Reason Roundup

Trump Rails Against Elites, Hecklers in Minnesota: Reason Roundup

Plus: White House wants Labor and Education to merge.

|

Trump
Glen Stubbe/TNS/Newscom

President Donald Trump rallied some of his most hardcore fans during a speech in Duluth, Minnesota, last night.

If this was a bad week for Republicans, it hardly showed on Trump's face. The president praised himself for meeting with North Korean president Kim Jong Un, promised to build the border wall, and assailed societal elites—who aren't even that elite, in Trump's view. "Why are they elite?" asked Trump. "I have a much better apartment than they do. I am smarter than they are. I am richer than they are. I became president and they didn't." (Why, it's almost as if Trump is himself one of the elite.)

Hecklers interrupted the president at least twice. Trump mocked one of them, joking that he couldn't tell whether the protester was a man or a woman.

The audience chanted "lock her up" when Trump talked about "crooked" Hillary Clinton. They also shouted, "CNN sucks!"

The speech concluded a day in which the president signed an executive order ending the routine separation of immigrant families who crossed into the country illegally. Children will now be held with their parents, barring extenuating circumstances. It's not clear what will happen to the more than 2,000 children who have already been separated.

According to The New York Times:

The president's four-page order says that officials will continue to criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, but will seek to find or build facilities that can hold families—parents and children together—instead of separating them while their legal cases are considered by the courts.

But the action raised new questions that White House officials did not immediately answer. The order does not say where the families would be detained. And it does not say whether children will continue to be separated from their parents while the facilities to hold them are located or built.

Officials on a White House conference call said they could not answer those questions.

Former President Baarck Obama spoke out on Wednesday about the injustice of the Trump adminstration's treatment of immigrant children. The Obama administration also separated immigrant children from families—albeit on a much more limited, case-by-case basis.

FREE MINDS

Meanwhile, conservative pundits retreated to familiar anti-anti-Trump territory. The actor Peter Fonda tweeted a series of (subsequently deleted) vile statements about Barron and Melania Trump, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielson. And conservatives pounced:

FREE MARKETS

The White House will propose a merger of the Education and Labor Departments, The Wall Street Journal reports:

Lawmakers have shown reluctance to embrace such plans in the past, and Congress has limited time for major legislation before the November midterm elections. Previous proposals to eliminate agencies, including the departments of education and energy, have made little headway.

Streamlining the executive branch has been a longtime conservative goal. The new plan also meshes with the administration's priority of retooling higher-education programs to train students more directly to join the workforce.

It's difficult to imagine that Republican leaders will show much enthusiasm for such a drastic change, though anything is possible in the age of Trump. And while eliminating cabinet-level departments always sounds excellent, simply merging the two bloated bureaucracies—which is the mostly likely outcome, if this happens at all—is a half-measure. And of course, libertarians would rather see both abolished outright.

QUICK HITS

  • Splinter doxed Stephen Miller, sharing his cell phone number on social media. Miller, a Trump adviser and alt-right adjacent figure, is widely seen as the brains behind Trump's nationalist approach to immigration.
  • Twitter made the (reasonable, in my view) decision to suspend users who shared the article, given that doxing violates Twitter's terms of service.
  • New York magazine's Jesse Singal was attacked by Lena Dunham, Jezebel, et al. for daring to write about the nuances of gender dyspohira. The Stranger's Katie Herzog comes to his defense.
  • Canada is legalizing recreational marijuana.
  • From Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.):

Correction: This post originally gave the wrong first name for Peter Fonda. The error has been fixed.

NEXT: Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

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. The audience chanted “lock her up” when Trump talked about “crooked” Hillary Clinton. They also shouted, “CNN sucks!”

    The classics.

      1. I feel really guilty right now for some reason.

        1. You’re all guilty of being pervs.

        2. Raised by nuns, were you?

    1. The only person who has been locked up so far is Trump’s campaign manager.

      No wall. No payment by Mexico. No Obamacare repeal. No reworking of economic fundamentals to enable unskilled, half-educated white males in shambling backwaters to prosper at the expense of accomplished, advance-degreed Americans residing in modern, progressive communities.

      Trump’s bluster apparently still works among the downscale yahoos in can’t-keep-up rural and southern America, though.

  2. Children will now be held with their parents, barring extenuating circumstances.

    Okay, people, I’m ready for a fresh outrage.

    It’s not clear what will happen to the more than 2,000 children who have already been separated.

    Not done with the last one yet? Fine.

    1. And when the “parents” end up being smugglers who abuse the kids?

      Trump is bad for not stopping that too.

      I tend to not give two shits about the outrage machinery.

      1. And when the “sponsors”/foster parents the kids were being handed over to under the old policy end up abusing the kids?

        Under normal CPS, kids get abused in foster care. What makes you think the Feds will be any better at selecting/monitoring foster parents than state/local CPS agencies?

        In point of fact, under Obama, 8 kids picked up at the border got turned over to human traffickers/slavers.

      2. It should be noted that there are fairly simple and reliable genetic tests to detect/confirm parent/child relationships, so there are objective means from separating parents from smugglers.

        1. Prisoners can be DNA tested immediately but illegals are a protected class.

          Pretrial detainees have their kids stripped away but illegals cannot because they are a protected class.

          This dismissal of American law is why Trump was elected to shake out the snakes in America policy making.

    2. Trump is also only mandating that families arrested together at the border be kept together.

      If the family is already separated or arrested inside the USA, it does not apply.

  3. Meanwhile, conservative pundits retreated to familiar anti-anti-Trump territory. The actor Henry Fonda tweeted a series of (subsequently deleted) vile statements about Barron and Melania Trump, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielson. And conservatives pounced:

    Yes. Holding Progs to their standards is “pouncing”. Those whiny cunts just need to deal with being called gashes by “feminist” men, right?

    1. Well, it can be. I don’t see “pounced” as a necessarily negative thing. The vile shittiness of many on the left should be exposed.

  4. splinter:

    Stephen Miller, an official so monstrous as to reportedly find humor in the disturbing images of child immigrants separated from their undocumented parents.

    kinda feels like “reportedly” should be before “monstrous”, then.

    1. “You, sir, are reportedly ‘literally Hitler’. How do you respond?”

      1. “I’ve read those reports, and still believe the findings are inconclusive.”

  5. The actor Henry Fonda tweeted a series of (subsequently deleted) vile statements about Barron and Melania Trump, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielson. And conservatives pounced…

    Outrage is a powerful tool. Or at least it used to be.

    1. I thought Henry Fonda died a long time ago. We’re giving Twitter accounts to corpses now?

      1. Rodney Dangerfield’s Twitter account is going to be sweet

        1. Does Zombie Dangerfield actually get respect? Wait… don’t spoil it for me!

        2. Carlin on Twitter would be excellent. We need him more than ever.

          1. If Kinison was on Twitter, I’d consider getting an account just to follow him.

            1. Oh OOOOHHHHHHH!

      2. Soave likes to use middle names.

        1. I looked for Robby’s Wikipedia page so I could find out his middle name. Surprisingly it doesn’t exist. Something for you to work on in your spare time Fist.

          I think I’ll just assume his middle name is “Hair” for now.

          1. Danger is Soave’s middle name.

            1. No relation to Carlos Danger?

      3. Team Blue (and Team Red?) Give voting ballots to corpses, so why not Twitter?

      4. Let’s be fair to Robby. The only male Fonda who anybody has ever given a shit about is Henry Fonda, and the only one of his kids who’s ever done anything worth noting is Jane. So when he’s writing about some jackass Fonda making political statements, and the culprit ain’t Hanoi Jane, of course he’s gonna automatically think of Henry. The middle name only helps confuse the issue.

        1. So what you’re saying is that this other Fonda fellow is pretty much irrelevant and it would be best to just ignore him?

          1. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of him, and it’s because he was being a douche on Twitter. That’s ignorable squared.

            1. He was the voice of the crazy conspiracy theorist in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

        2. I didn’t even know male Fondas existed.

          I’m still not sure about female pandas.

          1. Don’t do it, man!

      5. Henry Fonda is picking blueberries in Heaven.

      6. If this becomes a trend, I might start following on Twitter — the dead must have far more interesting things to Tweet than the living

        1. Pretty sure, that Paul Ryan is dead inside. But, his tweets aren’t as entertaining as they are depressing

          1. Paul Ryan looks like a man who stared into the void and the void stared back at him and then he endorsed the void for president

          2. “Just ate some barbecue chips. They were stale and caused my gums to bleed. Best moment of my day so far. #ReelectRyan2018”

        2. the dead must have far more interesting things to Tweet than the living

          They don’t actually.

    2. Its Peter Fonda.

  6. “New York magazine’s Jesse Singal was attacked by Lena Dunham, Jezebel, et al. for daring to write about the nuances of gender dyspohira.”

    You don’t want to upset Dunham. She’s just going to take it out on the rest of the country with another show about aimless twenty-something year-old women where Dunham undresses constantly despite the cries of decency from all the world.

    1. That raises the question of why I haven’t been giving a show about aimless seventy-something-year-old men where we undress constantly, showing everyone our wrinkled dongs.

      And no, “certain corners of the Internet” is not a TV show.

      1. 10/10 would be worse than naked Dunham. Congrats, Lena!

  7. Dear @TwitterSafety & @jack,

    Does being investigated by the Secret Service for multiple kidnapping & rape threats against WH staff & children get you unverified?

    Asking for the entire platform. https://t.co/7iv93uKthF
    ? Benny (@bennyjohnson) June 20, 2018

    It would be a shame if we were deprived of Fonda’s tweets. He filled the Milo hole.

    So to speak.

  8. Splinter doxed Stephen Miller, sharing his cell phone number on social media.

    This is an interesting escalation.

    1. As is doxxing ICE employees. Will the angry mob take on those who carry?

    1. Border Patrol agents clarified that it was an agent nicknamed “Uncle” who abandoned the boy

  9. Twitter made the (reasonable, in my view) decision to suspend users who shared the article, given that doxing violates Twitter’s terms of service.

    So Twitter sides with the family separators.

    1. Wait, how can Twitter ban anyone when they might one day go to the public form of Trump’s twitter page? According to the courts, Twitter just violated some people’s civil rights…

  10. My new thinkpiece: Twitter is just a for-profit prison where you are punished by being released instead of locked in.

    1. Like Twitter is actually for-profit:

      Currently, Twitter’s cumulative net loss since going public is $2.2 billion, now slightly less than the $2.3 billion in net loss it had racked up in Q3.

  11. And conservatives pounced:

    We’ve reached the ‘conservatives pounce’ portion of the Alfie Evans story
    If there’s a news development that reflects poorly on the state, you better believe national media will follow up eventually with coverage not of the story itself, but of how conservatives are supposedly exploiting it.

    The “GOP overreach” narrative is so common a response from media to major stories, that it is now a bit of a worn-out cliche. But don’t expect newsrooms to abandon this particular genre of reporting anytime soon, even if it is fodder for so many punchlines….

    1. +1 death panel

  12. Mark R. Levin

    @marklevinshow

    It was the Clinton administration that settled a lawsuit in 1997 resulting in the release from detention of illegal alien kids in 20 days, thereby separating them from the adults who are being processed through the immigration system.

    1. Funny how this info was not provided along side the outrage befiore.

  13. Canada is legalizing recreational marijuana.

    But you have to buy it in jugs or cartons.

    1. We may never see Rufus again.

    2. And cover it with gravy or maple syrup.

      1. That’s just ridiculous. Everyone knows you have to snort maple syrup. You can’t keep it lit.

        1. Snorting maple syrup is lit, fool.

        2. If you can’t set maple syrup on fire then you’re not a real Canadian.

      2. In Canada, the syrup will come with the pot. Is there anything more Canada than pot maple syrup?

        1. Yes – a hockey team eating pot brownies covered in maple syrup. While their bilingual comments on their experience are monitored for hate speech.

          1. Ok… That’s going to difficult to impossible to top

          1. Milk in bags of flannel with a microchip that has a moisture detector and a speaker that says:
            “Sorry for leaking oooooot, eh?”

        2. Jean toxedo

          1. or rather, *denim tuxedo*

  14. “Don’t you hate those elites with their vocabulary and golden toilets, like I have at Trump Tower. Which, by the way, is a great hotel. Some have even said, maybe the best hotel of all time. Many have said that. Even haters and losers agree that it’s a phenomenal building.”

    His speech will go down in history along with the Gettysburg Address and Washington’s Farewell Address and children will be reciting in elementary school “I feel sorry for all the haters and losers. SAD”. ‘Merica

  15. House Republicans had front row seats to @POTUS’s dazzling display of pettiness and insecurity. Nobody applauded or laughed. People were disgusted. https://t.co/FvmDCxElgv
    ? Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 20, 2018

    Disgusted with Sanford! Sad.

    1. The real Sanford would come out and call Trump “a big dummy” and move on.

      1. He’s comin’, Elizabeth.

      2. Dammit, I almost literally laughed out loud.

        1. So you… smiled?

          1. I almost hurt myself not laughing, jerk. Like when you hold in a sneeze and almost break a rib.

  16. Good riddance to Mark Sanford! He is exactly the kind of dishonest Welchian con man slimebag who deserves to be drummed out of American politics.

    1. His politics were good. But, his personal behavior in the past is probably what ultimately doomed him. He barely won election last time around. Anyone who is supported by Paul, Amash, and Massie is more than half-way decent.

      But, it’s nice to be reminded that the president remains the most petty and self-absorbed man in American politics. Which is quite a feat.

      1. Don’t forget John.


      2. But, it’s nice to be reminded that the president remains the most obviously petty and self-absorbed man in American politics. Which is quite a feat.

        FTFY. They all think this way, Trump is just dumb or ballsy enough to say it out loud.

  17. …Jesse Singal was attacked by Lena Dunham, Jezebel, et al. for daring to write about the nuances of gender dyspohira.

    At least they’re keeping busy.

  18. No mention of Koko the gorilla passing away? I don’t know how you get more intersectional than a black female highland gorilla who can communicate with the deaf.

    1. But isn’t even saying the word “gorilla” racist? Poor Koko, her whole species has to be written out of the language lest someone think a racist thought.

  19. The White House will propose a merger of the Education and Labor Departments, The Wall Street Journal reports:

    Ok, as long as the merged department is subsequently drowned in the Potomac.

    1. After the merger, a drone strike will be called on the new headquarters.

      1. That’s not fair to the American people. They spent good money on that building.

        1. If they televise the drone strike in prime time, no one will complain.

          “Why is the fake media complaining about yesterday’s drone strikes? The ratings were through the roof.”

          – Donald Trump

    2. Contest: Name the new Department!

      I propose “Department of Forced Labor”.

      1. Dept of Indoctrination

      2. Laboration, then a typo can repurpose it and surprise everybody.

      3. I’m wondering what their mission statement will look like. “Reassuring parents that even though their children haven’t learned enough to make them employable, we’ll throw money at the problem with both hands.”

  20. Splinter doxed Stephen Miller, sharing his cell phone number on social media.

    He’s really not setting a good example for those turtles he’s been raising.

  21. Don’t Get Played; Get Woke to the Outrage Scam
    Look for the indicators. Is it something that seems unreasonably horrible? Well, like something that sounds too good to be true probably is, something that sounds too bad to be true likewise is probably not true either. Does Trump ordering screaming babies to be wrenched from their innocent mommies’ arms and cast into dungeons sound pretty extreme? Yeah, because it is. And it’s a lie.

    Is it something where the proposed solution benefits the liberal elite? For global warming, the answer they give to this threat THAT WE MUST ACT UPON RIGHT THIS MINUTE is to give liberals more power. Same with global cooling. And same with global staying the same.

    Are you allowed to ask questions? If you start pointing out that maybe a good way to avoid being arrested for illegal entry and being separated from Junior is to not enter the U.S. illegally with a kid, is the response that you are a hating hater of hatred and probably a Nazi too? If they are trying to shout you down or browbeat you into silence, that’s an indicator that you’re in the midst of another Cat 5 outrage.

  22. Behold the horror of Donald Trump’s TRADE WAR!!

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……s-declines

    New jobless claims fall to 218,000 as overall number getting benefits declines

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……d-optimism

    Boom: Over 95% of manufacturers bullish on future, ‘record optimism’

    I seem to recall Gillespie breathlessly informing the world that manufacturing was dead in this country and the future was “the sharing economy”, which seemed to be some kind of hipster Soylent Green where everyone got their power from solar panels and ran home businesses when they were not taking fleet owned robo cars to food trucks or the local pot dispensary.

    Reason put a lot of marks on the wall about what Trump was going to do to the economy. At what point do they start to question their assumptions?

    1. “hipster Soylent Green”

      They ate people before it was cool to do that

      1. They do cannibalism ironically.

    2. I’ve been yelling at people for talking about a trade war that hasn’t really started yet. Most of the trade war people are talking about is a war of words in the press–the real trade war stuff isn’t slated to really start until July 6.

      We need to be careful not to oversell it on the other side, too. There really could be a trade war that breaks out on July 6, and if we tell people there’s nothing to worry about–and it all goes to hell in a couple of weeks, . . .

      Suffice it to say, the trade war hasn’t happened yet, Trump’s policies from deregulation and tax reform to immigration enforcement, etc. have done nothing but raise wages and demand for unskilled workers–and that’s gonna be hard to deny going forward.

      . . . my concern is that Trump comes to believe that the disruptive things he’s doing are working so well for his reelection chances that more must be better. Trump, being a politician, may come to think that getting reelected is more important than what’s good for the country, and if initiating a trade war for real come July 6 is in his reelection chances, I suspect he’ll go balls out just for that reason alone.

      1. If a trade war would be so catastrophic, and I think it likely would be, then everyone has good reason to avoid it. The trade war people are hacks who assume that every other country in the world is the equivalent of a suicide bomber who would rather destroy the world economy and their own with it than make concessions. I find that claim dubious to say the least.

        1. Don’t underestimate the power of BFYTW. The other side(s) might not let themselves blink first

          1. Bad things sometimes happen. But the incentives as they stand make it unlikely.

            1. As Ken points out, we’ll find out on July 6

        2. The trade war people are hacks who assume that every other country in the world is the equivalent of a suicide bomber who would rather destroy the world economy and their own with it than make concessions

          Luckily (?), we have the suicide bomber on our side in this war.

          1. As I say above, behold the horrors of Trump’s Trade War. Is there any point where the facts will cause you to reconsider your assumptions? Maybe not now. We are only 18 months into a four or maybe eight year administration. But at some point, do you not have to think that perhaps your opinion of Trump was wrong? Will that point ever come for you?

            1. I won’t abandon the idea that tariffs are a net negative for all of us. Sure they might have short-term positive effects for some people, but they are just another form of economic central planning.

              The best case scenario is that the posturing works out and tariffs are lowered internationally. I doubt that will happen because there are very few leaders in the world who actually espouse the virtues of the market. Instead, they all seem to believe that trade is something that can be “won”.

              And to be fair, we are really only about 3 months into the opening salvo of a trade war. As Ken points out above, July 6 is the day we learn whether war is declared by both sides or not.

              1. The best case scenario is that the posturing works out and tariffs are lowered internationally. I doubt that will happen because there are very few leaders in the world who actually espouse the virtues of the market. Instead, they all seem to believe that trade is something that can be “won”.

                Those two sentences do not follow. If they see trade as something that can be won, then the threat of being punished by tariffs is the only thing that will get them to lower their own. If they were like you and thought all trade is good under any circumstances with no need to ask for similar treatment from other countries, then the threat of tariffs would have no effect since they presumably have already set their own tariffs as low as politically possible. Your assumption that they all view it as a contest, means that Trump acting the same way is the only way to get them to lower their tariff, which is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

                1. Beyond that, there is pretty strong evidence that the trade system we have now isn’t working as it is advertised. The way it was supposed to work was that people who lost their jobs due to international competition were supposed to be reabsorbed into lower paying jobs and end up better off because their dollar would go farther. That has not happened anywhere near to the extent it was supposed to. Wages have stagnated and real purchasing power has not increased for the middle class like it was supposed to. Again, is there any amount of evidence that would cause you to reconsider your assumptions. I used to share your assumptions. But the evidence as I have seen it over the last ten years or so has caused me to modify them. Can any amount of empirical evidence cause you to question yours?

                  1. “Again, is there any amount of evidence that would cause you to reconsider your assumptions.”

                    It would take a preponderance of evidence to cause me to reject 200+ years of economic theory dating back to at least Adam Smith on the value of free trade and free markets. Certainly more than a few months.

                    Of course one only needs to look back to 2002-2003 to see the effects that the tariffs could have Source:

                    The Bush administration withdrew the tariffs in December 2003, about 21 months after they were imposed, but not without a cost. The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition found that 200,000 workers in U.S. manufacturing lost their jobs as a result of the tariffs. For comparison, the entire U.S. steel industry employed 197,000 at the time.

                    Your argument to use tariffs to bolster wages is akin to using tax policy to subsidize a struggling industry or to give people welfare to increase their purchasing power. Of course you would likely reject these policies (as you should), based on what I understand of your politics. Let me ask why you think tariffs are fundamentally different or better than either of those two options.

                    1. It would take a preponderance of evidence to cause me to reject 200+ years of economic theory dating back to at least Adam Smith on the value of free trade and free markets. Certainly more than a few months.

                      If you think economic theory is unanimous in support of your view, you don’t know much about economic theory. I would suggest you go back and read some more only this time try to read more than just things that support your beliefs. Even Adam Smith did not think that unilateral open markets were the path to prosperity. You have a cartoonish and warped view of economic theory.

                      My argument is that the trade system as we have it has given us stagnant wages, structural unemployment and the disappearance of entire industries that have not been replaced by others as promised. The system hasn’t delivered. Your only response to that is “but it would have been worse had we done anything differently”. Well maybe but ultimately we don’t know that because we haven’t done differently. And claiming “it would have been worse” is the last refuge of everyone who supports a failed policy.

                    2. The tariffs have not yet gone into place. Tax cuts and some deregulation has.

                      My money would be on tax cuts and deregulation as the cause of positive economic indicators.

                      Moreover, the effects of tariffs take longer to become apparent. Manufacturers being “bullish” is not a particularly positive economic indicator. Housing developers were bullish in 2004 as well.

                    3. In addition, you are just creating a false dilemma where the alternatives are either total unilateral free trade or total protectionism. Maybe the answer is some degree in the middle? You need to account for why the system didn’t produce the results that were promised. If you are unwilling to consider why and that maybe your beliefs are not quite as good as you thought they were, then you are cheating yourself and just making yourself into a dogmatist.

                    4. In addition, you are just creating a false dilemma where the alternatives are either total unilateral free trade or total protectionism.

                      I never said that. You’re putting words into my mouth. I believe in a spectrum of trade from free to protectionist. Tariffs clearly move us in the direction of the latter, which every economist worth his degree will tell you is a bad thing. Maybe you should re-evaluate the company you keep in promoting these tariffs. Mostly power-seeking politicians (Democrats at that) and rent-seeking union leaders.

                      Domestically, reactions from elected officials often varied among regional lines rather than ideological lines.[10] The tariffs have seen widespread criticism from conservatives and Republicans.[11][12][13] Reception was mixed among Democratic officials,[14] with Democrats from Rust Belt states voicing support for tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.[15] Source

                      My argument is that the trade system as we have it has given us stagnant wages, structural unemployment and the disappearance of entire industries that have not been replaced by others as promised.

                      First, I thought that unemployment was down… you can’t have it both ways. Secondly, it’s naive to believe that only trade policy has any effect on these things.

                    5. Your argument to use tariffs to bolster wages is akin to using tax policy to subsidize a struggling industry or to give people welfare to increase their purchasing power. Of course you would likely reject these policies (as you should), based on what I understand of your politics. Let me ask why you think tariffs are fundamentally different or better than either of those two options.

                2. Let me amend my statement to say that the leaders all think that trade is something that can be won and they are not about to cave because their political power within their own countries likely depends on their ability to “win” the war.

                  No world leader that I’m aware of would trade the economic health of another nation (or the world as a whole) for less political power. If they feel that the US is playing unfairly and squeezing their economy then what’s to stop them from more retaliatory tariffs (which is exactly what Trump did)?

                  1. Let me amend my statement to say that the leaders all think that trade is something that can be won and they are not about to cave because their political power within their own countries likely depends on their ability to “win” the war.

                    So they think they would be better off destroying their economy rather than moderating their tarrifs somewhat? I find that highly unlikely. You are just telling me exactly what I claimed free trade advocates think; that leaders are suicide bombers who will destroy their own economy rather than give in. It takes a tremendous amount of confirmation bias to believe that. Sorry, but I don’t share your confirmation bias or desire to see the world fit some narrative.

                    1. They think, along with Trump, that tariffs protect their countries from some threat or other. Tariffs protect the profits of only a portion of industries. Everyone else makes up for it.

                      It’s the same mentality as “buy local” and “support your community businesses”.

            2. It’s a bullshit assumption anyway. People around here constantly misunderstand the baseline argument. They look at trade purely in terms of trade. I can understand that position, and it’s not wrong, but to ignore the foreign policy objectives of using tariffs as a way to strong arm our way to freer trade or to negotiate treaties is never given an ounce of consideration.

              You’ll note Trump suggesting totally free trade to other nations was barely reported on. You might also note none of the ‘commentariat’ has noticed that maybe Trump is using tariffs to negotiate freer trade. Oh, the horror!

              All that said, it’s also true that not all of the proposed tariffs seem to have much relation to that goal. That’s where the ‘Trump might be stupid’ argument starts to gain more merit. It’s also not a bad argument to note that using tariffs as a foreign policy tool may not even be effective, but that’s not a conversation anyone is having. Curious. Perhaps because the evidence so far seems to indicate that it might be effective? Or maybe it’s just because pants shitting and narrow interests are the norm.

              Don’t know, and frankly don’t care. It’s hard to take the utopian folks around here seriously anymore. I’ll just be over here stating the obvious.

    3. The wokeltarians are so deranged they’re hoping and praying for another 2008 to happen.

      1. Is that all? My impression is a lot of idiots are itching for civil war, a final solution to all that is unwoke in America.

        1. There is a lot of that as well.

          1. Indeed. Need more popcorn.

            1. Most of it is just narcissistic idle talk. None of the idiots hoping for a civil war would last five minutes if one occurred or ever have the courage to actually start one.

              1. Of course not. One side of that argument has willingly disarmed itself just before shit talking about how they want to split away from the U.S.

                If only those guys back during the Revolutionary War had been so wise, we’d all still be drinking tea instead of coffee if you know what I mean.

        2. The difference is that the people itching for a civil war would rather things work themselves out under Trump’s 8 years as president.

          The wokeltarians want things to implode while SJW is HOT right now. That and while Trump is in office.

          They did not, repeat not, want things to implode while Obama was in office.

  23. AT&T is launching a streaming service for cord cutters:

    “The package would offer a small number of TV channels to most subscribers for as little as $15 a month while giving free access to subscribers on unlimited data plans.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/at…..1529573402

    That’s substantially less than you’d pay for YouTubeTV, Sling, Hulu, . . .

    Yay Capitalism!

    Perhaps the most interesting thing about the service is they way they’re paying for content. According to the article, AT&T will pay for channels based on how much AT&T customers stream the channel–rather than pay for carrying the channel regardless of whether people are watching it. Even apart from this service, that should have a profound impact on the way other services contract for content in the future.

    If YouTubeTV is only paying for the service based on how much their subscribers are streaming it, that may be better than a la cart pricing because that way we can try channels for an extended period without having to subscribe.

    ESPN must be shitting their pants.

    1. “We need MOAR PROGS, Bob!”?Jimmy Pitaro

    2. I’m moving one of my apartments. I can’t say it doesn’t have anything to do with the cable company. I called them up when my contract ran out on that apartment, and I asked for a better deal to go back on contract. They said no. I told them I’d go look at the competition. The guy told me there was no competition on my block. I didn’t believe it.

      He was right. You can’t get DSL on the block where my apartment is. Across the street in any direction is fine.

      I was so pissed, I started looking for another apartment. I found a better place for less money–regardless of the availability of competitors–but I checked to make sure there were alternatives to cable everywhere I went.

      It’s irrational, I guess. Or maybe it’s just a qualitative preference. But I hate my cable company.

      If someone offered me $1,000 a month to spend an hour with this one ex-girlfriend every month, I’d turn them down. If God told me I either had to get back together with her or crash my motorcycle, I’d rev my bike out into the nearest wall–a motorcycle accident would be less destructive than getting her back into my life again, but that’s not the point.

      I hate my cable company. I can’t wait to give my cable company all its stuff in a box and tell them I never want to see them again.

      1. Make sure you call them back and let them know what you did. Ask to speak with a supervisor, so the company will know that you hate them this much.

        I give good and bad feedback to companies. These companies cannot fix whats wrong if people dont complain and they definitely wont fix stuff if they think people will take the company BS.

      2. Government monopolies are horrible ideas.

        1. Government, by definition, is the ONLY monopoly

  24. Happy Summer Solstice, Reasonoids!

    Residents of China’s southern city of Yulin defended eating dog meat to celebrate the summer solstice on Thursday, as animal rights activists seek new ways to pressure organizers to cancel the annual festival.

    “Yulin’s so-called lychee and dog meat festival is just a popular custom of ours. Popular customs themselves cannot be right or wrong,” Yulin resident Wang Yue told Reuters.

    1. Let ’em eat dogs. It’s their business.

      1. As long as no plastic straws are being used

      2. Filet of Fido

        Free-range Rover

        Man’s best cut of meat

        “What did you *think* was in the hot dog?”

    2. the problem isn’t the eating of the dogs its how they prepare them, they do torture them before killing them under the miss guided idea that it makes the meat taste better. they boil them alive, they skin them alive, they cut parts off while they are alive. it is a terrible way to die and would make most people a vegitarian very quickly. I’m all for eating what you have but I draw the line at cruel torture.

      1. So you don’t eat fish or lobster then?

    3. I’m not really concerned, dogs being ‘man’s best friend’ is sort of a cultural thing. I doubt they taste very good, but the French proved that you can label anything as ‘gourmet’.

  25. The audience chanted “lock her up” when Trump talked about “crooked” Hillary Clinton. They also shouted, “CNN sucks!”

    Whatever you think of Trump’s fans, when they’re right, they’re right.

    -jcr

    1. Who has been locked up — other than Trump’s campaign manager?

    1. “See the media reported on it. No double standard.”

      – Welch tomorrow

      1. Welch 2014: “this should stop”

        Welch today: “NEEDLESS CRUELTY!!!!”

        Totes the same. Reason is a stepping stone job that is seeing donations go down. This is all virtue signaling to line up gigs at left wing publications. Free minds, free markets, until I get a better paycheck to go full prog. See also Weigel.

        1. Welch is a left-liberal true believer, a liar, and a con man.

          Reminder: the overwhelming majority of Americans (both democrats and republicans) are behind the idea of a comprehensive immigration reform deal that treats people fairly and humanely, gives people who have been here for some time forgiveness and a pathway to citizenship, and also implements REAL border security to cut down on the illegals coming in.

          Unfortunately, the border security part is a total deal breaker for the far left and their allies in the JournoList, including Welch and his gang of con men. They would rather keep the awful status quo we have now going on forever than make a reasonable and fair deal that the overwhelming majority of sane, rational America support.

          They need that open border to remain open longer in order to complete their goal of the “fundamental transofrmation” of America.

          1. The sole problem with this argument is its source. I’m pretty sure no living being would put you in the group of people known as “sane, rational America”.

            1. Amen

            2. When you find yourself agreeing with Simple Mikey, it does make you question your beliefs. Which is a good thing! The unexamined life is, after all, not worth living.

            3. Well, there is a second problem. Namely that this was already done, and the border security bit never really happened. I’m not sure why doing the same thing should be expected to have different end results.

          2. I stopped watching Welch and Nick Gillespie on their appearances because they don’t advocate Libertarian positions well. The positions are all cluttered with virtue signalling and off-the-cuff lefty praises.

            1. Gillespie use to be great on Bill Maher and Fox Business Network. Something changed. Maybe, he has a different leather jacket now

              1. The jacket took a seven figure contract to move to Britbart. Nick’s never recovered from that.

    2. So, are you against bogus accusations that kids are in gangs, and against incarcerating children?

      1. “bogus accusations that kids are in gangs, and against incarcerating children”

        Yes. Children should be working in our libertarian monocle factories. Only their little hands can operate those machines. The unemployment rate for four year-olds is terrible and unconscionable.

      2. We incarcerate American children all the time, maybe start there since there is so much less outrage over it?

        I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m questioning your motives if it isn’t obvious.

  26. Publisher of National Enquirer subpoenaed by Michael Cohen

    Remind me again, what the fuck does Stormy Daniels have to do with the Russians?

    1. Stormy Daniels is last week’s virtue signaling outrage. She is old news. It is all about the horrors of ripping toddlers away from their mothers this week. Keep up with the Journolist talking points General.

      1. Stormy was late to the game with all of her name-recognition marketing. She should have had the perfume, clothing line, etc all ready to go before her 15 minutes of fame.

        I’m hoping she kept her webcam.

        1. The outrage cycle moves fast. She had what, two weeks in the spotlight? Whatever marketing she was going to do, she better have done it already.

  27. I understand that it’s viscerally satisfying to shout “Trump is Hitler!” all day long, and certainly he isn’t someone I’d trust with power. But I wish that the screamers would stop, take a breath, and learn the long term lesson of Trump.

    For instance, the next time you laugh and dance around when your favorite “woke” President bypasses Congress with his/her/xer pen and phone, stop and think about Trump doing the same thing. Maybe it will sober you up a bit?

    And when you want to give the federal government total control over something, stop and think about Trump. Imagine if Obama had gotten “single-payer” healthcare passed; Trump would be running it now. Do you really think that would be okay?

    1. For instance, the next time you laugh and dance around when your favorite “woke” President bypasses Congress with his/her/xer pen and phone, stop and think about Trump doing the same thing. Maybe it will sober you up a bit?

      Sadly it won’t. They understand that Trump can use these powers. They just honestly think it is different when they do it. They are that far gone.

      1. I don’t so much have a problem with them thinking it is different; it’s the state of denial that someone like him could ever come to power. They seem to think their “woke” politicians will rule forever.

        1. They thought they would never lose the White House. So they just bypassed Congress and set out to make it a debating society. The thinking was that a Progressive President would always be in power and the deplorables could vote all they wanted to for Congress and it wouldn’t matter. Well, they thought wrong.

          The real denial on their part is them thinking Trump is the coming of some unreasonable dictator. They seem to be completely unable to grasp just how reasonable Trump is. Trump is likely their last chance to deal with a reasonable person. If Trump fails, the person who comes after will dispense with courts and laws and just do what his supporters demand. And if a judge or a journalist doesn’t like it, they will find themselves at the end of a gun or a rope as the big leader’s supporters deal with those who are getting in the way. That is what real tyranny looks like. In a real tyranny, the RESISTANCE doesn’t go around and avertise itself because doing so gets you killed. They are just morons all of them.

          1. They would be fine with a dictator as they understand dictator.

            Trump is NOT being a dictator which is absolutely scaring the shit out of them. A person that they thought would never win- won. A person that they use all resources to call Hitler- does not become Hitler.

            In fact, he even tries to follow through on his campaign promises and has what he considers America’s best interest in mind as President.

            They are losing their minds because of it. I foresee mass suicides after election 2018 and election 2020 when things go really badly for lefties and Democrats.

          2. Exactly. They are the architects of the tyranny they claim to fear. They think they’ll always be the ones wearing the shiny jackboots. Did they sleep through EVERY history class they took?

          3. I do hope that if anything can be salvaged from the wrecked smoldering ruins of Trumpism, it is a desire to limit the power of the executive.

            1. I don’t know how we will recover from the wreckage of record employment, wage growth and not being in any new wars. How in the world can the nation recover from such a thing? I just don’t know Jeff.

            2. At one time, I had hope that the wrecked smoldering ruins of Nixon would do the same. If Trumpism causes a re-think on executive power, history suggests it will be short-lived.

              1. Nixon? What are you some kind of ancient history trivialist? Obama won on the wrecked smoldering ruins of executive-run-amok that was the Bush Administration.

            3. I do hope that if anything can be salvaged from the wrecked smoldering ruins of Trumpism, it is a desire to limit the power of the executive.

              Dude, it didn’t even survive two days of whining about the poor immigrant chillunz. People who two months ago were begrudgingly siding with Trump while calling him a populist monster and were admitting that he was absolutely right in his move to limit the power of the executive were still calling him a populist monster and siding with him when he exercised the power of the executive in the exact manner they (not he) opposed. They bemoan the Obama-looking whataboutism without even acknowledging their own hypocrisy taking place just outside their 1-2 news cycle attention span.

              And these are the people who’ve been hardened by years of watching CPS take kids from parents who let them walk to school, cops who shoot kids like Tamir Rice, and successive school shootings. They bemoan the Obama-looking whataboutism without even acknowledging their own hypocrisy taking place just outside their ~2 news cycle attention span.

      2. Its also not new. FDR felt a lot of his powers would be fascist if somebody else used them.

    2. Republicans don’t look to Democrats as an example for how to act. They’re capable of grabbing power all on their own, then wielding it in the most ridiculously incompetent way possible.

      1. And yet, they forever seem to be winning elections over Democrats.

        1. Not because a majority of Americans vote for them, though, to Americans’ credit.

          1. They just win the majority of elections Tony. If Democrats had not been sleeping or raging about racism during civics class, they would understand why that is all that matters.

            1. Democrats care too much about democracy to win elections.

            2. You’re not wrong, but another way of putting it is that our institutions are too weak to stand up to Republican cynicism and disrespect for democratic norms.

              1. The ‘democratic norm’ is the tyranny of the majority, idiot.

          2. A plurality of Americans didn’t vote for Clinton OR Trump. To their credit.

      2. That’s certainly true, but it’s also true that when you give a power to the office of President you’ve got to remember that your chosen candidate won’t always be the one wielding it. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

        1. I understand that, but not to repeat myself, Republicans don’t give a fuck what Democrats do. They will grab power whenever they can, especially if Democrats show voluntary restraint and respect for checks and balances (act like pussies).

          1. especially if Democrats show voluntary restraint and respect for checks and balances (act like pussies).

            Let me know when that happens.

          2. Respecting checks and balances like nuking the filibuster in the Senate? Seems legit, in the sense that you clearly have long term memory loss.

            It’s different when Democrats do it?

            Also, please note that this is not a defense of Republicans since I know your tiny little mind is incapable of understanding anything beyond a duality.

          3. It’s great that you understand that. I just hope you keep understanding it when a Democrat is President. That after all is the point.

            And yes, Republicans forget it too. I had this conversation with Republicans back in the Bush days, with the same dismal results.

    1. BEARS BREAK INTO SUBARUS TRYING TO ESCAPE STEVE SMITH. SPOILER ALERT: UNSUCCESSFUL.

    2. ALL BEARS ASTRAL PROJECTION FROM STEVE SMITH MIND. BEAR BRYANT INCLUDED.

  28. Hecklers interrupted the president at least twice. Trump mocked one of them, joking that he couldn’t tell whether the protester was a man or a woman.

    Now see, if anyone has problems with Trump this should not be one of them. Talk about fighting speech with more speech, this is it.

    It would have been an instant classic if he had thrown in the old retort about messing with the bull and getting the horns.

    1. Still not classy. SAD

      1. Does anything classy ever come out of Queens?

        1. The wife from King of Queens?

    2. Eras of man:

      Paleolithic Era
      Neolithic Era
      Bronze Age
      Iron Age
      Medieval Period
      Renaissance
      Enlightenment
      Industrial Age
      Space Age
      Shit-Talking Age

      1. *Gargle Balls Age*

        1. Haha. That does seem to be your new thing.

          *Gargle new thing’s balls

      2. You got something against the Stone Age?

        1. Iron-y?

        2. You got something against Greek roots?

        3. Idiot

  29. I’m not ready to move past Russian trolls ruining our democracy.

    Can we go back to that, and do the immigration kids thing only if Trump pardons himself?

    1. I hear Trump is using the immigrant kids to work on secret Russian troll farms that are destroying our democracy. Trump is literally enslaving children to work for the Russians. Mueller is going to expose the whole thing any day now.

      1. Holy crap! I forgot about Mueller with all this immigrant children torture that was going on.

  30. Hasn’t anybody praised the President for his entertainment value?

    Last night, I was riveted. When I got home, I turned to the Sox / Twins and it was between innings. So, I flipped to Tucker Carlson only to see the Donald in fine form.

    Gosh, in his way, the Donald is a superlative entertainer, like we have never seen before. He is in his element in those campaign style settings. He is so good in that type of venue, that I don’t think it hyperbolic to claim that he is even better than Reagan or Clinton were in delivering serious, big-time speeches.

    Maybe some have noticed that he has added some self-deprecation to his repertoire. For example, when one of the protesters was being escorted out of the arena, Trump remarked, “he needs a haircut even more than I do.”

    I hope everybody was entertained.

    Yes, in another thread, maybe today, I’ll rip him for something, but let us enjoy his showmanship.

    1. Moron

      1. Very grown-up of you

      2. Hey, at least Trump didn’t give a half-hour speech to introduce a nominee who wasn’t even him.

        Let’s feel their pain.

      3. Your butthurt at Liberty Mike is the strangest thing I have ever seen on here. Liberty Mike has never drawn the ire of anyone on here. I don’t know that everyone liked him but I can’t remember anyone before you that particularly disliked him. You don’t seem to have any particular reason to be angry at him. But you are. It is deeply odd, to be honest. What did he do to you? You don’t even seem to disagree with him on that much. You are like a cat with water. You just don’t like him even though you have no idea why.

        1. I’m not angry, I just think he’s a moron. Why would you think I’m angry? I’m not angry at you either because I’ve got better things to do with my life. Does my poking fun at him really cause you that much grief?

          1. Why would I think a guy running around calling someone an idiot and a moron even though that person had not said anything to them was angry? Why oh why would I think that? It is just a mystery.

            Whatever you are, it is tiresome. If you think Mike is a moron, don’t read what he posts unless it is in response to you.

            1. Sparky not angry
              He loves to cheerlead all day
              You are angry, John

        2. John, the proof is in his new handle.

          He is upset that I referred to him as our resident misanthrope. I did so in jest. But, it would appear that I am occupying quite a bit of the real estate in his brain.

          He’s also upset because he can not articulate, in detail, and with precision, and with reason, how I am a moron.

          He knows that if one were to examine our respective contributions to H&R, one would have little difficulty in concluding that I have made far more comprehensive, detailed, nuanced, and reasoned posts than he has.

          That bothers him.

          1. You must have really struck a nerve. What is wrong with being a misanthrope anyway?

            1. I’ll tell you a couple funny things. I was leftist poser because at one point you insisted that that’s what I was. I changed it because that’s what Racist Mikey has insisted I am. In both cases, I’ve done it to show how little I care about what you think of me. It’s like when Hillary called people deplorables and then those people took the name and ran with it.

              The second item is that I find you two white knighting each other very funny. I’m not surprised that the two of you would stick up for each other. Racist Mikey has been putting your mind-reading lessons to good use.

              1. In both cases, I’ve done it to show how little I care about what you think of me.

                People who don’t care, don’t care. They don’t change their screen names to tell the world how much they really don’t care. It is called overcompensation.

                1. No, it’s called having a sense of humor. Once upon a time that was a thing. But those days are coming to a close. Nowadays if you’re not spitting rage and overreacting to every minor slight then you just don’t belong. Well fuck that noise. I’m not going to be dragged down into your moronic, rage-filled kettle. I’ll act on this site the way I’ve always acted, with humor.

                  1. Yeah, running around giving single posts that say “moron” is high comedy.

                    1. Well I’m sorry it makes you sad.


            2. What is wrong with being a misanthrope anyway?

              A fair question, since I suspect that applies at least loosely to everyone who posts here.

          2. Stupid

            1. Some of my best acquaintances are misanthropes.

              John, yes, it is odd.

              Then, when you consider this oddity in the context of the exchanges all of us have had with Tony or PB or, back in the day, Tulpa or Joe from Lowell, where we have said some very unflattering things to each other, and then move on to the next thread, this looks all the more odd.

              1. Moron

    2. Trump is pretty much like Hugo Chavez in that respect. The big egos, the big plans to restore national greatness, they both even fired people on television.

  31. Hecklers interrupted the president at least twice.

    While I definitely think that disrupting public events should be criminalized, an exception should be made for presidential rallies.

  32. The best thing the GOP can do right now is to walk away from Trump. Those who back him are only supporting an obnoxious and toxic personality right now, not a coherent set of policies. Unfortunately, they won’t, so we will be left with prog dems running wild after the midterms with almost nobody left to make a case for limited government.

    1. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…..presidency

      The polls say otherwise. You need to get out of NOVA Nick. People care about the economy and what Trump does. No one gives a shit about all of the media daily outrages.

      1. He tied a race… with himself! Winning!

      2. John, lets check back in a few months once the factories and farms in the heartland start to really feel the effects of his tariffs. While Trumpsters might not be inclined to vote for dems, they might well not show up to vote period, so who does that leave? Regarding the polls, the guy has yet to clear 50%-that’s pretty bad and does not bode well for his party, or his chances in 2020.

        1. Sure. Trump is exactly where Obama and Bush were at this point in their first term

          http://www.investors.com/polit…..opularity/

          the facts are what they are. And they are that Trump isn’t an unpopular President. That says nothing about whether he is a good President. Good is a subjective term. You do your case against him no good by pretending he is unpopular when the facts say otherwise.

          1. By this point in their presidencies, both Obama and Bush had surpassed 60 %. For O, it was very early-soon after his inauguration and lasted for several months. For Bush, it was after 9/11 and stayed above 50 % mostly until his second term, when it dropped like a rock. Trump has NEVER been above 45%. Once their ratings dipped into the 40s, Obama and Bush started to have a toxic effect on their parties down ballot, including at the state and local levels, and we are already seeing this with Trump. He still could be re-elected though if the dems nominate a wuss like Tim Kaine, or a crazy like Pocohontas Warren.

            1. By this point in their presidencies, both Obama and Bush had surpassed 60 %

              No, they were exactly where Trump is. Did they have surges of popularity? Sure, But times are different and Trump is a different President. Trump came in as an unknown commodity and with a ton of negative press. So rather than start high and fall back to earth like most Presidents, he started low and has slowly climbed as his performance has surpassed expectations and his critics looked more and more deranged.

              Trump has NEVER been above 45%.

              He is at 45 right now and has steadily risen throughout his Presidency. It is what it is. Ask yourself this, why would anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 not vote for him in 2020? I get it you hate Trump and didn’t vote for him. But if you had, what about the last 18 months would change your mind? Meanwhile, a ton of people who didn’t vote for Trump because he was an unknown commodity, now see that the world didn’t end, things are going well and everything his critics said would happen has not happened. Let me remind you. Trump won in 2016.

              You are just kidding yourself. I understand it is hard to admit someone you hate as much as Trump and have staked so much of your personal credibility on being horrible has turned out to be a decent President is hard. But sometimes life is like that.

              1. I never was anti-Trump and have tried to give him a chance, but you can’t deny that he has energized the progs to get out and vote for team blue. This will not be good for those of us who care about limiting the size and scope of government.


            2. He still could be re-elected though if the dems nominate a wuss like Tim Kaine, or a crazy like Pocohontas Warren.

              Given how Bernie did this last time around, I suspect it will be a crazy.

              1. Who else do the Democrats have other than crazy?

  33. Justin Amash
    ?
    @justinamash
    House Republicans had front row seats to @POTUS’s dazzling display of pettiness and insecurity. Nobody applauded or laughed. People were disgusted.

    I suppose, not having been in the Presidential election, he learned nothing from the election.

    I’m having trouble thinking of anything more petty than a Twitter spat with Trump over applause and laughter at a meeting.

    I like Amash but this Tweet almost makes it seem like he’d get tricked into a dick-measuring contest during a Presidential debate and lose.

    1. Stagefright-induced shrinkage is a real affliction, compadre.

      Anyway, career politicians need to remember that Trump is not on the same page as they are. Congress is set up for Candyland, but Trump is playing Throw The Candyland Pieces At Everybody And Draw Boobs On Queen Frostine, and he’s winning that particular game.

      1. That is a good way of describing it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.