traitor/SJW”, etc.

    Many of them seem to think that freedom of speech means a guarantee of a platform, or to not be disagreed with. If you counter their free speech with your free speech, they claim to be victims.

    And yet, it’s the liberals who are supposed to be “snowflakes”…

    1. “You took the blue pill.”

    2. No truer words were ever spoken my good sir. Bless you.

    3. Not sure who you think you’re arguing with here. It’s not really in dispute that Neo-Nazis are at least as bad as antifa and SJWs (which is the crux of Trump’s supposedly pro-Nazi statement).

  19. A lot longer than 2 minutes hate. Inflation?

    certainly Democrats in Congress aren’t the reason why the GOP and the president can’t produce balanced budgets, entitlement reform, or market-oriented health-care legislation.

    Looks like someone forgot his schoolhouse rock and senate rules of order.

    I’ll just leave this here.

  20. why aren’t you condemning Antifa and left-wing violence (been there, done that, and will continue to do so)!?!?

    and he links to a soave piece

    … which was actually a bit of ass-covering only a few days after having written a piece praising the whole “Bash the Fash” fad:

    To Thwart Fascism, Leftist Students Start Self-Defense ‘Fight Club,’ Which Actually Sounds Awesome

    To guard against Trump-inspired hate crimes, a socialist student club at the University of Central Florida has started a “Leftist Fight Club”?an ode to the well-known Chuck Palahniuk book and fim?to practice hand-to-hand combat and self-defense.

    This ought to be applauded.

    not exactly unimpeachable bona fides

    1. Nick stands by his unquestionable claim of FACT that there were NO ANTIFA IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, just peaceful counter-protestors,who were just slightly to the left of libertarian Jeff Flake, who were minding their own counter-protesting business when they were run down as part of a coordinated Nazi Dodge Challenger terror attack by Fields and the ghosts of Nathan Bedford Forrest, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall “CHRISTFAG” Jackson.

      1. You seem to be equating the mere presence of Antifa with the presence of Nazis who not only behaved just like Nazis but one of whom drove a car into a crowd.

        Why are you siding with Nazis at all?

        1. Both groups committed acts of violence against each other. Antifa actually has a much more violent recent history than any right-wing group.

          I really don’t give a shit about what their philosophies are beyond that.

          1. Liberty == Equality
            Both groups committed acts of violence against each other.

            You are SHAMEFULLY full of shit … another brainwashed snowflake .. as UNDENIABLY PROVEN by this video ar ground zero

            YOU are today’s brownshirts. Shameful.

      2. there were NO ANTIFA IN CHARLOTTESVILLE,

        True Antifa has never been tried!

        The people in C-ville were just “counter -protestors” and they were fighting with LOVE! TAKE THAT LOVE IN YOUR FACE, NAZI!!

        (source)

        1. Why are you sympathizing with Nazis?

          1. It is not sympathizing to say someone has a right to exist.
            And along with that right to exist, goes Constitutional rights, among them the right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. They don’t lose those rights because of what they believe.
            The counter protesters – antifa, or not – weren’t there to peacefully protest but to stop the Nazi’s from exercising their rights.
            If you believe that America has the right to declare certain groups, or sets of beliefs, as not having a right to exist, you should think carefully of what might happen if yours becomes out of favor and what the remedy should be for disfavored beliefs.

            1. The counter protesters – antifa, or not – weren’t there to peacefully protest but to stop the Nazi’s from exercising their rights.

              Which is their right!
              It’s disgusting that you repeatedly express different rights for different factions, which sees you ACTING like a nazi.

              Your opposing tribe has ALL the same rights as your own tribe. Deal with it. We don’t have emperors in America.

              1. You do not have the right to abrogate the rights of others.

                You have the right to free speech.

                You do not have the right to deny that right to others.

        2. The people in C-ville were just “counter -protestors” and they were fighting with LOVE! TAKE THAT LOVE IN YOUR FACE, NAZI!!

          SHAME ON YOU,
          Your photo is self-defense — AFTER the violence began.

          This video — the initial assualt — provides UNDENIABLE PROOF of how totally shameful you are. And anyone else who traffics in “both sides started it” bullshit.

          Oh, it’s Gilmore (sneer)

          1. The ones who “started it” were the ones blocking the path of the marchers.
            Delusional beliefs that they were peaceful are belied by the laws of the land.
            You may not decide where others may go, on public property.

            1. The ones who “started it” were the ones blocking the path of the marchers.

              So you admit Trump is totally full of shit. Then make an ass of yourself at the end!

              You may not decide where others may go, on public property

              Make up your mind! You decided where the alt-left could be .. else it’s okay to kill them per what you claim to be the law of the land. And your diktat, mein Fuhrer.

              I do appreciate your admission that President Trump is totally full of shit, So is their anything else I can clarify or correct for you?

      3. Nick stands by his unquestionable claim of FACT that there were NO ANTIFA IN CHARLOTTESVILLE,

        Bullshit diversion as bad as Trump’s. The issue is who launched the violence,.mayhem and murder ,,,, UNDENIABLY the alt-right fascists and racists.

        This video provides ABSOLUTE PROOF of who triggered the violence …confirms he extent of Trump’s mental instabiiltity .., andnd how totally the alt-right snowflakes have been manipulated and brainwashed.

        1) The protesters are standing peacefully, not charging anyone, and NO visible clubs.

        2) The alt-right fascists crash into peaceful protesters, beating them with clubs. They CAME for violence, carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear.

        The video is at ground zero, at the exact moment of assault, and the moments before and after. Only a total psycho could deny the obvious reality, the President and the alt-right trolls,

        1. No matter how many times you call that “absolute proof of who triggered the violence”, doesn’t make it as you contend.
          Those people, locking their arms, and blocking the free movement of the marchers, were breaking the law and, by not giving way, being the ones who initiated the violence.
          There is a vast difference between coming prepared for violence and coming with the intent to commit violence.
          Honest people know which side was which.

          1. No matter how many times you call that “absolute proof of who triggered the violence”, doesn’t make it as you contend.

            (snort) The video proves it! The video YOU never saw! Your lies are easily confirmed in the videos linked here:
            https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6938003

            Those people, locking their arms, and blocking the free movement of the marchers, were breaking the law and, by not giving way, being the ones who initiated the violence.

            (sneer) Now you say that standing motionless is initiating violence! The sane links will prove that you’re full of shit on the locked arms too!

            You may not decide where others may go, on public property

            I ask you to AGAIN make up your mind on that. You’ve now reversed yourself 3 times/

            There is a vast difference between coming prepared for violence and coming with the intent to commit violence.

            Here, too, the same videos provide absolute proof of your bullshit.

            Honest people know which side was which.

            Yes we do.
            Your own “honesty” includes three outright lies in two comments. PLUS your laughable lie about locked arms. So you’re babbling about a video you never saw! Integrity?

            Let us know if you EVER make up your mind on whether anyone can decide where others may go, on public property.

            Anything else befuddle you?

  21. In his own clumsy way Trump was stating the truth. First in condemning the murder, and second in observing that both sides were guilty of violent, incendiary behavior.

    Note how far we have come from the days when the alt-right demonstration would be condemned as highly unsavory but recognized as a protected form of expression. And note the 1200-lb gorilla in the room, the one who is about to take over the store, namely that it’s OK to punch, club, publicly incite, and douse with raw sewage anyone you proclaim to be a “Nazi.”

    Murders happen in the US at a rate of 12,000 give or take per year. It’s not every day that events occur that require the President to don sackcloth and ashes and whip himself into a bloody mess because someone got run over by an asshole.

    It’s equally sad what has happened to so-called libertarians, as exemplified by Reason’s constant editorial attacks on Trump. You perennial losers are the biggest crybabies of all, constantly virtue-signaling your absolutist dogmas at every attempt to inject sanity into a sick, dysfunctional, and increasingly oppressive US political system. You would be lucky, under even a parliamentary system, to hold three seats in the U.S. Congress.

    And if you were sincere you’d get on your knees and thank the God you don’t believe in that that awful woman is not our President.

    1. In his own clumsy way Trump was stating the truth. First in condemning the murder, and second in observing that both sides were guilty of violent, incendiary behavior

      This short video — the initial assault- provides ABSOLUTER AND UNDENIABLEL PROOF that the Donald and you areTOTALLY full of shit.

      The “alt-left” is standing peacefully when your fascist brothers crash into them and start clubbing them — protected by the same shields use by cops in riot gear. They CAME for violence.

      Are you an intentional liar, or another brainwashed snowflake? Either way, shameful.

      1. You are the intentional liar.
        Your Goebbels tactic of telling the lie, over and over, will not make it the truth.

        1. My stalker returns. Third attempt. All the same bullshit. All proven by the same videos (smirk)

          You are the intentional liar.

          The same videos prove you liar here, a in your two previous shitfests

          https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6938083

          Plus, you admit TRUMP is full of shit at this one

          https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6938067

          (My tone and boldface in defense of three aggressions by a serial stalker — see links above)

  22. Citing Allapundit as your conservative voice is like citing Nick Gillespie as a libertarian.

    1. You sound like a typically brainwashed worshipper of Ron Paul’s cult., a major enabler for the alt-right, KKK and homphobe hate groups.

      1. And you sound like antifa.

        So?

  23. Given the Left’s choke-hold on the media, what was Trump supposed to say? If he had immediately and exclusively condemned those Nazis and white supremacists (which would have been wrong), the media would have said the same thing that stupid idiot singer Lorde just said: “All white people are responsible for creating racism.”

  24. I am a Trump supporter, and I do not agree with all he says or does …and I call such things out to others whether in conversation or on line. Not all of us are sycophants. Not all us paint with a broad brush as this article seems to be doing.

  25. Yeah, yeah. but too late. Nick helped enable the alt-right, fascists and bigots by empowering one of their major creators, Ron Paul. Nick’s libertarian moment is PROVEN by he growing support for gay marriage, AND by Ron Paul’s denial of their fundamental constitutional rights.

    Ron gave legitimacy to the fascists, with the same tactic used by the KKK and southern racists. Falsely label States Rights as Federalism, lie about the 10th Amendment’s STRICT limits in the 9th. Just like Orval Faubus in 1957, and every statist bigot for the past 150 years.

    Result — the libertarian movement is dead. Killed by the same “True Believers” who’ve infected every mass movement for millennia. Many libs know of the Cato survey that found 59% of voters self-identify with libertarian values. But don’t know that libertarianism was rejected by 91% of THOSE libertarians..

    So find a different poll for lib Newspeak. Claim growing support for libertarianism .. in a Gallup poll that NEVER mentions OR measures libertarians, So, WHO is causing increased acceptance of libertarian values? Movement libertarians or Nolan libertarians? Do the math.

    Cont’d

    1. Part two

      53% of Americans who are Nolan libertarians, reject the movement, have 40-50,000 in elected local office and active on their communities?

      Or 6% movement libertarians who do nothing, have nothing but anti-gummint rage (with no policy solutions), and support the alt-right if only passively? See them trolling their hatred, in comments that infect all of Reason’s (mostly) good coverage of Charlottesville.

      I shall now scroll THIS page, counting all the fascists who attack Nick as leftist, libtard or progressive. They feel betrayed because it was Nick who helped enable them.

      Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
      -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

      Throughout human history, the worst moral atrocitres have been committed by those manipulated to BELIEVE they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.
      -Mike Hihn (1994)

      Social Justice Warriors vs Religious/Political Justice Warriors, flip sides of the same authoritarian coin

      Each conducting a modern (un)Holy Inquisition. Each dedicated warriors against ?. the greatest evil of all time! (gasp) Each motivated by self-righteous zeal and driven by raging hatred, thus puppets eager to be exploited by the political elites

      (Now watch the raging hatred below this.)

  26. Nick needs to chill, maybe quit Twitter for a bit. Trump is our president, for better or worse, and deserves a break. The man has been president, for what, 215 days? I voted for him but don’t blindly support his every act or utterance. And I believe most Trump voters are with me. Kooks and freaks are everywhere on both sides, but their numbers are small relative to the totals.

  27. Trump is our president, for better or worse, and deserves a break

    The same as Obama got!

  28. Nick writes“Of course, from a libertarian viewpoint, we’ve got plenty of statists around, but they hail from all points on the conventional political spectrum, and that’s a different argument altogether.”

    So, we can safely ignore those nasty ‘ole libertarians right Nick? Just sweep ’em under the rug? Ignore the idea that “sticks and stones” etc. really don’t matter? That free speech is, well, free? That we can put up with neo-Nazis and even publicly support their right to speak?

    I’m not talking about assault and murder Nick, just speech. So exactly what would you have your President or elected representative say about a group of people who used their rights to say things you didn’t like?

    1. Bartleby,

      If you must lecture others on fundamental rights … about which you clearly know nothing…. then you could wind up looking rather silly in public. It’s too late here. Here’s how to avoid doing so in the future.

      Libertarianism, is a philosophy of PRINCIPLE. Ready?

      NO right can possibly be absolute.

      Because NO unalienable right can be denied or disparaged, for any reason.

      Thus, all such rights are precisely co-equal. None superior to any other, None absolute.

      Among those rights are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and all the others.

      The Ninth Amendment incorporates the Declaration’s unalienable rights into the Constitution.

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      We all possess fundamental rights beyond those listed in the constitution. “Endowed by a Creator,” as they say/

      Can you list those other rights— all equal to free speech

      I didn’t think so.

      Summing up ? there are many fundamental rights, all equal to free speech. You don’t know any of them, but you presume to lecture others.

      You claim to be libertarian, but ACT clearly authoritarian. Here’s why.

      You seek to place your own favorite right above all other rights.

      For everyone. By your own diktat.

      On what authority?

      1. You blather on about rights but seem to ignore one that is explicitly stated in the Constitution’s Bill of rights – the right to “peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
        That’s what the “alt-right”, the Unite the Right group, was ostensibly trying to do. They were supported in that by the ACLU – hardly a right-wing group – and a federal judge.
        The other side was there, without a doubt, to stop them from exercising that right. What puts them on a plane above the federal judge, who ordered the city to allow the march and protest, where they had applied to hold them?
        Regardless of the message the Unite the Right was going to espouse, they did what was required to be able to do it, unmolested.
        Your specious claims that blocking their path was not the initiation of the violence notwithstanding, what is undeniable is that, without counter-demonstrators being there, there would have been no violence, except, maybe, to the sensibilities of those who disagree with their abhorrent beliefs.

        1. You blather on about rights but seem to ignore one that is explicitly stated in the Constitution’s Bill of rights – the right to “peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances”

          Read it again! NO RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE.

          Hint for the mentally impaired. Because NO unalienable right can be denied, they are all precisely equal!!

          What happens when two fundamental rights conflict with each other? OOOPS
          You’ll learn the answer when you get to high school

          You’re also clueless on the Ninth Amendment does .. in the same comment you refuse to read

          You’ll learn these in JUNIOR High
          “There is no free speech right to yell ”fire; in a crowded theater,”
          “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.”

          1. Try writing in ALL CAPS next time Hihn; it lends greater veracity to your screed.

            1. To a goober, educating their errors is a “screed.” According to Alex Jones.
              And Daffy Duck.

            2. To Gomers, educating their errors can only be a “screed.” According to Alex Jones.
              And Daffy Duck.

      2. All rights are absolute. That’s what makes them rights.

        They can get infringed–in countless ways– because they are absolute. Society is those codified infringements that we impose on ourselves in public life.

        I have an absolute right to free speech. I have an absolute right to defend myself. I have an absolute right to the things I create by my own hand, with my own mind, and my own property.

        All rights are absolute–but we don’t value all rights equally.

        But what you’re defending isn’t a right at all. There is no right–absolute or otherwise–to take away other peoples rights. That is something that we debate and haggle over every time it comes up.

  29. What all libertarians need to remember is as Samuel Jackson’s character in Pulp Fiction said “personality goes a long way”.
    If we are going to have any success, we MUST have candidates with personality. Love Rand Paul but he got his clock cleaned in the debates as he came off like a dead fish a don’t get me started on Gary Johnson. Great message, as a messenger not so much! Thanks

    1. That’s for snake-oil salesmen. Americans are open to even radical change, which happens only once or twice per century. but we have NOTHING. Not a single policy solution, NO WAY to do ANYTHING better than government does now.

  30. As Allahpundit of the conservative site Hot Air summarized:

    Sorry, but Hotair really isn’t conservative anymore (most of their readership/commentators fled once they around the, beginning of the 2016 campaign season) and Analpundit, as he’s called, has packed himself squarely into the #nevertrump column, spending every second of every day of every month crying over Trump’s victory and lamenting the fact that Hillary didn’t win. This after, of course, he spent the year prior to the election being a smug asshole who all but had his “I told you so!” typed up the morning of the election.

    He knows nothing, and even less than you do.

    1. He knows nothing, and even less than you do.

      (lol) While YOU say Trump is a conservative,
      As Reagan, Goldwater and Buckley puke in their graves.

      1. I’m having a tough time trying to find where I typed, stated or otherwise insinuated in my post that “Trump is a conservative”.

        1. We all understand your confusion. In your rant, you say they are no longer conservative because they attack Trump — or don’t bow down to hm, whatever.

          That makes no sense unless you think Trump is conservative. Would they remain conservative if they attacked Trump for being a progessive? A communist? A fascist?

          He knows nothing, and even less than you do.

          Why are not you below them all?

          I already know you can sneer and insult me. But can you answer a 1000% justifiable question first?

  31. As much as I hate to admit this this, was actually a pretty good article. Perhaps in my hatred of political correctness I became a trump supporter. I was so sick of the usual, everything is racist, everything is sexist and, everything is homophobic rhetoric coming from the left. I can’t do this anymore Trump and a LOT of his supporters have become even bigger snowflakes than the ones they criticize. Don’t worry I’m still going to call out whiny cry babies when I see them, but on both sides.

    Donald Trump is my president but he’s not my guy.

    1. I’ve seen many Trumps. in my business career.
      Politically Correct means overly sensitive. They think it is a denial of their (legitimate) right to be a flaming asshole. So Trump’s core base includes most of our bellowing blowhards.

      I’m glad that Reason saw their Politically Correctness. It’s not enough to oppose Hillary (or Trump). You must viciously hate them, and say so. or you’re guilty of treason. And if you disagree with Trump, o even the smallest matter, you’re a “fucking Hillary supporter” Or a progtard.

      Imposed conformity on robotic minds. At a level not seen since the Loyalty Oaths in the oppressive 50s (which fueled the roots of the libertarian movement, in response).

      Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
      -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

      The militant self-righteous.

  32. Great post , thanks for sharing

  33. Quit feeding the trolls, people.

  34. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.