A.M. Links: Majority of Americans Say Trump's First Year Was a Failure, John Kelly Says Trump May Not Have Been 'Fully Informed' on Border Wall, India Test-Fires Nuclear-Capable ICBM

|

  • Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

    New poll: 53 percent of Americans consider President Donald Trump's first year in office to have been a failure.

  • In an interview with Fox News, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly conceded that presidential candidate Donald Trump may not have been "fully informed" when he vowed to build a border wall. Candidates "all say things during the course of campaigns that may or may not be fully informed," Kelly said.
  • The Trump administration is barring Haitians from receiving H2-A and H2-B immigration visas, which are granted to low-skill workers.
  • "House Republican leaders are moving toward a vote Thursday to avoid a shutdown, but as a new day dawns in Washington, it's still unclear if GOP leaders have enough support to keep the government open."
  • India has test-fired a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile.
  • Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: The U.S. "will maintain a military presence in Syria."

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Photographing Someone Being Arrested Doesn't Count as "Stalking"

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. House Republican leaders are moving toward a vote Thursday to avoid a shutdown…

    SHUT IT DOWN!

    1. SHUT IT DOWN!

      SHUT IT DOWN!

      SHUT IT DOWN!

      If they do, how can they

      LOCK HER UP?

      LOCK HER UP?

      LOCK HER UP?

      1. LOCK HER UP THEN SHUT IT DOWN.

    2. Hello.

      Polls.

      Cute.

  2. 53 percent of Americans consider President Donald Trump’s first year in office to have been a failure.

    So, 47% think otherwise?

    1. I can’t be sure, but I’m pretty sure that’s right.

      1. Well, there is also a large “don’t care” contingent.

        1. No, but there is a small one

    2. Hillary is definitely guaranteed to win.

    3. What are the criteria for success? The answers to the question of whether it was a failure don’t mean much if you don’t have that.

      1. I was expecting to get laid this year. So Trump was objectively a failure.

    4. Nah. Probably in the forties, but there’s always at least a few percent of “don’t know/refused to answer”.

  3. …it’s still unclear if GOP leaders have enough support to keep the government open.

    The other side of that equation does nothing but benefit from a shutdown.

  4. India has test-fired a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile.

    Pakistan is the same continent, dummies.

    1. Geologically speaking, not really.

        1. Hmmm, I guess you are right.

          1. Don’t worry, you don’t seem like your credible enough for anyone to care that you fucked up

    2. Remember weapons aren’t always built to be used, they are also built to be sold.

  5. Candidates “all say things during the course of campaigns that may or may not be fully informed,” Kelly said.

    What does that say about those who vote for them based on those promises?

    1. That is elementary my dear FOE: They may or may not have been fully informed.

  6. New poll: 53 percent of Americans consider President Donald Trump’s first year in office to have been a failure.

    I’m surprised the number is that low. I’m not too worried though ? it will certainly get higher as people realize the Internet doesn’t work the way it used to because of Net Neutrality reversal, and the already bad economy gets even worse because of the #GOPTaxScam.

    1. #BlueWave2018

    2. something something poe’s law something something

  7. The Trump administration is barring Haitians from receiving H2-A and H2-B immigration visas, which are granted to low-skill workers.

    So our holes will remain full of shit unless some robot is created to do that job???

    1. Did he also ban the Polish?

  8. The U.S. “will maintain a military presence in Syria.”

    Name a place not vital to United States security.

    1. Tony’s mother’s basement?

    2. Apparently the Southern US boarder. Where arguably we are being invaded from Mexico.

  9. So there was a Ron Paul article last night. Guess who showed up, blew up the thread, and kept linking to his own comment in the same thread over and over.

    1. Hitler?

      1. Possibly not but I bet it starts with an ‘H’ too.

        1. Hitler?

          GUESS AGAIN! Hitler was even worse than Ron Paul. (AND celebrated AGGRESSION)

          Possibly not but I bet it starts with an ‘H’ too.

          OMFG!!!

          Hitler is ALMOST CERTAINLY DEAD, moron! But you’re not. CONCLUSIVE PROOF!!!

    2. Another poster that can’t figure out how to use html tags?

      1. :p

        I use em just fine on other sites. Reason’s comments just fuck em up.

    3. I read that. Someone at Reason should probably call the FBI, just in case.

  10. The Trump administration is barring Haitians from receiving H2-A and H2-B immigration visas, which are granted to low-skill workers.

    Least racist president ever! /sarc

    1. Haitian is its own race now?

      1. No, and Haitians are not all one race, either. But don’t let that stop the race-card crowd.

        1. 95% of them are the race that Trump was previously convicted of discriminating against.

          1. 95% of them are the race that Trump was previously convicted of discriminating against.

            Sorry, but the Court of Public Opinion does not count. Thanks for playing and please try again.

          2. Gosh, that’s iron-clad proof of… something.

          3. 95% of them are the race

            You know it’s possible to be a dick and not be a racist?

            1. $park? knows. If you want proof he is a dick, just try typing his name correctly.

            1. Well as long as he got a voucher from the Emperor of the Blacks, he can’t possibly be a bad guy.

              1. Hahhahaha this is fantastic.

            2. Yes, if a black person thanks you for helping black people, you can never again say or do anything racist ever again. That’s how it works.

              1. It’s as valid as any of the stupid arguments being used.

              2. I don’t see why not…it’s been made abundantly clear that ever disagreeing with or disparaging anyone who is black is proof that you’re a racist.

                Skin color is all that matters. Justice!

  11. it’s still unclear if GOP leaders have enough support to keep the government open

    Has MacAdoodle starting hysterically wailing like the little bitch he is yet?

  12. It would be hilarious during any shutdown if Trump somehow left open the national parks and stopped any other of the tactics a party benefiting from a shutdown uses to show the public how terrible the other party is for causing all the unnecessary grief.

    1. Only way to do that is to declare those things “essential services”. I’m sure there’s no way that precedent could ever come back to haunt the Republicans.

      1. Really? that’s the “only way”?

        You heard that on a shitty Prog news show once and have declared yourself an expert.

    2. Nor the precedent that the President can spend money on those things without approval from Congress.

      1. still an expert

    3. Or Trump could claim he reduced the budget by the shut down

      1. Because of the extra work *after* a shutdown, they never save money.

  13. 53 percent of Americans consider President Donald Trump’s first year in office to have been a failure.

    The number would have been higher but Russia hacked the poll

  14. “White House Chief of Staff John Kelly conceded that presidential candidate Donald Trump may not have been “fully informed” when he vowed to build a border wall. Candidates “all say things during the course of campaigns that may or may not be fully informed,” Kelly said.

    Eureka!

    Someone just discovered Machiavelli.

    Trump sure seems to have done his darndest to build a wall. I doubt anyone who voted for him because of that issue is disappointed in Trump, personally, for selling them or that issue short. He tried, he’s trying, and it ain’t over yet. When you see Trump sign “dreamer” legislation sans any mention of a wall, then you’ll know he caved on his promises. Whether he cave on his promise to build a wall is, of course, a completely different question.

    I maintain that average Americans’ support for Mexicans being free to come across the border by merely swiping an ID is contingent on the government being able to screen out convicted felons, wanted criminals, etc.–and keep them out, which is to say, two things: 1) We’ll probably never get legal, constitutional, open immigration across our southern border until we devise a means of securing it and 2) Persuading average Americans that securing our border is impossible undermines the cause of open, legal immigration.

    1. “Whether he [should] cave on his promise to build a wall is, of course, a completely different question.”

      Fixed!

      P.S. Persuading average Americans that background checks don’t work doesn’t make them want to get rid of gun control laws either. Persuade them that background checks don’t work, and they’ll support more gun control for everybody. It all works the same way.

    2. We figured out how to stop illegal immigration back in the 80’s. You cut off the financial spigot. That’s why you have to produce a pile of official documents in order to get a job. They cut a deal to allow existing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship in exchange for tough enforcement of employment laws that would keep any new immigrants from getting work.

      That such enforcement hasn’t materialized 30 years into the program shouldn’t dissuade you from having faith in the government. They aren’t playing it both ways so that they can have cheap immigrant labor without officially undermining blue collar voters while simultaneously keeping the issue alive so that they can place race-baiting games to garner more votes. Really, they aren’t.

      1. Next time just accurately report what he says, without unnecessary spin. If needed, juxtapose with an in-depth story on the topic that puts it in proper context without resorting to standing up three Democrat operatives to tell us that Trump is Evil.

        Do that and people might actually listen.

        The ethical rules for the fourth estate evolved for a reason. They were as much to protect the papers from the excesses and inevitable fall that comes from being a partisan tabloid as they were to protect those being reported about. Tossing them over the side because “everything is politics” is just stupid. It was dumb when everyone pretended that Obama was a profound intellectual of unparalleled capacity and unequaled moral authority, and it is even dumber now.

        They don’t need to fake a controversy to bring Trump down. Just report what he does honestly and he’ll shoot his own nuts off for you.

        1. Take a load if Cyto calling for massive expansion of the federal government.

          1. I haz confuse? What expansion am I calling for?

            1. If you are not calling for tough enforcement of immigration and employment laws, I apologize. But your comment certainly reads that way to me.

              1. Sorry, I thought this bit of sarcasm was the dead giveaway:

                They aren’t playing it both ways so that they can have cheap immigrant labor without officially undermining blue collar voters while simultaneously keeping the issue alive so that they can place race-baiting games to garner more votes. Really, they aren’t.

                Remember the controversies of sanctuaries and the responses in places like Alabama that resulted in open assurances that enforcement wouldn’t touch industries like agriculture that are dependent on illegal immigrants? That version of a wall is way more effective than any fence could ever be, and they intentionally leave the door open because certain businesses can’t operate without the labor.

                If you want my personal answer and don’t want a knee-jerk open borders response that is never going to happen, a guest worker program like GWB proposed might do the trick. Greatly expanded full-citizenship immigration for skilled and educated workers would also be a wonderful thing. I have sponsored a couple of H1B workers that came here for college and wanted to stay… wonderful people who have turned out to be a huge boon to the nation. Both have families here and are upper-middle class taxpayers. One has a husband who is also an immigrant and entrepreneur with a couple of businesses… they might actually have graduated out of the upper middle class.

                Whatever the answer, prohibition never works when there is a market demand.

                1. I also thought I was smart enough to hit preview so I wouldn’t accidentally leave a markup tag unclosed.

              2. “But your comment certainly reads that way to me”

                you’ve been told before you were an idiot, No?

                Next time listen.

      2. “We figured out how to stop illegal immigration back in the 80’s. You cut off the financial spigot.

        This is the argument for the drug war.

        If only we started cracking down and imprisoning working moms for hiring illegal immigrants to watch their kids and clean their homes, then we could finally put this issue to rest!

        Um . . . no.

        As long as there are people who want to hire cheap labor, they’ll continue to hire it. Legalize it. Don’t criticize it.

        1. Exactly.

          My point was that they never had any intention of doing that version either. So people like us have to schlep all sorts of documents and do extra record-keeping about immigration if we want to hire someone. But a big bell pepper farm openly hires 150 seasonal workers to help with the harvest and there isn’t a single person around who doesn’t know that they are all illegal. But the harvest ain’t coming in without them, so nobody from ICE ever heads over there.

          The same will be true as we ramp up security at the border. More pain in the ass for regular citizens of the US and Mexico, but no real change in the number of illegals here (which is mostly dependent on the demand for labor)

          Plus, I have friends in the construction industry that tell me that illegals in the construction industry make competitive wages, far, far above the minimum wage. Because the demand is there and they can just work somewhere else if they don’t get it.

          1. Agreed. Everybody thinks immigration is broken and simultaneously wants to continue the status quo. Which is why I think nothing will change and the national conversation over it is taking way too much attention away from more important issues.

    3. Stupid question – don’t we already have a wall? And in California, of all places? Or did Obama tear it down rather than add to it.

      OK, it’s not complete. So what Trump is really promising is to complete a wall that already exists and nobody is demanding be torn down. What a poopy-head.

      1. And it is so AMAZINGLY effective. I was trying to find someone who spoke Spanish in OC and like, no one. Nothing but the Queen’s English.

        1. I think it’s a collossal waste of money myself in that, yep, it won’t work. Which is exactly the out I bet he will use.

          1. And which would make the original promise a lie.

            1. A promise is only a lie if you can prove he had no intention of following through on it. Words still have meanings, you know.

              1. Well the alternative is Trump’s an idiot who actaully believed he could solve the situation with a wall. Lying is the most charitable option.

          2. I wish it did. The only other measure we have, besides a decisive rejection of this perverse notion that you somehow acquire morally sympathetic standing over time by remaining here illegally, is Everify. And I fucking hate Everify. Reason was right on this one; it’s a “show me your papers” regime that we all are to be subjected to. I don’t want that expansion of Federal activity, even if it wouldn’t be the very worst we’re burdened with.

        2. Several legal U.S. residents have high levels of Spanish proficiency, actually. I don’t know about Orange County specifically, but there may be some in the area.

      2. The choke points for immigration have shifted dramatically in the past as walls were constructed.

        Walls are effective in places like Gaza and Belfast. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

        And it doesn’t need to be a wall. It could be drones + more agents, or whatever. The point is to secure the border so that people have to cross legally–and then make it so anybody who isn’t a threat to our rights can legally cross.

        The problem isn’t that our border is too secure. The problem is that it’s illegal to cross. If you want the American people to support making it legal to cross, then we probably need to secure the border first.

        1. Then say “secure the border so that people have to cross legally”. When Gaza and Belfast become the size of the southern border of the US, then those scenarios are applicable.

          It’s like you saying you have cancer, and my saying”you should solve it with crystals and prayer”. No matter how well meaning, when you call out a specific solution, and that solution is ridiculous on it’s face, you get to get mocked.

  15. Did we already discuss the Trump “fake news” list? Did anyone notice that two of our favorite targets were high on the list?

    Weigel for his “Filled to the Rafters!” tweet claiming nobody showed up for a Trump rally, and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman for his post-election prediction that the economy was about to collapse in response to a Trump presidency and would never recover.

    It was a pretty good list of botched, biased and fake stories. It is just choir-preaching on his part, but I wonder if anyone in the media is going to take a look at how they are doing business and try to return to an old-school professionalism that might restore faith in the institution.

    1. “Old school professionalism” == fellating Trump like Breitbart

      1. I’d settle for “not lying”, but you be you.

        1. 42 percent of Republicans think accurate stories that cast Republicans in a negative light are “always” fake news:

          AMERICAN VIEWS: TRUST, MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

          1. What do you believe this proves? Is this like the time you trotted out the statistic showing that some large number of families living in the American hinterland not having broadband Internet as proof of Comcast being a monopoly?

            1. I don’t believe Rhywun actually would “settle for ‘not lying'”

              1. Because everyone but you is a Republican?

      2. I was thinking more like Cronkite, Woodward or Murrow. You know, having a point of view but burying it under a blanket of ethical rules that made sure that the story was as accurate as possible and leads were followed wherever they went.

        We now live in an era where one of those wind-up chimps with the cymbals can be president and instead of just letting him hang himself with his own actions and informing the public with hard reporting, they doctor up imagined scandals so that he can distract with claims like this:

        CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.

        That’s one that I missed when it happened. But it is perfectly illustrative of the point. Even if the story had been true, what’s the point? Trump dumped out too much koi food! We must impeach!! So instead we actually have a story of the media faking a pointless and biased story to slander the President. Nice work, idiots.

        1. Next time just accurately report what he says, without unnecessary spin. If needed, juxtapose with an in-depth story on the topic that puts it in proper context without resorting to standing up three Democrat operatives to tell us that Trump is Evil.

          Do that and people might actually listen.

          The ethical rules for the fourth estate evolved for a reason. They were as much to protect the papers from the excesses and inevitable fall that comes from being a partisan tabloid as they were to protect those being reported about. Tossing them over the side because “everything is politics” is just stupid. It was dumb when everyone pretended that Obama was a profound intellectual of unparalleled capacity and unequaled moral authority, and it is even dumber now.

          They don’t need to fake a controversy to bring Trump down. Just report what he does honestly and he’ll shoot his own nuts off for you.

        2. I only vaguely remember Cronkite and I can’t vouch for his or his peers’ ethics at all, but I would submit that “fake news” is just as much about what you don’t talk about as what you do.

          1. I don’t know if that’s how “fake news” works, but it certainly is an effective form of propaganda.

        3. Cronkite, Woodward, and Murrow weren’t more accurate than new today. They were just no alternatives so you never found out about it when they were wrong.

      3. There is a lot of territory between the press treating Trump with the sycophancy they treated Obama to and pulling the kitchen sink out of their nether regions to attack him on.

        1. I’d also say the problem is less that they aren’t treating Trump like Obama and more that they weren’t treating Obama like Trump.

    2. Again, Trump is evil. If every second of every day isn’t spent being hypercritical of everything he does, then you fully support and are complicit in evil.

      1. Also, don’t forget, Democrats as a whole care about people!

        1. But only as a whole.

          1. Jesus, how can you both miss the point and step on the joke so many times.

  16. New poll: 53 percent of Americans consider President Donald Trump’s first year in office to have been a failure.

    #FakeNews

    I’d say he was rather successful. Tax cuts, deregulation, reversal of overreaching exec orders. Him playing the media like a fiddle and revealing them to be the hacks they are was (and is) particularly entertaining. Though, I am kinda surprised it’s only 53%, given the wall to wall negative coverage.

    1. Though, I am kinda surprised it’s only 53%, given the wall to wall negative coverage.

      I kinda considered it to be a success in this light. The media has covered every inch of the Russia investigation, drawn parallels between him and Weinstein at every opportunity, and called him out on every ‘shithole’ and ‘knew what he was getting into’ comment and nearly half of Americans approve or don’t care.

      I didn’t even vote for the guy and the repeated trolling and lulz has been well worth the investment.

      1. repeated trolling and lulz has been well worth the investment.

        I did vote for him bc gayjay was awful this time around. Hopefully the libertarian party will pick a candidate worth a damn the next time. That said, I still may vote for DT again, if only for the lulz. But that depends on how the rest of his term goes.

      2. Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the policy seeks to “devalue the humanity of LGBTQ people.”

        Classic tactics. Get an “expert” from some nice-sounding organzation to state something patently outrageous and what else can you do but nod in agreement.

  17. In an interview with Fox News, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly conceded that presidential candidate Donald Trump may not have been “fully informed” when he vowed to build a border wall.

    I guess I should look it up for myself, but I heard that he (Trump) tweeted that he stands by his stated position on the border wall.

    1. I like this quote. I wish we had a society where this sort of response was more common.

      Hoover certainly could have had some career official on his staff issue a similar quote about “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage”, even though that is more of a thematic representation of prosperity rather than an actual policy promise.

  18. In an interview with Fox News, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly conceded that presidential candidate Donald Trump may not have been “fully informed” when he vowed to build a border wall.
    What accent is that? Because that’s a really interesting pronunciation of “lying out of his ass”.

  19. “Old school professionalism” == fellating Trump like Breitbart

    Your opinion does not count. Again thanks for trying and please play again.

  20. In case you’re wondering why it is that “tough on crime” rhetoric sells so well, a good example is this absolutely sickening story of three gang-banging scumbags down in Houston who started off as burglars, and eventually decided that wasn’t exciting enough and graduated to committing cold-blooded murder of a couple for absolutely no reason at all.

    One of these little prizes was already sentenced to 20 years for burglary, but was released after just three years. Good job there criminal justice system! His “rehabilitation” obviously didn’t take too well.

    1. And crime is at/near historic lows. So basing one’s view on crime on one especially appalling outlier incident is an emotional. rather than a logical, basis for policy. At which point you’re just anecdote trading.

      1. Simple Mikey’s just demonstrating that “tough on crime” rhetoric works by buying into the emotionalism of it himself.

      2. And crime is at/near historic lows.

        Not in many one-party cities it isn’t.

        1. You’re killing it today.

        2. Wait, you mean thing are different in different places? When did that start happening? So in many, not all places, something conter to a decades long trend is happening. Let’s cherry pick a common element and that’s clearly the indisputable and global cause.

      3. an emotional. rather than a logical, basis for policy

        No shit? Well that hardly ever happens, like ever.

        1. If only there were a publication that appealed to reason.

          1. Ain’t gonna happen, unless you want to read a textbook.

    2. How is that sad and terrible story in any way a federal issue.

      1. you don’t read good

  21. So that failed dimwit Kelly’s shit-talking Trump? He’ll be hearing from Delicate Donnie’s lawyers over such slanders. Sad!

  22. “House Republican leaders are moving toward a vote Thursday to avoid a shutdown, but as a new day dawns in Washington, it’s still unclear if GOP leaders have enough support to keep the government open.”

    Shut it down. Like forreal this time. And try not to close open air parks and somehow spend more money in a “shutdown” than otherwise would have been spent.

    1. There is no such thing as a “shutdown” anyway; it’s pure theater no matter how it proceeds, and it will always cost more in the end just from processing the back pay all the parasites will get for doing nothing during the “shutdown” not to mention the lost productivity from the few of them that actually do anything useful.

  23. India has test-fired a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile.

    Shithole’s going ballistic.

  24. Does anyone here remember when there were 20 or 30 smart libertarians posting on HnR every day, arguing real libertarian ideas?

    The links are starting to remind me of The Agitator crew after Balko made the leap to HuffPo. A few of us desperate clingers trying to pretend that the party isn’t over.

    Or maybe it is like Slashdot… a handful of old techies still checking in out of habit, even though the buzz left a long, long time ago.

    There were always sock puppets and trolls, but now the only threads with any life are ones where 3 sock puppets sling poo with a troll. That’s not all that entertaining, to be honest.

    1. OK, maybe “20 or 30 smart libertarians” is a bit of rose colored glasses-wearing… but humor me and grant the conceit.

    2. You mean the 20 or 30 conservatives that dabbled in libertarian ideas without being able to shed their conservative roots when those roots came into direct conflict with libertarian principles?

      1. You mean the 20 or 30 conservatives that dabbled in libertarian ideas without being able to shed their conservative roots when those roots came into direct conflict with libertarian principles?

        I’m curious, did they admit to their conservative leanings, just insist that their ideas were libertarian, or invent a new brand of ‘cultural libertarianism’ that was exactly like regular libertarianism except that the government still gets to force people to do things that are OK?

        You know, like the anti-tribalists and anti-collectivists who are certain pure, abject individualism would work if all you people would just play along?

      2. I think we found the sock Tony is using.

    3. I most certainly do. And as everyone knows full well, most of them decided to permanently leave and form their own site for various reasons.

      But the biggest reason of all for most of them was they just couldn’t take Welch and Gillespie’s Obama-loving, Trump deranged, fake libertarian bullshit any longer.

      If it wasn’t for that small handful of sockpuppets posting under multiple screen names, there would be almost no commenting at all here anymore.

      1. If it wasn’t for that small handful of sockpuppets posting under multiple screen names, there would be almost no commenting at all here anymore.

        Don’t give yourself TOO much credit, Simple Mikey.

      2. I feel kinda like the guy in the “Monty Python “argument” sketch.

        “I came here for an argument! This is just contradiction.”

        “No it isn’t!”

        1. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I readily admit I do not come here primarily for deep discussion. There are other boards for that. While a nice discussion is to be had here from time to time, and I truly appreciate those times, this comment section is mostly for shitposting. I come here for humor and entertainment, because it is hard to find a board where people appreciate crass and off-color humor with libertarian themes. And I find such humor very therapeutic and I thank all of you that contribute from the bottom of my heart.

          1. Isn’t crass and off-color humor the only way to discuss libertarian themed ideas?

            1. It’s the only way without going absolutely insane. If you’re a libertarian in the modern world and you don’t have a sense of humor (preferably a pretty warped one), you’re gonna go legit bonkers. Michael Hihn is a cautionary tale, folks.

              1. Michael Hihn is a cautionary tale, folks.

                I can only assume he’s a teetotaler too. I could see lacking a sense of humor and just being a jaded ball of pickled libertarian rage but, sans alcohol (or other), insanity seems inevitable.

          2. Just to be clear, You’re not funny or deep, Tony.

      3. I thought it was more Robby being Robby and the refusal to cover Sloopy’s mom’s shabby treatment by police.

        But don’t let that interfere with your ridiculous and unfounded certainty that everyone you don’t like is an Obama loving leftist.

        1. I think the pass on the Sloopy story was more of a straw that broke the camel’s back thing. It provided enough energy to get two people to move and make a site. Without that, the frogs probably would have kept sitting in the water while complaining that it wasn’t very comfortable. But once the adjacent puddle opened, the frogs jumped into the more comfortable water.

          1. The fact they expected the foundation to get involved in their personal legal disputes just because they comment on its website was hilarious.

            It was also a great of the example of “I’m against big government when it infringes on MY rights specifically” species of phony libertarian.

            1. Yeah–a site that regularly comments on police brutality commenting on police brutality would have been too much–especially with an inside link.

              ass

  25. After Trump’s SCOTUS nom and tax reform, I’m not sure what else he can do if any value, except possibly just being not Hillary in case another SCOTUS croaks.

    Overall, it had some good moments, and it could have been worse.

    But, yeah, I hear he says mean things. Boo hoo.

    1. You spent two weeks wailing and rending your flesh after Obama put his feet on his desk that one time, didn’t you?

  26. In an interview with Fox News, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly conceded that presidential candidate Donald Trump may not have been “fully informed” when he vowed to build a border wall. Candidates “all say things during the course of campaigns that may or may not be fully informed,” Kelly said.

    “Duh DOY,” he added.

  27. Sorta OT:

    I still find it amusing that the MSM immediately assumed non-predominately white countries was the reference with regard to DT’s (maybe…) “shithole” comment. Who’s the racist, the “racist” or the racist?

    1. This ties in to my “they don’t really want to fix illegal immigration” theme.

      Durbin is ostensibly a big proponent for immigration on Team Democrat.

      Yet he calls a press conference to announce that Trump totally disrespected countries with people of color during a negotiating session and he is such a mean and awful racist!

      So did he think this would somehow help immigration reforms get pushed through? Or did he put partisan points-scoring above getting the deal done?

      Or maybe, just maybe…. did he submarine the whole thing like they do every time this comes up so that we can maintain a system where illegal immigrant labor powers certain industries and democrats get to play the race card on immigration every election cycle?

      1. It never really made much sense to me why he said Trump said that stuff. If your goal is to get a good deal, why sabotage the process by releasing comments to the media that Trump probably assumed were said in confidence? Perhaps Durbin really was profoundely insulted by what Trump was saying… but still if your biggest goal is to protect the legal status of the 800,000 DACA people, don’t you swallow your emotions and try and make the deal? If the program is axed over this because both sides don’t trust one anther now, wouldn’t the 800,000 be the biggest losers?

        Dudes are a bunch of snakes. Either Durban is kind of a moron with little emotional self control or he was trying to sabotage the current round of negotiations in the hopes of backing Team Trump into a corner to get DACA protections without wall funding. Not sure which.

        1. The fact that he called a press conference means he put some thought into it. So I’d say it was strategic.

          Whether the thought was “Yeay!!! I get to damage Trump! I’m a hero!!!” or the thought was “This will back Trump into a corner and we’ll get everything we want in this negotiation”, it was pretty ill-conceived.

    2. I thought he was (supposedly) specifically referring to African and Caribbean countries when he supposedly called them shitholes.

      Which is still kind of ridiculous (although he should know better at this point). It was a private discussion and those countries kind of are shitholes to a large extent.

      1. The problem was the included implication that the state of the country is a reflection on individual people as though it were some sort of infectious disease they could bring to the US with them.

        1. Yes, I agree, that implication is stupid and offensive. But we already know that the president says a lot of stupid and offensive stuff. And I don’t think that this latest freakout is helping the cause of immigration reform (or anything).

        2. Is that “bring it with them” a major complaint about open immigration? They’ll bring their eagle-killing, freedom-hating, socialist-loving ideas with them?

          Heck, just talking about interstate migration y’all complain about that.

          1. Don’t ask me, I’m in favor of open immigration.

            But then, I’m not a libertarian, so I can’t speak for what their problem with open immigration is.

      2. Everyone would openly acknowledge that Haiti is a shithole. Certainly everyone in the Dominican Republic would tell you that.

        Unless one of your political enemies says it. Then it is racist to claim such a thing.

        It is kind of a circular argument, or at least self-evident. You don’t have to limit immigration from places that aren’t shitty places. You don’t see a flood of Belgian immigrants sneaking across the Canadian border because Belgium is pretty darned nice. I’d wager that if you sent a cruise ship to Monrovia in Liberia, you could fill the thing top to bottom with people who’d like to come to the US, sight unseen and without more than a day’s notice. Because that’s a pretty rough place. Park the same ship off Dubai and I doubt you’d get many takers among the local citizens. (probably get more than a few “guest workers” who’d like to hop a ride though)

        1. So what you are saying is that rich countries are nice and poor countries are shit holes, regardless of who lives there? INCONCIVABLE!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.