Media

Kat Timpf on Being a Fox Libertarian, Enduring Rape Fantasies from Trump Supporters, and Getting Water-Bombed by Brooklyn Haters

The Specialists co-host: "'I want to kill you' isn't a threat; I guess that's just what they want to do. I'll defend that as free speech."

|

Kat Timpf ||| Fox News
Fox News

Kat Timpf's pinned tweet, dating from Jan. 28, 2015, is: "When I die, instead of a eulogy, I want someone to read things Internet commenters have written about me bc they always have the right idea." On Aug. 15, 2017, Timpf's eulogy-to-be got a hell of a lot longer, after she reacted negatively on Fox News to President Donald Trump's widely panned press conference about Charlottesville.

The resulting tsunami of spelling-challenged #MAGA outrage, inaccurate accusations of leftism, and gross rape/murder fantasies (a fraction of which I was exposed to) made headlines. To which, in signature fashion, the self-described libertarian and co-host of FNC's The Specialists wrote a piece for National Review (where she's a contributor), under the headline, "I'm the Target of Hatred, and I'll Still Defend It as Free Speech."

The 28-year-old Timpf, who is also a regular on Fox's The Greg Gutfeld Show, joined me last Friday when I was guest-hosting Sirius XM Insight's Stand UP! with Pete Dominick. The following is an edited and shortened transcript of our discussion about the Charlottesville controversy, a recent incident in which she was ambushed by a water-hurling protester at a campaign event for Ben Kissel, and what it's like making libertarian arguments on Fox during the Trump presidency.

Matt Welch: What the hell happened this week, Kat?

Timpf: […] I've been really disheartened by the stupidity that's out there. I'd seen that it was out there, but I didn't know that it was this bad. Because of what I said, [now] I love Stalin, I'm an idiot. I've had actual Nazis come after me and talk about how my family should've been ethnically cleansed because we're Polish Catholic. But you know, of course Nazism isn't real!

We're still looking for any of the "fine people" at this rally. We haven't seen any examples of the fine people that were supposedly at this literal Nazi rally. It's just really disgusting that the president said they're fine people, and these people actually just believe whatever he says. The billing was: featuring headliner Richard Spencer, and "end Jewish influence in America." This isn't up for debate whether this was a white supremacist rally or not. I think there are no good people at a white supremacist rally, and apparently that's just a real controversial take. […]

Look, mistakes were made. ||| Johnson 2016 campaign
Johnson 2016 campaign

MW: What does it feel like in the building? Because obviously other people on Fox—I'm not going to criticize them—but not every host in the Fox battleship necessarily has agreed with you there.

Kat, for those who aren't familiar with her, self-identifies as a small-l libertarian. Is it all right to say that?

Timpf: Yes.

MW: I used to work in the building, too, and I identify myself similarly. It's always fun because one day you're advocating legalizing heroin and people think that you're a crazy person, which Kat literally has done on her program. Then the next day, liberals want to throw water in your face, which we'll talk about in a second, because you want to eliminate about seven or eight different federal government departments. So you're used to being a little bit of an odd duck in the building, but is there any way to characterize the overall feeling in what has just been a bizarre year for a lot of other reasons at Fox? […]

Timpf: Right, it's to the point where if you even have the slightest issue with anything that Trump has said, you're going to get attacked really, really bad. My favorite tweets are the, "I used to like and then you said this," "I used to like you then you suggested that president Trump was not the savior of all of us." It's absolutely ridiculous. You can't have any opinion other than he is my savior and I bow down to him every day….I've blocked or muted almost half of Twitter at this point, but I'll still get emails, just really brutal emails.

When I was watching that press conference, I was at my desk at the time and I started screaming….I actually, admittedly, couldn't control myself, because I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Then you had some guests on the air, they were interviewing people who worked at Fox that we're like, "This was great, he did a great job!" What part of that was a great job? I don't understand. I don't know if this administration has done something to people's brains that needs to be studied by some psychiatrist and dealt with, but people just don't think for themselves.

MW: […] I know that, because I follow you on Twitter and we're buds, that you oftentime like to engage your trolls and have been doing this for a long time, or at least highlight some of the insane things that you have received. Compare that to your normal stream there, and to what degree do you feel what you saw this week represents some sort of core Fox audience. Is that representative, or did you get on some kind of bot in Macedonia that started churning out crap?

Timpf: I have absolutely no way to know; I get death threats all the time. Like, if I say I had a problem with this, that the Donald, Jr., meeting was bad, people would be like, "All right, I'm coming to Fox and I'm going to rip your entrails out." It's like, whoa. I'm an emotional person and I still somehow never had quite the kind of emotional connection to anyone or anything the way that some of these people are emotionally connected to this president that they've never met. I really can't even understand it.

The fact that I am an Antifa is a new thing. I've written so many columns denouncing them, with the Berkeley violence and things like that, but people don't care about that. I literally just said, "There's no good people at a white supremacist rally," and pointed out the fact that Trump waited two days to denounce this and never even called it terrorism. There have been multiple things that he's called terrorism when they're not terrorism, just because he can't help himself. […]

That makes me stupid: I'm a libtard, and I'm an idiot. Very detailed descriptions of sexual violence that people want to commit against me. I'm a disgrace to humanity, I'm a disgrace to my family. They're like, "You didn't denounce the violence on all sides!" Imagine if somebody you loved was murdered and everyone would just be like, "Yes, all murders are bad!" No, you're mad about the current murder….There's a segment of the population that you didn't know exists and it's terrifying.

MW: […] A couple of follow-ups here. You're getting these pretty, I wouldn't say literal threats, they're more figurative; but they're threats. Are you, like your co-host, getting extra protection as a result of this? Does it worry you?

Timpf: No, I've kinda been desensitized to it….I've been getting death threats for so long. They're not threats—I understand the difference between what is legally a threat and what [isn't]. Like, "I want to kill you" isn't a threat; I guess that's just what they want to do. I'll defend that as free speech.

But no, I'm not really afraid. It seems like a lot of these people don't really leave their mother's basement a lot; I don't think they're really going to come get me. It doesn't really scare me, but it scares me for the future of humanity more so.

High arc. ||| Ben Kissel
Ben Kissel

MW: Tell us about…your incident in which you were assaulted, I would say, although not punched, publicly in New York recently. […]

Timpf: I was at Ben Kissel…I was at his campaign event in Brooklyn—

MW: Ben's a big tall weirdo who is running for borough president as a libertarian guy. He hosts various podcasts and you can seem him on different places.

Timpf: Right. I was just standing there ready to give a speech, and some guy walked up and he started dumping this water on my head, and then I looked at him and he looked at me right in my eyes and splashed it right in my face, then he left. If you watch the security-cam footage, he came right in, he did that, and he left. It was advertised that I would be there so he clearly had plans—that was the whole reason he was there. He wasn't just some drunk dude at a bar that splashed water at me.

I've lived a passionate life. I've had water splashed on me. I've splashed water on others. That wasn't what this was about. It was clearly a targeted assault. And I remember when I was standing there—I was dripping wet, just because I'm libertarian—I was like, I don't even know why in the hell he just did that. I don't know what position it was that he [hated]. I'm sure it's just because I work at Fox News and he assumed I was a Trump supporter. So I've just got people who hate me on all sides. […]

MW: To not talk overly much about Kat's physicality here, but in terms of thinking about the water, Kat's not a big dude.

Timpf: No, I'm a little guy.

MW: Kat's a little guy. When the guy threw water at you, was it a bucket, what was the…

Timpf: It was a little 1.5 liter….He was also about a foot taller than me, but he whipped it directly into my face. My eyes were burning…and I was freaking out that it wasn't just water. My eyes were burning, but I think it was just all the eye makeup I had on or something, honestly.

MW: Maybe it was carbonated.

Timpf: In that moment it was terrifying. And just to think, on the Internet, you could just mute it, turn it off. It's hard to do that, but you can. For it to come out and get you in public is a whole other thing, there's really no escaping it.

MW: I have a caller on the line, if you don't mind taking the call. If you are disrespectful in any way, Bruce from California, I'm going to pour water on your face! Bruce, go ahead.

Bruce: No, I'm not going to be disrespectful to the guest. I'm disrespectful to the network she works for. What do you expect when you work for the Fake News channel? Most of the viewers—I work with a lot of these people—lack critical thinking. All they do is listen to Fox News and the right wing radio. I don't know what you expect from these people. […]

Timpf: No, there are different viewpoints on Fox. Those of us who have them have been getting it for saying things about President Trump, as well as people who are frequent guests on Fox. I think the issue is that these people…a lot of them really do just take as gospel truth anything that President Trump says. Even when he's lied so many times, like that pig blood tweet yesterday. Someone wrote a comment on National Review that was like, in one Tweet, he managed to say something historically false, desecrate a hero, and also talk up war crime. In one tweet! It was absolutely amazing. You can't say anything negative about that, or else you desecrated their great leader.

It's really scary, because these people…it's not even conservatism. What they want is a dictatorship, or they want philosopher-king Donald Trump, and philosopher-king Donald Trump is just the most terrifying thing I've said out loud, but that's what people want.

MW: Bruce, to expand on a little bit and directly answer your question, because I used to be in a pretty similar situation that Kat is now, though I was on Fox Business Network, which has about 1/50th of the viewers [ed note: that's an exaggeration]: Why would I work for Fox News? It's because I'm damn well bloody in the media. Why am I on Pete Dominick's show, whose politics and mine aren't necessarily the same? It's because I like talking about politics and issues, it's fun, and I will go where I'm invited or where they allow me to create programming. That's part of the whole deal, and I enjoy it. I spend more time now on MSNBC than I do in the Fox building—the 47th-50th street/Rockefeller Center metro station, I could tell you everything about that and all the smells of it. But the whole point is to go and to talk and to argue it out. […]

You ask, what do you expect working at Fox? I expect to try to make any place where I am—hopefully without being egocentric about it—better, and to get my viewpoint out there and mix it up a little bit. […]

Timpf: Yeah, I have an audience. That's what important to me.

MW: […] I want to go to another call here. Doughboy from Arkansas. […]

Doughboy: […] First of all Kat, I want to say I love you, thank you greatly. Second of all in respect to Bruce's call…you could say the same thing about the libs. The person who listens to the libs, they listen to the MSNBC, they listen to all the left-wing talk shows. Then you've got those people on the right and that's all they listen to, and they don't know how to talk to each other. They don't know how to communicate. You need to listen to both sides, see where people are coming from so you can have communication with each other and have different points of views, but nobody does that anymore. That's pretty much all I've got to say. […]

Timpf: I love you back Doughboy. I agree—I engage with all sides, I watch all sides. There's people on all sides that refuse to consider…there's people on the left who refuse to consider that anybody but the government can solve any of their problems. If you suggest otherwise, it means you want to brutally murder sick people. There's ridiculousness on all sides of it.

MW: […] For listeners out there, Kat, who aren't familiar with Fox and…may have various kinds of imaginations about how the line is handed down, or how politics is: Give us a reality check of how a crazy libertarian who's on every single day, what the feedback is. How much are people told what they need to say, or what kind of line they need to take, or lack thereof?

Timpf: Nobody's told what they need to say. I think that some people might not be able to handle…I know that if I say anything that goes against President Trump, my Internet life is going to be hell for, I don't know, anywhere from a day to a few months. "You don't support our president!" "Leave the country!" It's like, that's not really going to stop me, and actually, I'm not going to leave the country, unless maybe if I go on vacation. […]

You can say what you want [at Fox], and I do pride myself on being an independent voice on that channel, and on any channel. Because it's not like if I went on MSNBC that everyone would like what I had to say, either.

MW: […] Mindy from Vegas, come on in.

Mindy: Hi. I just wanted to say, first of all, Kat, I think that's just horrible that some guy came up and threw water on you. I don't think they would do that to a guy. I don't think they would have the cojones to do that.

Timpf: No.

Mindy: Anyways, I was going to ask if you think that the Twitter followers are harder on the women then they are on the men, if they're nastier to the women.

Um? ||| Kat Timpf
Kat Timpf

Timpf: Yeah, I absolutely think that they are. I absolutely, absolutely do, because if you're just a guy, it's just like, "You're stupid, you're an idiot." With me it's descriptions of wanting to violently shove things up my butt. […]

Even with the Star Wars comment, there was a lot of emails about wanting to violently, anally rape me with lightsabers that weren't jokes, that were clearly very serious, violent sexual fantasies. Men just don't have to put up with that. Just every little thing about my…I never knew how many things could be potentially wrong with my face and/or body until I was exposed to these kinds of things. I really didn't. […]

MW: All right, Kat Timpf…I hope your next week is even more fun. Are you getting depressed from all this kind of stuff, or are you finding humor in it? Are you getting depressed about the country? Where are you at psychologically, as you hang up the phone with us?

Timpf: I'm the kind of person who always uses humor to deal with anything that's depressing. It is a little sad, just the fact that me making what I think is a very reasonable comment and…now I'm a member or Antifa. It's just, wow.

NEXT: Men From Malheur Standoff Acquitted, DOJ Drops Anti-Trump IP Request, Attack of the Kremlin Bots: A.M. Links

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. More like ‘foxy’ libertarian. Discuss.

    1. ‘Ol Gay Jay is not interested in that bod at all.

    2. Agreed. Smart and cute is the best combo. And wearing glasses seals the deal.

    3. Would.
      Very much would.

    4. She needs to check her privilege.
      Women have it worse on the internet than men regarding abuse? since fucking when? Nerds got it worse form the left and the right all along. Was with her up until than lie, oh well.

  2. *would!

    1. Absolutely!

  3. “The resulting tsunami of spelling-challenged”

    Matt, are you referring to your stable of REASON contributors?

    1. “MW: What does it felt like in the building?”

      1. Thanks, Tom Bombadillo!

      2. It also ends with a spelling error, but I’m not so generous as to do the copy editor’s job for them.

    2. “Timpf: …..you’re going to get attacked really, really bad.”

    3. John’s not here, man.

      1. Whatever happened to him? Did he Rexit to that other place?

        1. Maybe so. There is someone there named John Titor. Is that him or a different dude?

          1. Different dude. Both used to comment here before the “Exodus of the Yokels.”

            1. I just started visiting that place the last few days. Hadn’t visited since its infancy. I kind of thought what you explained, but wasn’t sure.

            2. John couldn’t have been a yokel. He was a lawyer. More like yokeltarian-leaning.

          2. That’s a different dude. John Titor was one of our semi-regulars hailing from the Great White North. The other John is a lawyer for DHS, and i suspect they finally got around to blocking reason.com on his work computer.

        2. He’s at the at the other site now.

        3. He showed up a few months ago and announced that everyone still here (except me, because I’m awesome) is a stupid idiot, and hasn’t returned, as far as I know.

          I haven’t looked in on the glibs for a while, so I’m not sure if he posts there.

          1. I looked in on the glib site once, several months back, and that was probably enough.

            It seemed to me like most of the folks from here who pretty much exemplified the phrase, “Libertarians are just republicans who like to smoke pot,” had moved over there.

            Since I never subscribed to that definition of libertarian, I say good riddance.

            1. I like a lot of those people. But as Crusty adroitly observed, “it’s just like a high school reunion”. And I don’t really need another way to waste time at work.

              1. I do think Hit’n’Run suffers somewhat from the loss of SugarFree’s fiction and HeroicMulatto’s insightful commentary/twerking videos. I also miss the feeling of security that comes from being able to keep an eye on Warty.

                1. I concur, some quality people departed.

                2. I was delighted to see Agile Cyborg post again though. I thought he left, but apparently was he was just in a long slumber.

                  1. AC was merely on an extended vision quest, and the astral plane has shitty wifi.

              2. But as Crusty adroitly observed,

                I do regret those comments, and not because they weren’t largely true, but because they were unfair to some of those guys who weren’t happy with something and created their own forum, which is pretty cool.

                However, I do stand by the fact that the smug, true libertarian, Reason-obsessed, tedious commenters deserved – and still deserve – absolute ridicule.

                1. Well, I wish I could say I’m sorry that I recognize that Reason is the only true source of of Liberty, and thus he only true source of LIBERTarianism.

                  But I am sorry that you’re too dumb to recognize it as I have.

            2. I first read that as “replicants who like to smoke pot” for some reason. Now I’m imagining an incredibly mellow, if slightly incoherent Rutger Hauer…

  4. If you don’t tow the lion on every thing a republican says or does, you love Stalin. The spectrum of minute variation only exists on the right. The only people who exist to the left of Barry Goldwater are unrepentant communists. It is known, Kat.

    1. It’s hard to take you seriously because you DO love Stalin and his merry men of murders.

      1. Well obviously I love Stalin.

        1. You don’t love great socialist leaders?

    2. I’ve never heard of anyone towing a lion, but I’m sure it would be amusing to watch from a safe distance.

      1. New kid in town…everybody pile on.

        1. I love that “towing the lion” is still a thing. It’s gotta be just about the oldest continuous meme on Hit’n’Run.

          1. You think that’s an H&R meme?

            Lol

            1. Well, It isn’t not an H&R meme.

            2. I suppose it may have occurred separately elsewhere, but it did start from someone’s typo on H&R. I was there, man.

      2. Not that great. After a short time it becomes just dragging a lion corpse behind a car. Which is as entertaining as watching any corpse get dragged behind a car.

  5. “Yo girl, I wanna rape you like Trump wanna rape the Constitution.”

    1. “Don’t plead the 5th, Girl, just tell me how you want it.”

      1. “How to make Crusty’s comment less funny than it already was.”

        1. Don’t plead the 5th, Crusty, just tell me how you want it.”

          1. Careful what you ask for.

          2. He likes to plead the 5th, then pantomime how he wants it

  6. I don’t understand. I don’t know if this administration has done something to people’s brains that needs to be studied by some psychiatrist and dealt with, but people just don’t think for themselves.

    It’s called a “cult of personality.” We’ve now had two presidents in a row who were able to successfully build up a cult like following, and this shit won’t end well.

    1. It goes beyond the last two presidents. Hillary has her cult. Bernie has his.

      And every one of them, scum.

      1. Hillary has her cult.

        That one is really odd, seeing how she doesn’t really have a personality.

        1. Reminds me of a joke: (I might have seen it here)

          Hillary makes a deal with the devil.
          Her soul in exchange for election victory.
          On Nov. 9 the devil appears before her.
          She is enraged: “You lied to me, you said I’d win”
          Devil: “You lied first, you said you had a soul.”

        2. Yes the cult of pragmatic technocrats.

          1. See, who says Tony doesn’t have a sense of humor?

            1. I think Tony’s just a cousin fucker, I think, mostly.

              1. It’s OK if you are gay because there’s no chance of inbreeding.

          2. And you think that’s a good thing.

          3. “Pragmatic” in the sense that they’ll do anything, no matter how counterproductive, to get a promotion from their self-important superiors.

          4. They were going to give us some of our own money back when they accidentally ended up with a surplus, but they thought we might not spend it right.

          5. Ah, The cult of Moloch, then.

    2. I don’t there are very many people in the big fly-over country that elected Trump who like his brash New Yorker personality. He was elected in spite of his personality. You’re being Cynical. But not an Asshole. You’re just mistaken.

      1. “You’re being Cynical. But not an Asshole.”

        I think you’re selling CA short. #Sad.

      2. You’re probably right. But he does seem to have some pretty cult like, slavishly devoted followers. Much like Obama did/ still does (and Bernie, and to a lesser extent Hillary as Tom Bombadil pointed out above). What percentage of his voters fall into that category vs what percentage simply voted for him because he wasn’t Hillary is harder to tell. But it probably is a very loud, obnoxious minority.

        The main problem with these personality cults popping up around various politicians is that I don’t recall seeing that very much until fairly recently. While I highly doubt Trump could become a dictator – I don’t think he has enough support outside his most shrill followers – there could be one coming down the line if this tendency to revere politicians like messianic figures continues.

        1. I think you could probably say that Kennedy and Reagan had their cults of personality. But it seems to have become more the norm now.

          I’m sure lots of people voted for Trump despite his personality. But he certainly has his cult as well. I don’t think that the people who want to sodomize Timpf with household objects are the ones who held their nose and voted Trump as the lesser evil.

        2. I suspect that vehement Trump supporters are merely reacting to the MSM coverage. The news has never been half so hard on a President and some of his supporters take the abuse personally.

      3. I don’t [think] there are very many people in the big fly-over country that elected Trump who like his brash New Yorker personality.

        Disagree. Electing a president is all about picking someone who will stomp on the other team now. Why do you think Trump and Clinton were the finalists.

  7. Kat Timpf is an idiot whose always saying some of the most stupid stuff I’ve ever heard and I have no idea how she got her job she’s so dumb. Which isn’t much of a job really, because I’ve never even heard of her and have no idea who she is so she must not be very important. I guess if she doesn’t have any accomplishments like President Donald J. Trump she can point to, she has to feel like she’s accomplishing something by tearing down this great man who’s accomplished more in a day then she’s accomplished in her whole pathetic loser life. Sad!

    1. You know who else accomplished a lot?

      1. That guy who gave all the blankets to the Indians?

    2. She always says really stupid stuff and comes off as dumb on her show, yet you’ve never heard of her before today… LOL, that’s classic.

      1. I am pretty sure Jerry was being satirical.

        1. Yeah, right. Say something stupid then try to cover it up by claiming sarcasm. Idoit.

          /in honor of John

          1. Yeah, right. Say something stupid and then use John to try to cover it up. Doiti.

            1. It’s not our fault you’re so stupid you don’t udderstand sarcasm, Tom. I’m sorry but it’s just nit.

            2. You must be just about the stupidest commonter on this sight, Tim.

              1. I know you are but what am I? Ni!

        2. The “Sad!” bit is a clear satire indicator.

    3. It’s TV. Maybe looks have something to do with it?

  8. Not sure how you can be familiar with Fox and not understand that the audience is mostly intelligence-challenged lemmings who cannot think critically. I respect an independent voice but any familiarity with the audience means one should not be surprised when any negative Trump comments are received as some attack on them. These are the people whom think Benghazi was one of the biggest atrocities of the past century after all.

    1. Benghazi was another Obama snafu that led to the first Ambassador killed since 1979, from an understaffed and under-supported US base of operations, along with 3 Americans.

      Then the coverup began….

    2. the audience is mostly intelligence-challenged lemmings who cannot think critically.

      That can probably be said of most viewers of mass-market partisan media outlets.

      1. Agreed although I’d say other outlets skew more educated, at the very least.

        1. More educated =/= more intelligent.

          I’ve known some highly educated people (PhD’s and post-docs) who were blithering idiots outside of their narrow specialty area.

          1. And even some within their narrow specialty area. Michael Mann comes to mind. Paul Krugman too.

        2. Doesn’t say much about the education system

        3. Agreed although I’d say other outlets skew more educated, at the very least

          Well – they skew towards the type of people who insist on using “whom” even though they don’t know how to.

    3. “These are the people whom think Benghazi was one of the biggest atrocities of the past century after all.”

      And others who think Hillary is honest and competent. It takes all kinds to make a shit sandwich.

  9. Even with the Star Wars comment, there was a lot of emails about wanting to violently, anally rape me with lightsabers that weren’t jokes, that were clearly very serious, violent sexual fantasies. Men just don’t have to put up with that. Just every little thing about my…I never knew how many things could be potentially wrong with my face and/or body until I was exposed to these kinds of things. I really didn’t. [?]

    I believe in equality, so my solution is for men to inundate Fox’s other pretty blonde, Steve Doocy, with similar emails.

    1. “You sure got a pretty, lopsided mouth, boy.”

      1. “Yo mouth b droopy like my nutz!”

    2. Anyone else SUPER upset about those lightsaber comments? Because that is clearly not how they work. There wouldn’t be any penetration it would just cut her in half.

      Fuck, it’s like these people have never worked on wookiepedia.

  10. Kat sees a market for antifa libertarians and fills it. With thousands of 24/7 news and commentary outlets competing for attention and business you have to be creative. You go gal! It’s hard to get noticed, let alone make a living, in that jungle.

    1. Pretty sure there is no such a thing as an antifa libertarian.

      Is there anyone out there that thinks antifa are NOT fascists?

      1. The antifa think they are not fascists while doing fascist stuff.

        1. They bring comical and stupid to a previously unfathomable level. Have these people never watched a WWII/Hitler real of film before on the myriad cable networks?

          kristallnacht is now being carried out by man-bun, skinny jean douchers with latte’s in their hands.

      2. Yes, let’s not confuse actually being anti-fascist with the groups who call themselves “Antifa”.

      3. The entire elected Democrat party. They don’t think antifa are bad at all.

  11. Sha-wing!

    Tent pole action.

  12. If you are disrespectful in any way, Bruce from California, I’m going to pour water on your face!

    With California normally drought-ridden, Bruce may see that as a reward. Regardless, he sure has Faux News Channel’s number!

  13. 22 hyperlinks in this one.

    1. Oh you’re such a show off.

    2. Simple Mikey’s finally seen enough episodes of Sesame Street to understand The Count’s whole thing.

    3. Is there some reason the hyperlinks* need to be counted?

      *Nobody really goes out of their way to type/say ‘hyperlinks’ anymore.

      1. I have this sneaking suspicion that DD is JJ Sefton, a coblogger from Ace of Spades. They have the same habit of making up incredibly stupid names of the same childish variety and also of being utterly oblivious.

        1. Does JJ Sefton also believe that Dave Weigel is haunting the comments sections of niche blogs under various pseudonyms in order to mess with him? If so, you may be onto something.

  14. I never knew how many things could be potentially wrong with my face and/or body…

    For what it’s worth, I find nothing wrong with her face and/or body.

    1. She can say whatever she wants. Seriously. Even though she is intelligent, does fox really care about the content?

      Its like watching Sabado Gigante. I find it hilarious that the other networks cannot figure this out.
      Nor could they find a marxist imbecile that could spout an intelligible remark and look good at the same time.

      1. Nor could they find a marxist imbecile that could spout an intelligible remark and look good at the same time.

        Most Marxists are neither intelligent nor good looking, so this isn’t really surprising.

      2. I was so sad when Sabado Gigante got cancelled.

        1. Was actually the best show ever. You could mute it, know exactly what was going on and there was more T & A than most beach visits.

          1. Si

          2. American women can’t handle sexy TV.

        2. When did this happen? Why am I only finding this out now?

      3. That’s why I always watch the weather on Univision or Telemundo in the morning. Even though I don’t speak Spanish. Although I’m starting to get the hang of lluvia and tormentas.

  15. Clapper: I Question Trump’s Fitness For Office

    “Is he a threat to national security? The president?” Lemon asked.

    “Well, he certainly could be. Again, having some understanding ….,” Clapper answered.

    That’s James “Least Untruthful” Clapper questioning fitness for office.

    1. Clapper. His comment would have merit if he was behind bars.

      1. As Instapundit said, guys like Clapper is why we have Trump. The “elite” have been lying shit weasels for a long time and he is worse than most.

  16. Way to perpetuate the stereotype that libertarians are lonely horndoggies, some of you guys.

    1. Lonely no. Cannot argue the latter however.

      1. Also, when she looks like that, this is hardly being crude. We are human, after all, and she’s sort of superhuman. That fox line up is like the Seinfeld episode where all of the waitresses are smokin.

  17. I agree with Kat’s opinion of White Supremacists.

    However, consider a recent poll:
    Forty-four percent of African Americans believe the Confederate statues should stay in place, while 11 percent said they’re unsure. The remaining 40 percent of African Americans polled said the statues should be removed.

    I am going to assume none of that 44% are Black Supremacists.
    Yet they are on the same side as the Unite the Right on the issue.

    Which would imply to me that it is not unthinkable that there were “others” protesting in C’ville (what Trump called ‘decent people).

    Going ape-shit over Trump is more Trump-like than Trump.

    1. The overreaction to what is says has been kind of nuts.

      But how hard is it to say “white supremacists are not good people”? Especially when so many people already believe that he is somehow on the side of white supremacists. Maybe he doesn’t give a shit. But as more and more Republicans abandon him, it looks like a poor move politically, whatever else you think about him or what he says.

      1. He did. He also said antifa are bad people.

        THAT is why people are pissy.

        He didn’t SINGLE OUT one horrible group. He identified that both sides suck. It’s like the Iran-Iraq War: Why couldn’t they just kill each other completely?

        1. Did he? OK. I’ve been avoiding news a lot lately.

        2. He identified that both sides suck

          At that particular rally only one side actually killed someone. I have no love for antifa but Trump was responding to that particular event and in that case there wasn’t an equal amount of “suck”.

          1. Trump equivocated like he was Robby Soave.

            1. Tiki torch burn!

            2. Now I’m mad I didn’t think of that. And it’s been weeks.

            3. To be sure, Robby does equivocate. But on the other hand, he does have great hair.

    2. Which would imply to me that it is not unthinkable that there were “others” protesting in C’ville (what Trump called ‘decent people).

      The tiki torch, chanting folks are not decent people – it’s really not that difficult. The protest had nothing to actually do with the monument once they started that chanting shit.

      1. As far as I could tell, the monument was simply the venue. The Saturday event was “Unite the Right,” and whatever was going on Friday night seemed to start off with whiteboy whining. The idea that this was just another protest about keeping monuments looked like a retroactive excuse to me.

        1. “The idea that this was just another protest about keeping monuments looked like a retroactive excuse to me.”

          My understanding is that the statue was the basis for the protest permit. It may be an excuse, but not ‘retroactive’

          1. The white supremacists who organized the rally were intentionally using the statues as a wedge in an attempt to gain sympathy (or at least less antipathy) from more main-stream people who want the statues to stay. They were thrilled that antifa was there because it helps fuel the narrative that there are only two sides to these conflicts, and they know people on the right won’t side with antifa.

            Sadly, it’s a strategy that seems to be working.

            1. “The white supremacists who organized the rally were intentionally using the statues as a wedge in an attempt to gain sympathy (or at least less antipathy) from more main-stream people who want the statues to stay. ”

              That’s why I think there was a mixed plate in C-ville to support the statue. I’m sure the non-Nazi confederate memorabilia supporters were virtually invisible compared to the Nazis, and probably got more invisible when violence broke out.

              I wasn’t there, and the reporting on the ‘event’ has been pretty shitty. I haven’t heard any commenter here claim to have been there, so there is a lot of speculating, me included.

              1. They used the statue as a venue and a pretext, but they also were not subtle or hidden about the broader white nationalist motive for the march, either in the marketing or marching. And from the people that have been identified from among the marchers, virtually none of them were even from Virginia. I think everything points to regular people who didn’t want the statue removed realizing this was a Nazi march and staying away. And if hypothetically there were a few people who showed up genuinely unaware of the white nationalist organizers and marketing, if they decided to stay and march with those people, I have no sympathy for them. You’re not being unfairly portrayed if you marched with those people. It was blatantly obvious they weren’t just a generic anti-statue removal group. Even under the most charitable interpretation, Trump’s comment about “very fine people” on both sides is a massive false equivalence. And a less charitable interpretation renders it completely false.

                1. Do you really think Trump knew or believed that the whole deal was 100% Nazis, and still would claim some of them were “very fine people”?

                  Isn’t it more likely, especially in those first hours, that he thought there was a legit statue protest with a mixed bag of participants?

                  1. Isn’t it more likely, especially in those first hours, that he thought there was a legit statue protest with a mixed bag of participants?

                    Not really, given what had been reported about the march on the UVA campus the night before and the reports about the Saturday rally up to that point, along with all the readily available promotional material about the rally and who was invited. Our tax dollars go to pay people in Trump’s administration whose job it is to know these things.

                    If Trump was still ignorant after all of that, that’s on him and his advisers, and he has to own it.

                    Trump is not a good president. He is no friend to liberty. He appointed some decent deregulators but it remains to be seen if that pays long term dividends, or if the stink of Trumpism ends up further sullying deregulation in the minds of the common voter. Either way, it doesn’t seem to be a part of Trump’s core ethos, to the extent that he even has one. There is no good reason to try and take Trump’s actions in the most charitable possible light. Treating him with kid gloves because one doesn’t like his opposition is to give in to the false choice that it’s one or the other. And we need a third, or fourth, or fifth option pretty badly right now.

                  2. He made his comments about “very fine people” on Tuesday.

            2. They were thrilled that antifa was there because it helps fuel the narrative that there are only two sides to these conflicts

              Making it out as if there is two sides and that one must be on one side or the other has been a big problem in the commentary on all of this. There were racists there looking for a fight and atifa types looking for a fight. And I’m happy to condemn both of those groups. But there were also a lot of people there who just wanted to peacefully protest the Nazis and other bigots.

              1. Making it out as if there is two sides and that one must be on one side or the other

                CHOOSE A SIDE!

          2. Nonetheless, they specifically advertised and marketed the march as being about white nationalism, white identity, etc. The speakers and organizers were all well-known white nationalists. Even if somebody hypothetically showed up thinking it was just a generic statue rally, it should have been clear within 2 seconds that it was a white supremacist march. If you stayed and marched with people carrying Nazi flags and similar symbols while chanting racist and anti-Semitic things, then you are not a “very fine” person to use Trump’s words.

            1. Note to self. Next time Nazis march, run home and hide. To be in the vicinity of them is to be them.

              1. Or you can do what other people did, and speak out against the Nazis.

              2. If you’re marching with them at a march they organized while they’re carrying Nazi flags, chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans, etc. don’t be surprised if people think you’re one of them.

      2. The tiki torch, chanting folks are not decent people –

        Yes–and they were condemned on day one. Day One.

        The only reason there’s any issue at all is that, unlike standard operating procedure, the leftists who were engaging in violence were not given their usual pass.

        Normally, the speech is supposed to ignore or pre-emptively forgive the leftist violence or blame it on ‘agitators’–the violence must NEVER be directly associated with the names of the groups committing it.

        Gods above, when a BLM ‘supporter’ shot 17 people in Dallas, killing 5, the media twisted itself into non-Euclidean geometries to create a distinction between ‘member’ and ‘supporter’–and it WORKED!

        1. Yes–and they were condemned on day one. Day One

          Right. See, this is easy. If Trump had said “all the tiki torch wielding idiots are horrible,” and then said any and all violence is wrong, then he wouldn’t like like a racist-sympathizing buffoon.

        2. Trump said at the Tuesday press conference that there were “very fine” people marching on both sides. That’s a load of horse crap. There were some bad people on the counter-protester side, but there were not good people marching with the Nazis. That’s a false equivalence. And only one side actually killed somebody there, which is the reason it became such a prominent national story.

          Trump was the first person to call Obama’s condemnations of Islamist terror attacks as insufficient because they didn’t explicitly call them radical Islamic terror. Why shouldn’t he be held to the same standard when white supremacists (who identify as supporters of him) commit attacks? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

          1. There were people protesting the removal of the statue who were not neo-nazis or KKK or white nationalists/separatists/supremacists.

            There were A LOT of bad people on the counter protesters side. There were a few good people who were there because they wanted monuments to the confederacy taken down.

            There were A LOT of bad people at the Unite the Right rally. There were a few good people who were there because they wanted the Lee statue to remain up.

            No ‘side’ killed anyone. One person, in a car, committed an attack that resulted in a death.

            Trump was NOT the first person to call out Obama’s refusal to use terms like ‘radical Islamic terrorism’. That was a bandwagon he got on after there were countless articles and TV shows and youtube videos denouncing it.

            Trump denounced hatred and bigotry and violence on ALL sides initially–before we knew exactly what had occurred and who had done what.

            Those are the facts

            1. Where were the good people protesting the removal of the statue then? Please provide me with examples. I haven’t seen anyone do this. This was not a generic statue removal rally that Nazis happened to show up to. It was an explicitly white nationalist march organized by known white nationalists. Even if there were people that showed up under the mistaken impression that it was a generic statue removal rally, it was blatantly obvious this was not the case once they actually showed up. If you marched with the Nazis after that, you’re not a good person.

              You’re massively overestimating the importance of the statue in this whole thing to both the UTR people and the counter-protesters. The statue was a venue, the main point of the UTR was to promote white nationalism, and most of the counter-protesters showed up to oppose them, not the statue specifically. You’re creating a massive false equivalence here.

              If you want to play semantic games, fine. The car attack was the biggest story of the day and it was committed by a person on one side. Islamic terror attacks aren’t committed by every Islamic extremist, but that’s no reason to not condemn the ideology.

              I didn’t mean Trump was literally the first person to say that, I mean that he had a habit of promptly criticizing Obama’s reactions for that reason. Trump’s muddling false equivalence would have been roundly condemned by him if it came from Obama in response to an Islamic or left-wing attack.

      3. On that particular weekend the rallies were entirely organized by neo-Nazis, and that wasn’t a secret. So, yeah, anyone who still went on the side of the neo-Nazis doesn’t get to claim that they were decent people.

      4. “The tiki torch, chanting folks are not decent people ”

        You’re certain that every person in C-ville who supported keeping the statue was carrying a tiki torch and was a neo-nazi?

        1. This wasn’t a protest by every person in Charlottesville who supports keeping the statue that then got co-opted by neo-Nazis. It was a neo-Nazi rally around the issue of the statues. The people who showed up for that were not decent people.

          1. You seem so certain that nobody was in Charlottesville that day to just protest the statue removal. I guess I’ll just believe you.

            1. I lived in Charlottesvile for many years, still live very nearby, and know people who were there counter-protesting (and are not antifa, they are just regular left-leaning people). Per their reports, the pro-statue crowd at this particular rally were all neo-Nazis. I’m not going to claim that there were literally zero non-Nazi pro-statue people at the rally, but I’m certain nobody who showed up to just protest the statue removal can claim ignorance about the agenda of the neo-Nazis who organized the rally when they were very openly being neo-Nazis. If they still stuck around, then they made a bad decision.

              1. So your leftist buddies say so so that’s it then? A bunch of liars(leftism is little more than the deliberate spreading of lies intended to generate strife that can be exploited to get the proles all riled up) lie and we should all just accept it?

                Suuuuure.

                1. This is an excellent example of collectivist mentality – reduce someone you don’t know to a liar based only on their politics. And that collectivist mentality is so easy to manipulate.

                  I’ll go ahead trusting people I know personally.

                  1. I explained that leftism is lies.

                    People who spread lies are called liars.

                    People who paint houses are called painters.

                    It is not ‘collectivizing’ to note that.

    3. Leftists have wanted the Confederate statues and flags taken down for decades. They never had a convincing argument in the past, but they seized on murders by a couple of right wing whackos as an opportunity to get back to it.

  18. “I am an Antifa” – Kat Timpf

    Busted.

    1. (I’m working on my Nancy MacLean impression)

      1. You forgot to add the ‘…’

  19. So, when Trump puts out the libertarian line vis a vis antifa and neo-nazis/KKK it suddenly stops being libertarian because Trump?

    I mean idiots fighting idiots, national socialists killing international socialists, bad guys fighting bad guys, no one to support here–all of this is libertarian cant that has been said over and over long before Charlottesville–but now it’s wrong because Trump said it?

    And the whole march started as a ‘don’t tear down statues’ thing–it was hijacked by Spencer and his retards. A LOT of people backed out. But some still came who weren’t neo-nazis of klansmen. And you’re whining because they haven’t come forward? Because they haven’t opened themselves up to punitive doxxing from the left?

    Damn. Have you all gotten stupid.

    Trump initially decried the bigotry, hatred and violence on all sides–the PERFECT libertarian response.

    He was then forced to specify a single side–to excuse the people who’d initially violated the NAP–this is the stance reason appears to be holding to..

    And then he rejected that stance and refused to accept the leftist demands that leftist violence be overlooked and returned to his initial stance which just happens to be identical to everything reason was saying….until Trump said it.

    1. and to add to what you said any decent person who was there to protest the statue removal is not at this time or ever going to come forward to prove to anyone else that there were good people there because the good people would be publicly trashed and threatend and accused of being a Nazi and maybe even lose there job. All good reason to keep quiet in this new McCarthyism

    2. The march did not get hijacked. It was specifically organized by Spencer and his ilk as a white nationalist march. At no point was it a generic statue rally. And again, even if someone showed up mistakenly believing it was, any decent person would have left once it was immediately clear it was a neo-Nazi march. If you stayed for that, you are not a good person.

      1. “And again, even if someone showed up mistakenly believing it was, any decent person would have left once it was immediately clear it was a neo-Nazi march.”

        Fuck off. Nobody has to go running home just because some Nazis are marching through town.

        1. Why do you keep bringing up this non sequitir about people having to go running home? I’m not saying everyone in the vicinity of a Nazi march should run away, I’m saying that if you show to a rally not expecting it to be a Nazi march, and it turns out it is a Nazi march, you should either speak out against the Nazis, do something else while you’re out, or go home. You don’t march with them. If you do the last option listed here, nobody is being unfair if they judge you for that.

          1. And why do you keep insisting that everybody there was marching with Nazis? I gather that you just don’t know.

          2. You keep painting this scene of hundreds of Nazis marching in precision and isolation. They had congregated at the permitted park. At one point, the park was closed and all the protesters were forced out to mingle with the general population. Literally thousands of people of every stripe.

            THEN, the violence went down. And lots of people got involved in the violence, either actively or unwittingly.

            I doubt it is clean cut like you are pretending. Were you there?

            1. No one is saying literally everyone in the vicinity was a Nazi, if that was the case then all the counter-protesters were Nazis. We are talking about the people who were part of the UTR rally, how is this not clear?

              1. Which means a lot of people of every stripe could have gotten caught up in that violence, including people who wished to protect the historical statues but were not part of a Nazi movement.

                That is not a far-fetched assumption to make.

                As I stated elsewhere, there was no violence the previous day, nor on Saturday until the Police forced the confrontation.

                And once the violence started, it spread over a fairly wide area many people got caught up in it, not necessarily intentionally, but also intentionally by actors on both sides.

                All of that is reasonable, while still knowing that Nazis are dickheads.

          3. The Oath Keepers aren’t Nazis.

            The Promise Keepers aren’t Nazis.

            Both were providing security.

            Why MUST one speak out against Nazis? If the fucking Nazis are among the people screaming for the First Amendment, for the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, why do I have to abandon MY defense of those rights?

            Why aren’t you asking yourself why anyone would stand with the mob that wants to deny those rights to people? Why would anyone who calls themselves libertarian EVER stand with people whose only point is to shut people up for having opinions and thinking thoughts that they don’t like–and don’t jump on the Nazi train–antifa and their evil cohorts got lucky with some neo-nazis showing up. Normally they’ll try to silence–with force if necessary–someone who thinks feminism.s getting out of hand, someone who doesn’t think man is causing runaway global warming, someone who wants free markets, someone who thinks that silencing your opponents with bricks is wrong, someone who thinks that a muslim gunning down a club full of people just because they’re gay is wrong…….

            con’t

            1. I can go on and on about the ideas that will get antifa and the left baying at your heels, smashing and burning and hurting.

              The neo-nazis may make us look bad because they have horrible beliefs. But they have the right to those beliefs, and the right to speak them. That’s liberty.

              What antifa and the left want isn’t.

              We can handle a few thousand pseudo-Nazis and the dregs of the KKK They’re still a joke.

              The communist horde that came to attack them isn’t.

            2. Were the Oath Keepers there to provide security, or to march in support of the UTR rally and its message? If the former, I wouldn’t say they were on “that side” any more than the cops were. If it’s the latter, I stand by my previous assertion.

              I didn’t say someone must speak out against Nazis, I said that’s an option if you don’t want to leave. A much better one than marching with the Nazis. Nothing about the First Amendment requires you to march with the Nazis in support of their message. I also never said you have to abandon your support of First Amendment rights, speaking out against Nazis is an exercise of the First Amendment and is not an infringement of their rights.

              The Nazis were not peacefully protesting, you’re making it out like it was just antifa who attacked prior to the car attack. There’s videos of the UTR marchers attacking non-violent counter-protesters, beating a defenseless black guy on the ground, and trying to push through a line of cops with shields.

            3. Your problem is that you’re making it out like there’s two sides here, when there’s actually three. You have:

              1. The UTR rally
              2. Antifa people who came to fight them
              3. Normal people who showed up to peacefully counter protest UTR.

              Before you ask, the reason there isn’t a

              4. Normal people protesting the statue removal

              Is because there was never a normal anti-removal protest scheduled for that weekend. The UTR rally from the get-go was a Neo-Nazi rally, as was blatantly obvious to anyone who looked at the organizers, the marketing, or the marchers themselves. Normal people who didn’t want the statue removed did not go to that rally. Why do you think virtually everyone identified as being a UTR marcher isn’t even from Virginia? Because UTR was always about a lot more than just not wanting a statue in Charlottesville, VA removed.

              1. “Normal people who didn’t want the statue removed did not go to that rally.”

                That’s convincing data.
                You are really hung up on the “rally”. The violence didn’t go down at the rally.
                The violence started when the rally was cancelled and the Nazis were forced out.
                If there were “normal” counter-protestors in the vicinity, there could be “normal” statue people.
                You have no idea who was in the area.
                I also have no idea.

                Who was permitted to gather in that Park and were then forced out of that Park without protection?
                That doesn’t bother you, that the violence was easily preventable by the Police following basic safety procedures?
                It almost seems like the Police instigated the clash.

                We are in agreement, Nazis are horrible.

                I do not believe Trump is racist or sympathetic to Nazis.
                I do believe that Trump thinks the issue of confederate vs. anti-confederate is part of what is going on here.
                I do believe he has a sense of the 1A in this case.
                I do believe he is aware of the Antifa types and assumes there were violent agitators on both sides.
                I also believe Trump is 50% egotistical moron, and 50% clever guy.
                Lastly, Trump has got nothing to do with C-ville. If you want to convict him for being stupid and saying stupid things, go for it.
                I am far more troubled by the fragility of Law and Order and the actions of the governor, Mayor, and police, not to mention Antifa troubles me far more than the occasional marching Nazi.

              2. Your problem is that you’re making it out like you know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, who exactly was there and what all their motivations were.

                But you don’t.

                You’ve fixated on ‘nazi’ and refuse to see anything else.

                It is evident in the hours of video we have of this event, and the subsequent attack, that there were people at the UTR rally that weren’t Nazis.

                But you just go on ‘knowing’

  20. I being a decent person who voted for Trump, have mixed feeling about statue removal. I’d be okay with it if people were just tired of them but not okay when it to eliminate and rewrite history which is what they are doing. I however feel the present reason for removing the statues is wrong but would not protest that while standing aside with NAZI’s. Good people might have a rally but not with NAZIs and completely separate. All that said Trumps first comment were correct that both sides were violent in Charlotte but unfortunately to appease people with out looking like back tracking has fucked it all up.

  21. This isn’t up for debate whether this was a white supremacist rally or not.

    The Narrative never is up for debate. Or even discussion.

    Point. Shriek “Racist!”. Everyone you’re pointing at is a racist. A Nazi. A white supremacist. Because Narrative.

    If there were any, you know, actual news organizations out there, there would be an article detailing the organizers and attendees, and their political views, as best as could be determined.

    Of course, with the government shutting down the rally, and standing down police protection from attacks from rioters, it’s probably quite difficult to get a reading on just what the mass of people there might have thought.

    You’d think that maybe *that* would be the story with “libertarians”, that a political rally was shut down by government, which then forced the rally attendees through a rioting mob while removing police protection from them.

    Free speech. Rule of law. Political violence. Sounds like a libertarian angle in there somewhere.

    But no. The story is “Everyone I disagree with is Hitler”.

    1. If you literally carry the Nazi flag, that makes you a Nazi.

      My my, the moments we choose to be nuanced in our judgments of groups of people.

      1. What if you’re carrying it to be cleaned because you work at a dry cleaners.

        Oh right, you probably do think that makes you a Nazi

      2. So US troops who carried the Nazi flag to put it in a pile to burn are Nazis?

        So, re-enactors and actors who carry the Nazi flag to Simulate a WWII event to be put to video are Nazis?

      3. “If you literally carry the Nazi flag, that makes you a Nazi.”

        The argument I am seeing in this thread is that those not carrying Nazi flags are also Nazis. If you don’t want to be branded with a scarlet “N”, you better get gone, and quick.

    2. There is a wealth of evidence available indicating that the march was never a generic statue rally. Hell, take the line you’re complaining about – right before it, there are literally two references (Richard Spencer and the line about Jewish influence) to clear indicators of it being a white supremacist march.

      1. You’re saying you know the motives of every person in C-ville that day. Seems a stretch.

        1. Let’s assume for a second that there hypothetically were a couple people who showed up who aren’t white supremacists or sympathizers. Does that change whether or not the rally was a white supremacist rally? If a rally is organized by white supremacists, marketed as such, and the vast majority, if not literally everyone, who showed up for it are white supremacists, is that not more than enough to declare it a white supremacist rally?

          To respond to your comment directly – I’m not claiming to know the motives of every person in C-ville. I’m making factual statements about who organized the march and how it was marketed. It’s also a fact that many marchers were wearing or carrying common white nationalist flags, signs, and symbols. It’s also a fact that the rally crowd chanted racist and anti-Semitic things.

          From there, I am concluding it’s a white supremacist march and that the people who marched in it are white supremacists. That is a completely logically sound conclusion. Even if we take the hypothetical someone who showed up unaware of the organizers or marketing and thought it was just a generic statue rally, if they stayed and marched with those people – when it should have been abundantly clear to anyone who isn’t braindead that they were hardcore white supremacists – I’m going to assume that they too are white supremacists. Is that really an unfair assumption to make?

          1. Yes, very unfair. You make a ton of assumptions. You weren’t there.

            But the crux of this whole discussion is supposed to be Trump.

            What is being suggested here is that Trump believed or knew that 100% of the protesters were Nazis, but still made a statement that there were some non-Nazis there (the supposed ‘decent people’).

            Isn’t it far more likely that Trump believes/believed that there was a mixed bag on the protester side? And a mixed bag on the counter protester side?

            I think it likely and I despise Nazis with every fiber.

            I see three issues outside of Trump:
            1. Free speech – should be protected for all including the permitted protesters.
            2. Violence – who initiated it? Was violence used to stifle free speech?
            3. The agents of law and order- Were they negligent? Did they cause the violent clash?

            All three issues have been horribly covered by the news media and overwhelmed by “TRUMP!”

            In my opinion, Trump is practically insignificant regarding this violent event.

            1. How on Earth is that unfair? Let’s set aside Trump for the moment. Please explain to me how it is unfair to assume someone willingly marching with people who are clearly Nazis (and/or other brands of hardcore white supremacists), at a march organized by Nazis and other hardcore white supremacists and marketed as such, is a white supremacist? It takes some impressive mental gymnastics or absurdly improbable hypotheticals to claim otherwise. Even if I was very overly charitable and thought that they might not be, at the very least they are ok with marching with those people. And that by itself is a perfectly valid reason to judge someone and conclude they aren’t a very fine person.

              Trump made his “very fine people” comments on Tuesday. He claimed he had waited till he knew the facts. If he sincerely believed that he’s either delusional or so stupid and/or misinformed that the criticism is deserved regardless.

              1. Because you are painting a picture of marching Nazis and their hangers-on as if you know that is the whole story. You weren’t there.

                I’ve seen video of the protesters who had gathered at the permitted park. They were forced out by the police. They had no desire to go out at collide with the counter-protesters.

                There was no violence until the police forced all parties into close proximity.

                After that, I don’t know what happened and neither do you. But it involved hundreds of citizens, probably from across the spectrum.
                But what the police did was criminal.

                1. I don’t have to be there to know it was a neo-Nazi rally and to judge people that march with neo-Nazis.

                  Even if they didn’t want to collide with the counter-protesters, I can still judge them for their abhorrent beliefs. And I also don’t believe that for a second, given the video footage of them attacking non-violent crowds, a group of them beating a defenseless black guy on the ground, and one of them mowing people downs with a Car of Peace.

                  I do agree that the police were completely incompetent and do deserve a lot of blame for letting the situation get out of control.

  22. violently, anally rape me with lightsabers that weren’t jokes, that were clearly very serious, violent sexual fantasies. Men just don’t have to put up with that.

    Except, you know, those guys in ‘rape me in the ass’ prison. They have to actually put up with it. Also, apparently, there are a large number (in absolute numbers) of men in the military who get/got sexually harassed. I understand that there are hazing rituals associated with college fraternal organization and virtually every scholastic and extra-mural program in the country where some form of sexual harassment isn’t unheard of. And while I haven’t conducted an exhaustive survey about the proportion of men vs. women who’ve been physically punched or kicked in the genitals purely for entertainment purposes, I get the feeling the numbers are lopsided.

    In any event, I’m sure men never have to put up with being told to shove things up, pull things out of, or generally blow things out of their ass *especially* on the internet.

    1. If you are a guy who participated in male activities like the US Military, you were either teased or did the teasing.

      You need a thick skin in the military in case something horrible happens. Like you have to close a hatch on fellow sailors because the captain allows a huge civilian ship to punch a hole in you ship and its flooding with seawater.

      1. “If you are a guy who participated in male activities like the US Military, you were either teased or did the teasing”

        Ewwww. DADT please.

  23. Kay Timpf soaking wet. What, um, color was her blouse? I’m asking for science.

  24. Kay Timpf soaking wet.

    Well, you guys know where I’ll be.

    1. May the Force be with you.

  25. Are those glasses a millenial thing? I see them on models but otherwise I never see them outside of hornpub.

    I don’t work with 28 year olds.

  26. Here at Infowars, research and surveys both confirm that 63% of Reason’s commentariat contributed to the hate and rape insults that Kat suffered. But she knows none of that 63% is libertarian. They follow me, Breitbart, WND. Stormfront and Jeanine and Carlson at Fox, and our spiritual mentor, Ron Paul..

    The white race is back. And we now take shit from nobody. Heather Heyer was just the first.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.