Republicans Whip Up Pre-Midterm Fears With Lies About Invading Migrant Caravan: Reason Roundup

Plus: Trump condemns poor cover-up of Saudi journalist killing and Houston compromises on sex robots.



Lies, lies, and more lies about caravan of Central American refugees. America has a process in place for handling those fleeing from authoritarian, war-torn, crime-wrecked, and disaster-devastated countries. Many such individuals from Central America—including a lot of desperate, desolate, and powerless women and children—are now seeking to avail themselves of this process by showing up at specified U.S.-Mexico border spots to officially apply for asylum. For some reason, this terrifies Republicans.

Or at least they're pretending to be terrified. Most folks in the "migrant caravan" coming up from Central America are following the rules we set, which should ostensibly make it more difficult for folks to pull the "we don't hate Hispanics, we just don't want them in the country illegally" shtick.

But President Trump and his acolytes have sidestepped this by simply lying, repeatedly, about our southern neighbors seeking refuge in the U.S. To hear Trump and company tell it, the caravan is basically all MS-13 gang members, brown men seeking to rape white women, and the occasional member of ISIS who came all the way over from the Middle East to get in on this caravan thing.

"It doesn't matter if it's 100 percent accurate," a Trump official told The Daily Beast. "This is the play."

In one particularly disgusting spectacle, a Fox News segment on the caravan featured an anchor hiding in bushes until he could ambush a boat containing a (non-caravan) migrant family trying to secretly cross into the U.S. "We seem to have thwarted this attempt," the anchor boasts before interviewing a woman about why she was doing this. She says she can't find work in Honduras and criminals keep stealing her money so she was heading to the U.S. to find a job. Perhaps realizing that preventing this doesn't exactly make him the hero, the anchor hastily adds that "they're not all women and children" coming here peacefully.

Others have resorted to using old images of violence and attributing them to migrant attacks.

No proof, no problem. Trump admitted Tuesday that he has "no proof" the migrant caravan had been infiltrated by ISIS, a claims he's been making repeatedly over the past week along with claims that these evil hordes were being funded by U.S. Democrats.

The ISIS lie initially came from Judicial Watch, which twisted Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales' statement that his administration had deported around 100 ISIS members since he took office in 2016 into a claim that these terrorists were marching north into America as part of the migrant caravan.

Department of if-only: For libertarians, there are at least two frustrating threads in all this panic and hoopla. First, there are the folks who act like immigration laws and national boundaries are immutable precepts handed down from God, and that anyone who transgresses against them is morally wrong and depraved, instead of just rejecting the arbitrary policy and geography decisions that have heretofore destined them to misery.

Second, there's the Trump administration insistence that Democrats are responsible for migrants heading here because Democrats support "open borders." We have yet to have a single Democratic president, U.S. senator or representative, or party higher-up come out in favor of anything close to an open borders policy, and many of the immigration policies people on the left now object to under Trump are continuations of Obama-era policies.


But what about the killing itself? If nothing else, President Trump objects to how bad a job the Saudis did at planning and then hiding their hand in Jamal Khashoggi's brutal murder.


Houston reaches a compromise on sex robots.


NEXT: Trump Is Building a Wall of Bureaucracy

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lies, lies, and more lies about caravan of Central American refugees.

    The Dodge minivan will not hold all of them, as has been reported by the president.

    1. Lies, lies, and more lies by the coverage of the caravan of Central American refugees.


      1. Lies, lies, and more lies and more lies by the coverage of the caravan of Central American refugees.


    2. Hello.

      “Many such individuals from Central America?including a lot of desperate, desolate, and powerless women and children?”

      This made me thirsty.

    3. Let them all in. Give them asylum. Get charity groups to get them into integration programs, where they will learn about American culture and learn English. This country can easily absorb 7,000 new immigrants. These are people with go-getter attitudes, which we need to start new small businesses in this country.

      1. Let them all in and settle every one in a Democratic enclave like Berkeley or Madison. Build section 8 housing for them next door to every Democratic donor you can find.

        Obama went out of his way to settle refugees in small towns and Republican areas. Trump should do the same to Demcorats.

        1. Whatever. Just let them legally work.

          1. And if they can’t get work because they are unqualified or children or just criminals who don’t want to work, what then?

            Assume for a moment they really are refugees fleeing for their lives. Criminals and deadbeats have to flee for their lives sometimes. Should we let them in the country to continue their criminal ways or just live on welfare just because they are refugees? Should we let mothers with no marketable skills and several children who will end up taking up state aid and time and money in schools that could be spent on other students in as well?

            Don’t the people whose kids will be affected by the efforts to education these kids and the people who will be victimized by the ones who are criminals and the taxpayers who have to pay for the ones who end up on welfare or in jail count for anything? Is there any point in this debate where the interests of the people who live in this country counts for anything at all with Libertarians?

            1. “Is there any point in this debate where the interests of the people who live in this country counts for anything at all with Libertarians?”

              The white man’s burden toward these noble savages is the only priority.

              1. It is forever the American public’s burden to suffer for Reason’s principles.

            2. I’m sure there are still some minimum wage jobs that don’t require a high school education, after all. Of course, that assumes they’re worth the minimum wage as opposed to having an industrious robot do it instead.

              No one seems to care that programs implemented 100 years ago, that are widely popular with the electorate, were verbatim created to harm immigrant labor. No, we should stick a fork in our eye to keep both opposing programs in place no matter how destructive that will be.


            3. I say we annex everything from Mexico to Panama.

          2. Why should people who live close to the US be allowed in, while legal immigrants from other parts of the world need to wait upwards of seven years? They can’t just march across the border

            1. Those immigrants might expect minimum wage, one might suppose, if not a Doctor’s wages for being an actual European Doctor.

              A South American Doctor might expect to see a requirement to actually attend medical school, for example, and thus will almost certainly not be assisting with anything medical beyond perhaps an EMT.

              This isn’t true across the board, obviously, but accreditation is what it is.

        2. Dont give the Lefty-lovers any compromise.

      2. I don’t think you’re getting it. 7000 people storming U.S. borders without the U.S. defending the sanctity of its borders (let ’em all in we got jerbs!) sends a terrible signal.

        I can’t believe ‘open borders’ means this crap.

        I’m all for limited government interference of free mobility but there are limits and this is ridiculous.

        1. When people were pouring in from the U.S. into Quebec – in the hundreds – Canadians freaked out.

          Think about that.

          People understand these weren’t refugees in the classic definition of the term. As one guy put it, ‘Refugees? From America? Yeah-right.’

          Most were young men if I recall correctly.

          But hey. We’re all alt-right xenophobes now.

          /shrugs shoulders.

          1. Why were young men pouring into Quebec? Was it the all nude strip clubs?

            1. Vive le Quebec!

            2. Mats. Sundin.

          2. Rufus, (1) Canada does not share a national border with a dirt poor shithole that allows violent cartels to run wild [not yet anyway] (2) Canada has a population of ~36.5 million, which is about the population that the USA used to allow floods of immigrants to enter the USA to create instant citizens. Apples and oranges.

            1. The point is Canadians were freaked out by it regardless.

              Imagine if we had to deal with something on the scale of the USA’s example?

      3. Nope.

        Non-Americans are going to run the United States of America. Americans run this country.

        None of these migrants have legitimate political asylum claims. None of the migrants so far have claimed that their political beliefs are being targeted by their government.

        If these stupid immigrants were anything but, they would all claim to be Libertarians and that their government is persecuting them for their political beliefs.

        1. *Non-Americans are NOT going to run the United States of America.

          1. Not if ol’ man Soros has his druthers. Billionaire globalists in Davos would do a better job of ruling you.

      4. Let them all in. Give them asylum.

        Mexico tried. They weren’t processing them fast enough and, supposedly, not all of them have any sort of proof as to who they are or claim to be, so they tore down the gates (In case it’s not clear: it doesn’t make any sense to give someone asylum and then give their pursuers asylum right behind them). It’d be great to say that they’re all just asylum seekers and law-abiding citizens who just want to turn over a new leaf in a new host country. But reality doesn’t support that narrative.

        My favorite feature is the ~0.1% of the caravan who are white dudes with video cameras.

      5. Take up the White Man’s burden-
        Have done with childish days-
        The lightly proffered laurel,
        The easy, ungrudged praise.
        Comes now, to search your manhood
        Through all the thankless years,
        Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
        The judgment of your peers!

        – t. Chipper A.M. PenisBone

  2. Secret Service are investigating a suspicious package, thought to be an explosive, left outside Bill and Hillary Clinton’s home.

    Word is it has already been hacked into by Russia.

    1. It was a bag of lost ballots from 2016. Unfortunately, they were votes for Trump.

    2. “Only a Thai prostitute knows the truth about that.”

      ENB is Alex Jones put more ridiculous

  3. Amazon has reportedly been shopping its facial-recognition software to federal immigration agents.

    Free shipping on it if the feds purchase a Prime membership.

    1. Free shipping on software? Are you still getting those AOL CDs in the mail, Fist?

      1. No, free shipping, as in relationshipping. See two refugee/undocumented/illegal faces on the screen and put them together in your dreams for free.

  4. Here’s what Trump’s trade war is doing to American companies.

    Pretty much the same thing all government incursions into the market do: picking winners and losers?

    1. Brain drain from developing countries: how can brain drain be converted into wisdom gain?
      Brain drain is the migration of skilled human resources for trade, education, etc.1 Trained health professionals are needed in every part of the world. However, better standards of living and quality of life, higher salaries, access to advanced technology and more stable political conditions in the developed countries attract talent from less developed areas. The majority of migration is from developing to developed countries. This is of growing concern worldwide because of its impact on the health systems in developing countries. …

      …International migration first emerged as a major public health concern in the 1940s when many European professionals emigrated to the UK and USA.4 In the 1970s, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a detailed 40-country study on the magnitude and flow of the health professionals.5 According to this report, close to 90% of all migrating physicians, were moving to just five countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, UK and USA.5

    2. 10K people don’t just start marching thousands of miles w/o outside logistical support and organization:

      STUNNING: Photo Evidence Shows Caravan Migrants Carrying USAID Bags ? Paid for by US Taxpayers

      1. The whole thing is a calculated operation. And it is not about 10,000 peple it is about using those people as a wedge for the hundreds of thousands who would follow should this work.

        1. I bet George Soros is behind the whole thing.

          1. The Open Society Fund makes it its mission to fund refugee migrations


            So that is probably a good guess. Do you really think these people all got together spontaniously? Do you think that there are no NGOs or groups who want completely open borders to the West?

            You don’t really seem to have a positiion here other than being a know nothing asshole and thinking that there should not be a border of any kind. In fact, you don’t seem to be honest enough to say that.

            1. In an Open Society people are free to move around and question government about everything – unlike the Closed Society you wingnut conservatives prefer.

              1. Yes, they are funding refugee migrations in hopes of destroying borders and Western Governments with it.

              2. Poor Buttplugger and his hatred for this Constitutional Democratic Republic.

                He learned that popular vote “majority” does not win in the USA.

          2. Georgia Soros is used to get large groups of undesirables together and then getting them to walk to their demise.

            1. No, he’s used to picking up the stuff they left behind

              1. That is just the stuff he has admitted to.

                Nazis were good multi-taskers.

        2. John, have you thought about the possibility that this caravan is a bottom-up operation that was spontaneously organized by the participants? Not everything is a centrally planned event. Conservatives used to believe in stuff like that.

          1. Yes I have and there is not a single shred of evidence that it is that. Meanwhile, there are tons of reports that it is a concerted operation.

            If you have any evidence that it is ground up beyond wishful thinking and assertions coming out of your ass, provide it. If you can’t, then concede the point and move on.

      2. And they are timed to arrive at the US border just in time for election 2018.

        What a lucky coincidence.

    3. “The Left is reduced to mocking Americans with reasonable questions as panicky racists”

      1. That has been true since about 2008.

      2. The Lefties never can explain why immigrants still want to come to a nation full of panicky racists.

        1. The left manipulates Americans on immigrations with selective anecdotes and sob stories, which is an interesting illustration of their bitter cynicism because they simultaneously say Americans are cruel selfish racists but bank heavily on them falling for sob stories.
          If Americans actually lived down to the ugly stereotypes lefties hold of them, the left’s strategy for manipulating Americans on subjects like immigration wouldn’t work at all. But lefties passionately believe those strategies DO work every time they’re tried.

          1. The irony is that as more people see through the left’s tactics, the more they will become the stereotypes the left claims.

          2. Americans will likely continue to be one of the most charitable nations on Earth and secure its borders.

        2. Trump is totally Hitler and Latino illegals are the new Jews.
          Exactly like 1939.
          Remember how millions of Jews were trying to get into Nazi Germany any way they could, in hopes of a better life?

    4. “, because if U.S. taxpayers are responsible for the entire population of Central America, then we damn well SHOULD take over their capitals and start running those countries better than the local kleptocrats.”

      Pretty much this.

      Because, if borders have no meaning for the control of human movement, then why should they place any limits on the expression of political power?

      That’s why ‘open borders’ is not remotely libertarian.

      1. Precisely this. I’ve often noted that the open borders position is essentially a repudiation of the NAP but no one gives a shit. Borders will simply always exist, unless you’re a U.N. one world government type. Not very libertarian, to say the least.

  5. Dungeons & Dragons art is “finally getting the respect it deserves.”

    The “Piss Azuth” is pretty controversial, though.

  6. Sex-segregated support for Democrats versus Republicans is widening…

    Men gerrymander Mars; women gerrymander Venus.

    1. “Sex-segregated”

      these euphemisms. Is the m word taboo now?

  7. There’s Trump Derangement Syndrome, and then there’s Bruce Bartlett.
    Key differences between Donald Trump and Adolph Hitler?Hitler served honorably in the military, Trump didn’t; Hitler was faithful to his wife, Trump cheated on all his wives; Hitler wrote a book, Trump’s were all ghostwritten.

    ? Bruce Bartlett (@BruceBartlett) October 23, 2018

    1. The funny thing is that he isn’t even right about Hitler. Hitler didn’t marry Eva Braun until the night of their suicides and was known to have all kinds of strange sexual proclivities with German actresses.

      Beyond that, Bartlett inadvertantly makes a great point about how private character does not always translate into public virtue. A sane person reading that Tweet would take it to be an illustration of how Trump’s private character flaws don’t necessarily reflect on his public character. That obvious meaning never occurred to Barlett because appearently his is a lunatic.

    2. Bartlett, a REAL Stalinist!

      1. Reagan’s economist is a Stalinist?

        You are truly the resident idiot here, LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789.

        Is it true you are in high school?

        why aren’t you in class?

      2. Says the guy who doesnt get the joke.

        1. You can’t parody a parody.

          1. We parody your parody account every day.

          2. Look how cute Buttplugger is.

            I fix his call sign months ago, so he tries to change my call sign.

            He must hate when I comment past him on here.

      3. Buttplugger, all the women in your family love my dick!

        1. Watch out, lovecon89, or your homeroom teacher might take your phone away.

          1. Pretty funny that a kid in school would be able to own you so easily.

            Says a lot about y’all.

      4. Buttplugger, your mom says hi.

    3. You can make the ghostwritten charge with almost every politician within the last few decades who have published books, especially presidential candidates. In fact, that now almost seems a requirement for presidential nominees.

    4. On the other hand…

      Trump, Mussolini, Hitler – nonsmokers
      Obama, FDR, Churchill, Stalin – smokers

      Not that it means anything.

      1. It means that some were smokers and some were not.

  8. But President Trump and his acolytes have sidestepped this by simply lying, repeatedly,

    Rinse. Repeat.

    Good stuff ENB.

    Don’t let the riff-raff in the Peanut Gallery change you.

    1. Hey NPC Weigel. How is the gray skinned acne nowadays?

    2. “Good Stuff ENB”

      Buttplug seal of approval 2 days in a row. ENB, You’re doing gggrrrrreeeeaaaaaaaattt !!!

      1. You’re goddamn right.

        The Buttplug is a fan of ENB and Reason at large – unlike the conservative riff-raff here.

        1. I’m not a conservative and she doesn’t represent libertarian views well. “Reason at large” feels many different ways about her writing.

        2. Why would a Lefty love ENB and not ever have anything bad to say about Reason?

          An intern sockpuppet position to fluff web traffic is my bet.

  9. Gooood morning! There are 13 days until the midterms, and as of now this election has the largest gender gap since 1958. @alexi and @StefWKight have the details for you ?> America, 2018: Gender gaps, gender wars
    ? Haley Britzky (@halbritz) October 24, 2018

    Good thing racial and ethnic gaps haven’t developed.

  10. “The ban prohibits the use of a sex robot at a business, but does not prevent the sales of the robots.”

    ? Shoshana Weissmann, Regulatory Reform Muse (@senatorshoshana) October 23, 2018

    Skynet started as a rentboy, you know.

    1. You’ll submit once they grab you by the wherever

  11. She says she can’t find work in Honduras and criminals keep stealing her money..

    Having been to Honduras it is likely that the criminals stealing her money are the police down there.

  12. We could just let them in legally. There, problem solved!
    ? (((The Alex Nowrasteh))) (@AlexNowrasteh) October 24, 2018

    Neither side could cherry pick facts or broad brush things, too. But that ain’t the world we live in.

    1. Our own unemployed clearly don’t want the 7+ million currently open jobs.

  13. A photo of bloodied law enforcement officers from 2012 was used to make false claims about the migrant caravan. Here’s Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, helping spread it:
    ? Craig Silverman (@CraigSilverman) October 23, 2018

    Were the photos of law enforcement locked in cages?

  14. Republicans Whip Up Pre-Midterm Fears With Lies About Invading Migrant Caravan

    Notice how the Media pushes the caravan narrative and then when non-Lefties use that nonsense to win elections in the USA, the Media cries foul?

    1. Is the lie that asylum seekers are supposed to stop at the first country they get to?

      1. How about they stop in the first country that offers them asylum?

      2. Refugee asylum

        The biggest lie is that poor people have a claim to political asylum. They are poor not being persecuted for their political beliefs.

        1. Applying this definition, internally displaced persons (IDPs) ? including individuals fleeing natural disasters and generalized violence, stateless individuals not outside their country of habitual residence or not facing persecution, and individuals who have crossed an international border fleeing generalized violence are not considered refugees under either the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Optional Protocol.

  15. If nothing else, President Trump objects to how bad a job the Saudis did at planning and then hiding their hand in Jamal Khashoggi’s brutal murder.

    Our president appreciates subtlety above all else.

  16. The United States Secret Service intercepted two “suspicious packages” addressed to former President Barack Obama and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton earlier this week, the agency said Wednesday.

    Neither Obama nor Clinton received the packages or were at risk of receiving them, the Secret Service said. They were discovered during “routine mail screening procedures as potential explosive devices and were appropriately handled as such,” the agency said in a statement. WTKR

    More right wing violence….

    1. next thing you know some evil Trumpista is going to shoot a bunch of people at a Congressional baseball game.

      1. I am sure that Fat Rush (Praise Be Unto Him) Limbaugh is teaching you dildo-heads to use that one non-lethal example of prog violence to counter the hundreds of lethal right wing killings.

        1. I wouldn’t know. You are the only one on here that listen’s to him, although whether you actually listen to him or he is just one of the voices in your head is an open question.

          1. You’re such a fucking lying asshole. Does anyone like you? Has anyone ever liked you?

            1. I like John.

              He puts you trolls in your place.

            2. Yes Tony, everyone who disagrees with you listens to Rush Limbaugh. The fact that you and shreek are the only ones on here who ever mention him or have any idea what he says is just further evidence of how we are all guided by him.

              You are on to us.

        2. “one non-lethal example of prog violence”

          So the guy gets brownie points for trying to kill a bunch of people but being pathetically incompetent?

          And then there are the dozens of times that Antifa has attacked people they perceive to be their political opponents.

          So, no, the right does not have a monopoly on political violence these days.

          1. Hey now, he only shot a bunch of people. He didn’t kill anyone.

            Only shreek could be dumb enough to say that. Even Tony isn’t that stupid.

          2. So the guy gets brownie points

            No. He got what he had coming. Fuck him.

            As an Open Society advocate we settle things at the ballot box.

            1. By importing new voters and committing enough vote fraud to win.

              1. The voter fraud in Georgia has begun in earnest.

                The media attacked the Libertarian governor candidate too.
                FOX- article

                Georgia Libertarian candidate Ted Metz

    2. Because nobody on the left is deranged enough to threaten Clinton or Obama.

      Never change you demented fucking partisan hack.

      1. Come on Nate, don’t you know it was reichwingers who killer both Kennedy brothers?

        Oh, wait…

    3. Because nobody on the left is deranged enough to threaten Clinton or Obama.

      Never change you demented fucking partisan hack.

    4. “More right wing violence….”

      And now it looks like a similar package addressed to the White House was intercepted this morning. Might want to lay off the “right wing” stuff. Looks like the sender of the packages was an independent……

      1. Maybe it is the family of someone Obama drone striked.

    5. I have yet to hear if these ‘suspicious packages’ are actually bombs, even while lots of talking heads say that’s what they are there’s always the caveat that they don’t know yet.

      They probably are, don’t get me wrong, but it’s weird that there hasn’t been an official release to that effect.

      1. Maybe they’re just clocks

        1. ‘Suspicious package’ doesn’t really mean anything is my point. If this is going to be used as a talking point linking the right to violence, I’d at least like to know for sure.

          1. I agree with you.
            Just interesting to compare the expected reaction to “clock boy” a few years ago – a time when terrorist attacks were more prevalent- to the expected reaction to these suspicious packages.
            The word ‘credible’ once again comes to mind

            1. If no “bombs” actually go off, I remain suspicious regarding their nature and origin

          2. ‘Suspicious Package’ was my nickname in college.

  17. What the Fox reporter did is “a disgusting spectacle”, why? Are media ambushing someone in TV he middle of performing an illegal act always something that should not be done, or is it just the act of illegal immigration that should get a pass? Please explain your thinking instead of just assuming everyone agrees with your assumptions.

    Apparently, catching illegal immigrants crossing the border red handed is so easy even a journalist can do it.

    1. Yet, reason constantly claims that it is a myth that anyone wants fully open borders. Reason will come up with a case when someone should be denied entry to the country at some point. If that Robinson guy who tried to film the rape gang trial over in the UK ever tries to come to this country, I bet reason will finally find a case where the immigrant doesn’t win. But short of that, I can’t see one.

      1. From what I have seen, they do agree with some restrictions in theory. Whenever a circumstance comes up that would put those theories into practice, they balk at the idea.

        1. If you like your border, you can keep your border.

          1. If you don’t like the border, were gonna give you a boarder.

            1. Borders are the imaginary lines we all draw together.

              1. this this this.

            2. “If you don’t like the border, were gonna give you a boarder.”

              And this I’d be okay with.
              Let advocates like chemjeff, cmb, sarc, rev, palbutt, etc sponsor individual immigrants and assume full financial and legal responsibility for them.
              That would be fair, but unfortunately means their abstract ideals would actually involve a personal stake and consequences.

              1. If the rules were, a refugee can come here only if an American agrees to sponsor them and pay for whatever public services they use for say the first ten years and be responsible for finding them a job and a place to live, I would be okay with that.

                Such people would never agree to such a system. It would force them to actually bear the burden of their sacred principles. And no one wants that. The idea is for other people to bear the burden.

                  1. “If you don’t like the border, were gonna give you a boarder.”

                    And this I’d be okay with.

                    I don’t believe you.

                    Because even if such a system were in place, you and your fellow tribalists would still be claiming that these people are rapists and murderers and illegally on welfare and illegally voting for Democrats and undermining the purity of essence of America by advocating for Marxist socialism, or some such nonsense.

                    You don’t want them here for CULTURAL reasons. Bitching about the cost is just a red herring.

                    1. You would still call them invaders and still think they are inferior human beings compared to native-born citizens and still think they are stealing American jerbz and undermining the greatness of America and turning the US into a Venezuelan shithole. None of those objections have much if anything to do with the cost of taking care of refugees.

                      You just don’t want them here period and you’ll use any convenient excuse to make that point.

                    2. You don’t want them here because they are suspiciously different than what you think a “real American” ought to be. They aren’t like those farm boys from Nebraska who grew up liking football and NASCAR. They have strange views and strange customs who can’t be trusted to carry the torch of American liberty so you have decided that they must be kept out.

                    3. I don’t think any are asking to be taken care of. They want to work and live their lives in a way that was impossible in the countries they came from.

                      I’ll take in a refugee family if the MAGA crowd here goes to live in Honduras for a few years. See how you hard working upright non criminal types fare.

                    4. I don’t care what you believe. It’s apparent from your reaction, that your beliefs are based in a collectivist perspective and pure prejudice.

                      But, for the sake of illustration to others:

                      “these people are rapists and murderers”
                      If that proves to be so, YOU’LL also be on the hook for those crimes, as you’ve assumed legal responsibility as their sponsor.

                      ” and illegally on welfare and illegally voting for Democrats”
                      And as you’ve assumed financial responsibility through sponsorship, they’d be ineligible for welfare and any application for such would also be fraud on YOUR part.

                    5. The rest of your rant is simply evidence of rabid bigotry generated by YOUR own self-loathing, the necessity of psychological defense mechanisms kicking in because you’ve based your identity on a political philosophy, one which is proving increasingly inconsistent and out of touch with reality.
                      The hive mind is in the midst of a nervous breakdown.
                      Solution is to reassess and adjust your worldview, or to commit suicide.
                      In your case, I’d reccomend either.

            3. Lefties dont want to personally board these immigrants. They want taxpayers to do it.

              1. And you don’t want to personally stand up to third world dictators or defy criminal gangs like you demand they do.

                I’ll sponsor an immigrant family if you and whatever family you might have go live in Honduras or Guatemala for the same length of time.

                1. “And you don’t want to personally stand up to third world dictators or defy criminal gangs like you demand they do.”

                  If I were them, I’d want to do just that. As it is, I am not them. What I do in my circumstances is irrelevant to what they do in theirs.

                  “I’ll sponsor an immigrant family if you and whatever family you might have go live in Honduras or Guatemala for the same length of time.”

                  How does this make sense? If you’re proposing an exchange system, then it might make sense for you to offer yourself in exchange. There is nothing logical about making your potential sponsorship contingent upon forcing exile of an American opposed to illegal immigration.
                  That’s just crazy talk.

                2. My family did that. They stood up to King George. They did that so I didnt have to.

                  The other side of my family stood up to Americans and lost.

                  I fight for America, so I dont have to constantly fight off criminals and tyrannical governments and so my kids dont either.

    2. The media is on a pre-election news cycle to push this caravan narrative.

      This was the MSM’s latest propaganda nonsense that will backfire. While it is a bit weird for some reporter to hide in the bushes, so what.

      Furthermore, its very douchey for reporters to egg on a bunch of migrants to attack the US border without telling them the truth- that they will be repulsed.

      1. Yes, but it is amusing that they do not seem to understand that this caravan plays into exactly what turns people off from the open borders ideology, but they cannot seem empathize enough with any other point of view to realize they are undermining their own position.

        1. Its like a giant campaignn contribution to the Republicans. I honestly don’t understand how they cannot see that.

          1. The radical open border people and Lefties have lost their minds.

            It is pretty clear when simple deductive reasoning would show them that they are going against what most Americans voters want and will pay for it during the elections.

    1. He should have stuck to whales

      1. Amy Schumer is unavailable to comment.

        1. Clearly, it’s caramel apple season

      2. “Fucka you whare! Fucka you dorphin!”

        1. You’re next cow and chicken.

  18. America has a process in place for handling those fleeing from authoritarian, war-torn, crime-wrecked, and disaster-devastated countries.

    Sounds like the definition of a sh*thole.

  19. When Democrats whip up fear and hysteria among their voters, it’s because they are cynically using fear to acquire power.

    When Republicans whip up fear and hysteria among their voters, it’s because they are patriots who have the best intentions of the nation in their hearts.

    1. So, people who don’t want thousands of refugees pouring over the border are just irrational? How is publizing this and pointing out that Democrats make no secret of their desire to abolish ICE and allow any migrant who wants to come here come, “whipping up fear”? If you really think this is a good thing, then shouldn’t you want Democrats to be publicizing this and telling America how these people should be welcomed along with anyone else that has to come?

      You can’t on the one hand claim you support this and think it is good but then on the other hand claim that anyone who publicizes it is just whipping up fear. If it is is so great, then everyone should be happy about it.

    2. No, they’re both cynically using fear to gain power.

      The media writ large only calls out one side when they do it though.

  20. We have yet to have a single Democratic president, U.S. senator or representative, or party higher-up come out in favor of anything close to an open borders policy, and many of the immigration policies people on the left now object to under Trump are continuations of Obama-era policies.

    If you’re not in favor of deporting people who are here illegally, that’s de facto open borders.

    Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney famously said “Unless you’re a Native American, you have no right to tell anyone to leave.” Sounds pretty Open Borderish to me.

    1. I imagine if millions of foreign university professors, journalists and lawyers were streaming over the border and teaching philosophy or practicing law for pennies on the dollar, the DNC would be screaming.

  21. Just in case anyone still doubts the existence of the patriarchy and male privilege, listen to Brianna Wu.

    “I’ve spent over $3,000 just on hair alone.” ?? Democratic candidate Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) talks about the double standards women face on the campaign trail #CrashTheParty

    Male politicians never have their appearance analyzed to the extent women do. That’s one of the many reasons we still need feminism.

    1. Maybe spending $3,000 on hair was a good signal to voters on how she’d handle money if put in office

      1. See, this is what I’m talking about. Society pressures women to look a certain way, and when they do, it still condemns them. “But you spent too much money looking like that!” Setting up a game that women cannot win is the literal definition of misogyny.

        1. Society pressures women to be good looking and does the same with men. But, unlike men, some women can actually spend money to make themselves look better. If you’re an ugly guy then usually you’re just going to have to make the best of it. If anything, women have the advantage in that regard because they have more options to alter their appearance than guys do.

          1. That is very true. Some old bag like Hillary or Warren, can do their hair and makeup and look acceptable. But a guy like Chuck Schummer is what he is. Remember Henry Waxman? He looked like an evil mole man. No amount of expensive clothes or makeup was going to make him look any better.

        2. If you feel pressured to be good looking and you’re not, you probably shouldn’t run for public office.

          Or you should stop using that as an excuse for your profligate campaign spending. Great Clips is like $20.

    2. “I’ve spent $3,000 on hair alone…. Oh BTW, give me more money so I can do important things!”

      1. Have you seen her? She looks like a homely lesbian adjunct at women’s college. She spent all that money on hair and fashion and still makes Amy Farah Fowler look trendy and fashionable.

        1. Yikes. That hairdresser has a nice scam going

          1. No kidding. In fairness to the hair dresser, I have never seen a picture of what she looked like before that. So, maybe he did a great job with what he had to work with.

            1. My guess is big frizzy poodle hair. She should just stick with it and say she is protesting discrimination against curly haired people

              1. Equal rights for those with Perms NOW!!

        2. Bless her heart, but those glasses give her the crazy eyes. Sad.

    3. 1. Maybe she should get a fucking hair cut.
      2. John Edwards (not the psychic one) says “Hi!”.

    4. The ultimate irony is that Brianna Wu has (had?) a penis. He elected to be a woman for the victim cred, and this is just one small component of the scheme.

  22. Dungeons & Dragons art is “finally getting the respect it deserves.”

    Story of the year.

    1. I like Brom.

      1. Some art world heavy hitters do RPGs now.

      2. Brom rocks. One of my favs, among many, is Tony Diterlizzi.

        1. Yes, Diterlizzi’s art made the Planescape setting come to life.

        2. Erol Otis was my favorite.

  23. Dungeons & Dragons art is “finally getting the respect it deserves.”

    The cover art on the D&D module The Keep On The Borderlands was fairly basic, but it got a lot better over time.

  24. That Clarence Thomas would marry a dumbass pig such as Ginni Thomas is the most damning indictment of his judgment one could imagine.

    (“Pig” describes the ugliness of her character, stale thinking, and soul.)

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. Yes Rev like Shreek you can’t stand it that a white woman married a black man. Backwoods hicks like you never got over the rise of interracial marriage.

      1. I don’t care who Thomas married. I just don’t like that he was the affirmative action, less qualified justice Bush could have chosen.

        I am 100% opposed to affirmative action or race based preferences.

        1. He graduated from Yale and ran the EEOC. He is more qualified than Hagen and RBG. But since he is black and you are a racist, you assume he succeeded by affirmative action. You don’t known anything about him other than the color of his skin. You are the worst racist on here. I can’t believe reason doesn’t ban you for the racist crap you post.

          1. Kagan was never even a judge, for example.

            1. Kagan wasn’t even a real professor. She was a Dean. No one who is a real academic star wants to be a dean. Dean is the job they give to the professor who doesn’t publish enough, has nowhere else to go, and is willing to take it.

              1. It doesn’t matter, it’s absurd that she wasn’t a judge. There is no judicial record to review, so she was confirmed based on ‘I dunno, I guess being a chick is good enough’. That she didn’t recuse herself for the ACA decision tells you much about her character. That should have been impeachable.

        2. From what I had read, Bush would have nominated him for the nomination that went to Souter if Thomas had not just been put on the DC circuit, because they were that impressed with his thinking. Furthermore, Thomas has been one the most eloquent and well reasoned jurists on SCOTID since his appointment.

          I know it galls you that Bush had a black originalist ready to go to replace Marshall.

          1. Thomas has been a brilliant justice. If he were white, leftists would admit that the way they admitted it about Scalia. They only call him stupid because he is black.

            But remember, it is everyone else that is racist not leftists.

        3. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.24.18 @ 10:05AM|#
          “I am 100% opposed to affirmative action or race based preferences.”

          List of turd posts which are not lies:

  25. With Halloween only a week away, remember to observe the event in a sensitive, intersectional manner. Specifically, if you’re white, avoid costumes that might be offensive to black and brown people.

    Dear white people who are upset that you can’t dress up as another race or culture for Halloween: your feelings don’t matter. The only feelings that matter are of those who feel disrespected/mocked by you appropriating their culture for entertainment. Show some common decency.

    One day I hope to live in a country in which all white people are as woke as Kirsten Powers.


    1. It should be noted that pumpkins, having originated in the New World, are appropriashun, too.

    2. #mickface

  26. I wonder if any political party in the history of the world has so brazenly lied. Most fascist dickholes at least tried to cling to some discernible mote of truth in their bigoted assholery. One might call what Trump is doing an innovative form of politics.

    1. In fairness, I don’t think the Democratic Party got that sleazy until the Clinton’s came along. You are really too hard on them.

      1. Yeah, FDR was a real paragon of virtuous behavior, nothing sleazy at all.

        1. Fair point. And Johnson was worse than Nixon when it came to using the FBI to go after his political enemies.

          1. And between the two of them how many young men died ” fighting communism ” in Vietnam?

            1. Nixon at least ended the war and the draft along with it. That is a lot better than getting into the war.

              1. The Lefties hate that Nixon was still better than Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Clinton.

      2. During the migrant crisis, Italian officials were one of the first to say, ‘Say, these aren’t refugees! I think you need to stop sending these folks here!’ Then the EU got all nervy and pissy about it. But Italy stood its ground.

        Except, NGO’s were still rounding up migrants from Libya and dumping them on Italian shores behind their back ignoring the request to cease and desist. So Italy sent its navy to stop them. Of course, this sprang Macron into action claiming Italy was lacking compassion. Which led to DiMaio and Salvani saying ‘Hey, you’re all cool France? Open up the Marseille ports and take them. We’ll gladly do it at our expense! No? Then shut the fuck up.’

        It wouldn’t surprise me this was orchestrated by some hands behind the scenes.

        1. I am sure your fellow Canadians would flip the fuck out if the USA offered to pick up every Mexican/South American/Central American, that wanted to immigrate, from a port and drop them at a Canadian port.

          1. Precisely my point up top.

            No one should criticize Americans for protecting their borders.

        2. Well, if you are some shithole Kleptocrat, and you are given the chance to clean out undesirables or reduce the possibility of civil unrest without having to get all genocide-y (which, lets face it, doesn’t just risk all sorts of unwanted international attention, but is also plain expensive) why wouldn’t you help arrange for those folks you don’t want around to up and leave?

      1. Go back to 8chan you dickless nerd.

        1. Looks like Tony has been kicked out of 8chan too.

        2. < input > If they use an accurate meme they’re a racist channer who is dehumanizing people < /input >

  27. Keep up the good work, OBL

  28. Those eccentric migrants all equipped with a copy of The Constitution:…..ican-flag/

    Palin’s future neighbours!

    1. They just want to come here in peace. That is why they are waving Honduran flags and burning the American flag. It would be nice if the refugee lovers on here would at least try and square their actual actions with the claims made about how peaceful and wonderful patriotic Americans that are.

      1. Someone is daring the U.S. government. Interesting the timing of this.

    2. Copies of the Constitution, huh?

      Then need to be aware of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, since it allows Congress to regulate immigration from 1808 on:
      The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

  29. Indiana’s Joe Donnelly is officially in big trouble, as his slim polling lead has completely disappeared in the final days leading up to the election.

    Donnelly is still desperately running around touting his moderate credentials, but I don’t think people are going to forget his “No” vote for Kavanaugh too easily. And incumbents in tough environments who are only polling at around 41-42% almost always lose. I think he’s finished.

    Not only is the so-called “blue wave” the ‘tards have been going on and on about for months not going to happen, the republicans are almost certainly going to GAIN seats in the senate.

    1. Even the Democrats are admitting that taking the Senate is out of the question. Nate Silver is finally admitting that there is an 85% chance that the Democrats take the House. That sounds grave until you consider that he was claiming it was a virtual certainty a couple of weeks ago. If Silver is admitting that the Republicans have a significant chance of holding the House, the Democrats’ chances are falling fast.

      1. Whatever. I’m sticking by my #BlueTsunami prediction, in which Democrats take the House and Senate. My progressive friends are energized and motivated in a way I’ve never seen before. And you should see all the Beto lawn signs!

        1. I had occasion to drive across Texas for my wedding this past weekend, and it’s interesting that in Dallas there are a lot of Beto signs and only a few Cruz signs, and it’s the exact opposite everywhere outside the urban centers. Predictable, in fact, and it means Beto is likely to lose.

          1. >>>for my wedding

            >>>in Dallas

            a. mazel tov!

            b. is freaking my s/o out i told her all the yards w/o Robbie signs were de facto Cruz houses in hiding

            1. b. is freaking my s/o out i told her all the yards w/o Robbie signs were de facto Cruz houses in hiding

              Yeah, probably so! And thanks =P

      2. Lame-ass fake genius Silver with his Monte Carlo simulation program that he didn’t create has literally been making a living off this schtick for years. Claim way ahead of time that every election is a drop-dead lock for the democrats, then in the final days slowly, gradually drop the percentage down, and then when the democrats lose cop out like the lame-ass that he is by saying “Hey, I didn’t say it was a lock at the very end, a slim chance for the republicans is still a chance!”

        1. His schtick is comical. Giving percentage odds on a single event is absurd. Since we can’t live the counter factual, there is no way to check his results. He could say the Democrats have a 99% chance of winning and still claim to be right because long shots do pay off sometimes. The guy is just joke. Yet, Progs can’t get enough of anything that feeds their confirmation bias. I have to give him credit. He has managed make a very good living selling the most base bullshit. That does take some skill and nerve.

    2. IIRC, Donnelly only won in 2012 because the media demanded that his Republican opponent sufficiently explain the Problem of Evil.

  30. Bring the military home and put it on the border to stop the invaders. Reason can go pound sand with its anti-American, open borders BS.

  31. First, they are not following the rules. If you are fleeing for asylum you must claim it in the first country you arrive in not walk through multiple countries to the one you want.

    #NotAll are criminals sure. Now, how many murders and rapists is an acceptable number to be in the crowd? Is 10 rapists few enough? Should we just ignore it if only one murder is in the group?

    So racist to be concerned about thousands of people who have already broken through the borders of other countries doing same here…

    1. Reason will not write a word about the chaos going on in Europe thanks to the mass refugee migration it supported back in 15-16. Now they are advocating for the same thing to happen here. They are not even bothering to claim it will be different this time. Their answer to the concerns raised by the experience in Europe seems to be FYTIW.

        1. EEF You that is Why.

          1. I’m used to “that’s why”, not “that is why” – gotcha.

          2. we in London?

      1. John, you are right but it’s far worse than that. It’s not just “Reason.” The media in Europe hides it and fines and throws in prison people who point out the obvious and report the facts. The media in the U.S. won’t report it, except places like Brietbart and InfoWars which are decried as biased or conspiratorial by anyone who isn’t a regular reader.

        The mainstream media is so bad now that any time they report something I assume the opposite is the truth. And after further research, that usually turns out to be the case.

        1. I generally find that the truth is the exact opposite of what they claim. If they claim that the Republican party is spliting and doomed, chances are it is the Democrats who are doomed. If they claim that these people are peaceful, they are probably mostly criminals. The media seems to be one giant exercise in gaslighting the country. Either that or just an exercise in gaslighting themselves.

          1. Same here. It makes it easier to decide the truth. Whatever the media says, the opposite is usually true.

            1. Usually, whatever horrible thing they accuse Republicans of doing is what Democrats are actually doing.

              1. … or plan on doing.

  32. “‘The Onlys’: There Still Aren’t Enough Women at the Table”
    “Corporate America has made almost no progress in increasing women’s representation in the workplace for the fourth year in a row, a new study finds.”

    It must be terrible to be a woman and to be unable to do anything without assistance from an outside agency!

  33. “Most folks in the “migrant caravan” coming up from Central America are following the rules we set”

    Isn’t one of these rules the 3rd country rule? Apply for asylum in the first safe country they come to – i. e., Mexico?

    1. That is one of those rules. And even if it were not, forgive me for finding the claim that “well most of them are law abiding” to be something less than reassuring.

  34. Anybody remember how I told you all, last week, that this would be the issue that dominates the headlines this week?

    People emotionally digest and pretty much emotionally “forget” everything that happened the week before.

    Two weeks of how Trump’s Kavanaugh is a rapist. (ancient history)
    One week of making Trump apologize for the Saudis. (ancient history)
    Two weeks of making Trump denounce migrant bunnies with big, sad eyes. (Crisis unfolding!)

    In this manner, the media believes our next congress will be chosen. They think the last bit of undecided voters will break against Trump with that five weeks of programming, but they’ve still horribly underestimated how much the American people hate the press.

    1. Although the Kavanaugh story is out of the papers, I think a lot of people still angry about it enough to vote. I have never seen a single event bailout a party’s election chances quite as much as the Kavanaugh affair seems to have bailed out the Republicans. And to the extent its effect is fading, the migrant caravan is taking its place. The whole thing might has well be a campaign event for the Republcan Congress. I am dumbfounded that the people behind it think it is going to help the Democrats in the midterms. Clearly they think it will or they wouldn’t be doing it now. How can they possibily believe that?

      1. Republicans just are not political fighters, so I am thankful the lefties are doing much of the heavy lifting to get GOP voters to vote against Democrats.

        We were very close to the tipping point of no return if Hillary had been elected and their political opponents were pushed out of office via decrees. I am thankful every day that just enough Americans decided enough was enough.

      2. “Although the Kavanaugh story is out of the papers, I think a lot of people still angry about it enough to vote.”

        I think that issue hit people who were already decided. No doubt, it will affect turnout. More registered Republicans will take the time to stop at the polling booth on the way home because of that. Further, that issue turned more people from the “undecided” to “decided” column. The people who cared about that issue deeply are no longer in play as undecided voters. Now we’re talking about that two percent of the vote that’s going to determine who wins races in swing districts and swing states. Are these low IQ people? Sure! A lot of them. This election is a referendum on Trump, and anybody who hasn’t formed a clear opinion on that after two years is probably pretty slow. It’s not like you have to choose between Trump and Hillary. It’s a pure thumbs up/thumbs down on Trump. Thumbs up, you vote for the one with an “R” next to his name. Thumbs down, you vote for the “D”.

        Present company excluded, or course. I’ve got nothing but respect for principled non-voters, but they’re not about to decide the outcome of this election either. It’s the retards. The retards shall inherit the earth.

        1. I think the Kavanaugh thing got a lot of right leaning independents and less motivated Republicans who were generally disgusted with the GOP Congress to suddenly be motivated to vote. It turned what was looking to be a very unmotivated GOP electorate into a very motivated one. And that has bailed out a lot of Republicans running for office.

      3. “I am dumbfounded that the people behind it think it is going to help the Democrats in the midterms.”

        I’m not–because they’re aiming for retards. These are people who are likely to call up and send Sally Struthers some money when they see pictures of African babies starving to death on informercials, and when they see Trump say bad things about migrant families, it makes them think he’s a big meanie. That’s how they decide which team to root for in the Superbowl, and that’s how they decide how to vote.

        If you want to understand retards, John, you gotta think like a retard.

        1. P.S. I’m still an open borders guy!

          I still want an open border treaty with Mexico that’s negotiated by the president and ratified by the senate just as the Constitution allows, and I still want to persuade my fellow Americans to demand and support such a treaty. The treaty would only apply to Mexican citizens, would require any Mexican citizens to confirm their identities in a database we maintain–so we know we’re not getting a bunch of convicted felons or wanted murderers, etc. That way the only people sneaking through the desert are the bad guys, etc., etc., etc.

          I’ve gone through it a hundred times.

          I think that will improve American security along the border, both in terms of terrorism and crime, and it will maximize the economic benefits of having all that cheap labor.

          What I’m talking about here, is 1) nuts and bolts politics–this is what I think is going on with this migrant peace train horseshit regardless of whether I like it. and 2) bullshit in the media (and at Reason) which isn’t doing anything as much harm as it is to the argument for open borders. For pity’s sake, Reason’s irrational arguments and factually incorrect claims make open borders look ridiculously awful and stupid. As a committed open borders guy–and a real live, honest libertarian–I ain’t takin’ that shit lyin’ down.

          1. As you correctly surmised, every hostile open border narratives have cause Americans to get more hard line on border security.

            This wont be over until most illegals are deported and immigration laws are reformed to defer to American-centric policy.

            Then and only then, will the immigration talks resume. I hope they are discussed in a logical and reasonable manner as you advocate for.

            1. Yeah, they just use arguments that are either unpersuasive or don’t use the standards of reason.

              Yesterday, they were arguing against tariffs because they hurt the profits of shareholders–as if that’s about to persuade swing voters in the rust belt that tariffs are bad? They’re perfectly happy to see shareholders lose some dividends if it means more Americans have jobs instead of those jobs being in China. There are excellent reasons why people in the rust belt should oppose tariffs–but that’s not likely to land.

              There are other arguments that are just argued poorly. That same argument about tariffs yesterday was citing stories about lower profit expectations that weren’t necessarily about tariffs at all but might have been more about construction slowing down in China. China’s exports are actually up over recent months–despite the tariffs. It’s their internal demand that’s slowing down because their central bank has been hitting lenders hard to raise their credit standards, etc.

              1. What does that have to do with immigration?

                It’s the same principles at stake.

                You’re not about to persuade Americans to support open borders because their opinion shouldn’t count (because congress has no business setting immigration policy, supposedly). You’re not about to persuade Americans that they should support open borders because it’s good for Mexicans with big sad eyes. It’s good for Americans! That’s why Americans will support it! Those arguments are horribly misguided.

                And when they use bullshit “facts”, too? They might was well be Tony at that point–they’re hurting our cause by arguing for it so poorly.

                1. I take a hard line against Reason staff and Lefties because I know they just want to take a mile from any inch we give them.

                  Its also pretty clear that hordes of immigrants are part of some Democrat plan to capture US elections from the ever-increasing conservative leaning American states. California allowing non-Americans to vote and giving them IDs, so they can migrate to other states made that perfectly clear for me.

                  After the Democrats are soundly defeated and the US Constitution amended soon, I will look forward to discussing immigration policy based on whats good for America again.

          2. A hundred years ago I would have been completely on board with your plan.

            But today, in the year 2018, we simply don’t have the money or resources to take care of a hundred million Mexican sad-sacks. It’s just impossible. We’re already in bad enough fiscal dire straits as it is now.

            1. Plus, if they stayed in their home countries and fought for a stable, law abiding nation of laws it would be better for everyone. They would have a good country and other countries would not have to bail them out.

            2. “But today, in the year 2018, we simply don’t have the money or resources to take care of a hundred million Mexican sad-sacks.”

              If you’re talking about welfare, etc., that can be addressed in a treaty. It really can.

              In fact, if an open borders treaty makes less welfare available to foreign citizens, isn’t that better than the situation we have now?

              I’m not interested in turning this thread into another immigration debate, but, suffice it to say, I’m probably as or more hostile to welfare than anyone in this thread–and by “welfare”, I mean public schools and Medicaid for native born Americans, too.

              In short, there is a danger in tying citizenship to welfare. Tying citizenship to welfare is called “communism”. That being said, I’m not so ideologically rigid that I need a perfect treaty in order to support something significantly better than what we have now.

              And, moreover, I’m not trying to impose my opinion on anybody saying that their votes shouldn’t count at the national level. I’m just trying to persuade people to want more immigration and want less welfare–like I used to try to persuade people that the war on drugs was expensive and stupid, long before there were any referendums to legalize marijuana.

        2. >>>If you want to understand retards, John, you gotta think like a retard.

          it’s like watching Oz at work and having no arms to pull back the curtain.

  35. Do you want white nationalists? Because this is how you get white nationalists!

  36. there is no proof of Trumps claims either way thus it can’t be a lie until proven to be a lie and just saying there are no ISIS or gang members is no more truthful than Trump saying there is

  37. “Most folks in the “migrant caravan” coming up from Central America are following the rules we set”

    I suspect this is factually incorrect.

    The rules for asylum seekers state that they should seek asylum in the first country they enter.

    Since most of the people in this caravan originated in Honduras, if they were following the rules, should they have sought asylum in Guatemala?

    If they didn’t seek asylum in Guatemala, they were offered the opportunity to do so when they entered Mexico, and didn’t those Hondurans that chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity in Mexico break the rules again?

    Far as I know, anyone in the caravan who seeks asylum in the United States will have broken the rules.

    Things aren’t true because Donald Trump says so.

    Things aren’t true because ENB says so either.

    One of the reasons we used to enjoy such a high standard of reporting around here was because we insisted on high standards. Won’t apologize for expecting better.

    “The shit we have to climb through is the shit we choose to take”.


    1. Good take Ken, I always enjoy reading your perspective.

    2. That is absolutely correct.

      Asylum seekers are supposed to get it in the first country that they come to.

      They are not allowed to asylum shop for whatever country they want.

      And in all of the reporting on this stuff you will never hear anyone in the mainstream media pointing this out or asking the question as to why they aren’t getting it in Mexico vs the United States and why is it acceptable that Mexico has long enabled the people coming into their country from further south to travel all the way up to the U.S. border.

  38. Lefties and so-cons, help me out here:

    I get that you think human prostitution is bad because adult women are apparently too dumb to have agency, but what is the objection to sex robot prostitution? Are they smarter or dumber than women in your estimation?

    1. I think the real objection to prostitution is that it allows men to control their sexuality and have better leverage over women. I think all of the stories about human trafficing and the horrors of women forced to give up their virtue are just post hock rationalizations for the desire to control men. Anyone with any sense who looks at the situation knows that 90% of the time the women who go into prostitution do so of their own free will and because they feel doing it is beneficial to them. People ignore the obvious and convince themselves otherwise because it allows them to object to prostitution without having to admit the real reason why they are objecting.

      When it look at it that way, you can see why it is the odd bedfellows of SoCons and Lefties who are behind this crusade. Leftist feminists loath men and want women to have more power. A lot of women’s power in society is sex. If men are free to go out and pay for sex, the women who use it for power have much less of it. Also, feminists loath male sexuality in general. Socons are all about the family and keeping men faithful to their wives. Prostitution makes it easier for men to stray and also gives them less of a reason to marry. In addition, some SoCon women are just prudes who would like to be able to get away with putting out as little as possible for their husbands. Prostitution makes that harder.

      1. If men didnt have to put up with women’s bullshit emotional rants to get sex, it would absolutely empower men.

        Men could just Uber their favorite call girl to take care of business.

        As you say John, it would allow men to not have to marry, thereby, taking power from women.

    2. The main point is that people are doing things that seem icky. Therefore, they must be stopped.

    3. don’t. date. robots.

    4. Who know when this topic will come up again?

      There have been a couple of big changes in sex awareness in American culture over the last 40 years–not a long time, really. They’re interrelated.

      One of them is porn. It’s never been so available and so ubiquitous.

      Another one is the acceptability of masturbation. When Monty Python did “Every sperm is sacred”, masturbation wasn’t only something that people didn’t talk about. It was something that people didn’t allow themselves to do–thinking it was so weird.

      When I was a freshman in boarding school, there was this socially conservative senior I had an argument with. I almost had him convinced that women could have orgasms–but he never completely bought it. I started wondering about his worldview–does he think every time a man has sex, it’s with an unwilling partner? Did he think that women only submit themselves to sex because it’s their duty?

      Regardless, he would never admit to masturbating himself, like a lot of social conservatives won’t. He wasn’t catholic, but sex without purpose was adultery to him–a temptation to be resisted. Even sex within marriage was “lusting in his heart”, which is equated with sin in the Bible. He wouldn’t have sex before marriage, but he planned to get married straight out of high school, which used to be typical as recently as the ’70s.

      1. I think there are a number of reasons why that thinking broke down. Porn is one. One of the reasons masturbation probably became acceptable was because people started putting marriage until their 20s and 30s, and socons aren’t even crazy enough to expect their kids to do that.

        When it comes down to it, though, we’re talking about sexual immorality and adultery by biblical standards.

        P.S. Don’t “Proud Boys” claim to never masturbate because it’s immoral or unmanly?

        1. >>>why that thinking broke down

          too oppressive to withstand human nature

        2. Proud Boys is the gayest name for a movement that I’ve ever heard.

          1. It really is. I have to wonder if the person who came up with it really didn’t understand how gay it is or if they really were gay and were just trolling the rest of the idiots.

  39. As Scott Adams says:

    The Republican Slogan: #JobsNotMobs.

    The Democrat Slogan: There really aren’t that many murderers in the caravan if you consider how many people there are.

    1. They are mostly law abiding. I can’t believe she wrote that.

      1. every damn one of them is proceeding on the proper side of the road.

  40. So Reason is going with the MSM talking point that this is all lies and fear-mongering?


    I remember when there were actually some independent thinkers at this publication.

    1. Sexual assaults without corroboration are “credible”, though

  41. How can something be a “lie” if it’s actually happening? I mean you literally called a gang rape accusation “credible” even though it had exactly zero evidence to back it up. Now you are saying that a caravan of people, that is actually happening, is not happening because it’s bad for your progressive politics?

  42. >>>Secret Service are investigating a suspicious package

    nothing blew up and nobody was injured at my house today too.

    1. Someone received a suspicious-looking package with dangerous contents in Warty’s basement, though

  43. Mexico is a pretty scarey place too, these days. How law-abiding are they? That’s what vetting is all about, right? So vet them already. And, while that’s being done, R’s *could* take the opportunity to balance the political information they may have received, and also the information on the availability of jobs in the U.S.

    The fact that there are people who think working a full day for what D’s are calling inadequate for an hour *might* be considered a wake-up call to D’s, also.

    But those people need to know that their own countries need them, and we don’t, particularly. Those “jobs Americans won’t do” are jobs greedy unions have got Americans barred from doing, like piecework from home. Some people who were born here want those jobs.

  44. Posting in a hurry. For “they” in first line, above, should have typed “the caravanistas.”

  45. Still no in-depth article about Libertarian candidates running for office around the USA, huh?

  46. I cannot feel the difference between Elizabeth Nolan Brown and CNN at this point

    1. Pretty much this.

    2. here is still better.

    3. The commenters on her articles tend to be smarter than those at CNN. That’s really the only difference at this point.

      1. The commenters are the best part about Reason. Read anywhere else on the internet and it’s looneyville. People can effectively use sarcasm and wordplay here while still making a rational argument. That’s pretty much lost on the rest of the internet as far as I can tell.
        I started reading the comments years ago when I couldn’t understand some of the things I was reading and how they could be passed off for libertarian ideas, and my mind was pacified.
        The commenters, a few in particular that shine especially bright, completely save this website.

        1. +1

        2. +1

        3. Even Tony (Chipper, Kirkland and Hihn not included).

    4. There is a difference.

      CNN makes better sammiches.

  47. This article causes me great concern that the name Reason is going to be replaced with RANT. If a journalist is too emotionally involved in a topic to be able to write objectively, then they should not participate. I will not waste my time detailing what is inappropriate, as a majority of it is neither reasonable, logical, nor rational.

    Who are you and what did you do with my Reason. com!

  48. “We have yet to have a single Democratic president, U.S. senator or representative, or party higher-up come out in favor of anything close to an open borders policy”

    How many of the 20 million illegal aliens do the Dems want to deport?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.