Reason Roundup

Trump Doubles Down on Withdrawing Troops From Syria Despite Freakout From Warmongering Establishment: Reason Roundup

"Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East?" the president asks-and gets a resounding yes from Republicans and Democrats.

|

RODI SAID/REUTERS/Newscom

Bringing troops home from Syria angers conservative and liberal leaders. Following President Donald Trump's Wednesday announcement that all U.S. troops would be pulled from Syria, political establishment types on the left and right promptly rebuked him for being insufficiently committed to Forever War in the Middle East.

Policing the world's politics and bombing brown people is one of the few things that mainstream Republicans and Democrats can come together on, and now here's Trump, the big meanie, spoiling their fun! Quick, cue rampant paranoia and a lot of Henny-Penny huffing…

But Trump isn't backing down in the face of criticism from his usual allies as well as Democrats. This morning, he tweeted that it was Russia, Iran, and Syria's job to take care of ISIS now.

"Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing?" Trump tweeted. "Do we want to be there forever? Time for others to finally fight….."

Loathe to let up on world-policing even a little, Democrats and Republicans have been flinging around words like "reckless" and "premature," even though none of them can make a coherent case for why we're still in Syria or what it's accomplishing. Meanwhile, "reasonable" centrist pundits took the tack that sure, Syria withdrawal would be good someday—just not now. First, first…well, there's always something else that comes first isn't there?

Trump's announcement also presented a prime opportunity for attention-seeking politicos to call attention to their pet Boogeymen. Hence, we've heard all about how bringing American men and women home from Syria is a "gift" to Iran, or Russia, or Islamic militants. How it's a sign Trump is beholden to Vladimir Putin. Or that he's acting too much like President Barack Obama—a point that in this case makes no sense. As my colleague Robby Soave wrote yesterday:

A predictable chorus of hawkish Republicans assailed Trump for making, in the words of perpetually bloodthirsty Sen. Lindsey Graham (R­–S.C.), a "huge Obama-like mistake." (Barack Obama made many mistakes; one of the costliest, of course, was his disastrous intervention in Libya, which quickly became a haven for terrorists.) Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) lamented that pulling out too early would "haunt this administration and America for years to come." But as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, America is also haunted by doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on open-ended commitments that cost innocent lives and billions of dollars while doing nothing to fundamentally improve the war-torn Middle East.

Soave adds that, "every now and then, the fact that Trump feels unconstrained by conventional politics" is a good thing:

Norm-smashing is good if the norm in question—perpetual war—violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic principle.

Alas, not ones to be outdone in paranoid warmongering by their conservative counterparts, liberals like "information warfare expert" Molly McKew insist that "the president is lying about ISIS" being debilitated as part of "backchannel deals" with Turkey and Russia. This was a common refrain in left-of-center crowds online.

The mainstream liberal response to Trump's Syria announcement was so overwhelmingly negative that it suggests any anti-war wing of the Democratic Party is clearly dead. This shift was of course already underway during the Obama years, when policies that would have provoked outrage under President George W. Bush drew soft sighs at best.

Now, it seems abundantly clear that a lot of the left's anti-war momentum under Bush was actually just rooted in anti-Bush or anti-Republican sentiment. And with a Republican president that is ever-so-slightly opposed to endless war, Democrats are emboldened to openly embrace their own ignorant, authoritarian, world-policing ways in full form. (A pox on all their goddamn glass houses.)

Among the few members of Congress to comment positively about the president's decision was Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who declared he was "proud of the president today to hear that he is declaring victory in Syria."

FREE MINDS

Massie's revenge. Hell yeah:

QUICK HITS

• Federal judges dismissed all 83 ethics complaints against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

• A pill could revolutionize alcoholism treatment without requiring alcoholics to totally abstain.

Salon suggests that mean tweets are a "global humanitarian crisis."

• The Trump 2020 campaign is already facing a corruption scandal.

• Prostitution arrests are surging in New York City:

• Teenagers in Washington state are smoking less pot since it was legalized.

• Government shutdown has once again been averted.

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.

305 responses to “Trump Doubles Down on Withdrawing Troops From Syria Despite Freakout From Warmongering Establishment: Reason Roundup

  1. Bringing troops home from Syria angers conservative and liberal leaders.

    The art of the not able to deal with it.

    1. Hello.

      Progressives, Democrats, left-wingers – whatever – generally leave us with moments where our jaws drop to the ground. But this Syria thing….how many times have people here said the illiterate progressive left lack principles again?

      It’s not about justice, compassion, peace etc.

      It’s all about power.

      How many times have we warned it’s all projection with these psychos?

      1. At this point I’m pretty sure that if Trump were to announce this afternoon that he intends to resign effective January 1st the Dems would file a lawsuit to prevent him from leaving office. And the Ninth would immediately issue an injunction.

        1. Sounds about right. But then again, we know the left is not REALLY antiwar.

        2. Kavanaugh and his Planned Parenthood decision is another example.

          Then who could forget when Sessions was appointed he was literally a racist but when he resigned (fired, whatever) they protested him leaving because Trump.

          They’re mental. Only an unthinking person at this point still think the left are being reasonable.

          1. The left gaslights while accusing others of gaslighting.

        3. They say he was “abandoning the country”.

    2. If Obama had brought them home there would have been another nobel prize for him. of course everyone forgets he got us in there. In Trumps tweet about not being world police could be a great jumping off point for us to leave all of the middle east and any other shit hole country we may be in now. but we know there will be little follow through even if Trump was serious

  2. I swear everyone was against the US troops being in Syria until Trump said he’s pulling them out.
    ? Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) December 20, 2018

    HE’S DOING IT THE WRONG WAY AND FOR THE WRONG REASONS.

    1. You have to feign scholarly posturing like Obama!

      1. Bow ties help.

  3. Colorado seriously need a second bakery. Is there any doubt this isn’t him oppressing others, but him being targeted by the Powers That Be?

    Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

    1. He shouldn’t have become a cake provider if he wanted to censor what messages could appear on his cakes.

      1. In this analogy, the baker is Facebook, and the gender transitioner is some alt-right personality, right?

      2. Did he provide the cake before he was told what it was for? Your analogy might make sense, then.

      3. You shouldn’t have a college if you want to censor messages that could appear at your college.

    2. I hate how I have to drive an hour and a half, and slaughter a gay baby, to get my organic bran craisin muffins.

      1. That is a terrible euphemism, BUCS.

        1. What euphemism? I like to shit.

    3. If any liberal says “Single Payer” won’t mean doctors and nurses being forced to provide services, look right here.

      1. I don’t think most know what “single payer” even means.

        1. Isn’t “single payer” when you are out drinking with your friends, buying rounds for each other, and someone orders an IPA?
          “You are paying for that shit yourself, man.”

          1. Boy that just gets funnier every time.

            1. I know, right?

        2. “single payer” means that someone other than me pays

          1. That does seem to be about as far as most people go with it.

            1. One person controls the purse strings to everything related to our medical care, but because we’re a democracy it means that everyone holds the purse string to everyone’s healthcare, and we care about ourselves so we wouldn’t fuck us over.

              1. And of course, partisan politics won’t be played with people’s healthcare that they can’t control themselves. I mean, just like at Britain’s system where the elderly wait forever for care since they’re non-productive citizens that can safely be thrown under the (double decker) bus!

                I think what people fail to understand is that nationalizing healthcare mean’s that you are putting your own healthcare into the hands of your political enemies. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon. And your recourse in that situation is…die or leave the country.

                They also fail to understand that they will be paying for it and the costs will go up. Because, after all, cutting costs mean’s killing people which is only wrong when it’s private entities doing it. When the government kills people we call that ‘progress’.

                Last point: last time I checked, the government can’t repeal the laws of supply and demand. How does one expand a limited resource like ‘healthcare’ to 350 million people when there aren’t even ballpark enough providers to actually provide that care?

                1. last time I checked, the government can’t repeal the laws of supply and demand. How does one expand a limited resource like ‘healthcare’ to 350 million people when there aren’t even ballpark enough providers to actually provide that care?

                  You might want to reread what you just wrote.

                  Are you saying the market can’t be expected to provide medical care for the population of the US? Assume healthy people don’t matter here – they don’t see the doctor now and won’t see the doctor in future under a different scenario. Demand-wise – they are irrelevant.

                  Where is that part of the (sick) population that can’t expect the market to provide access going to get access? Are they flying off to Thailand or somewhere?

                  Yes – I understand just die on the street if you can’t afford the most expensive medical in the world on your own. That is certainly a market-based option. But understand – that is precisely the group of folks who are going to say – WTF – if the market can’t provide this, and every other country on Earth seems to be able to supply it – and for far cheaper – then maybe it’s our system that’s the problem. Just sayin


                  1. Are you saying the market can’t be expected to provide medical care for the population of the US?

                    No. I’m saying that you can’t expand access to a finite good to ‘everyone who exists’ and expect the currently existing supply to meet that demand. Period. That’s before I even get into the fact that the U.S. healthcare market is more distortion than market at this point, so even referring to it as a ‘market’ is almost a misnomer.

                    1. I should also mention that when I say ‘expand access’ I am (hopefully obviously) referring to the idea that a provider must provide care as a matter of natural rights. You are probably confused since you apparently don’t understand the difference between a command economy and a free market for some reason.

          2. “””single payer” means that someone other than me pays””

            Single payer passed the lower house in NYS a few year ago. They lost interest when the estimated cost was equal to the entire NYS budget. Now that dems control both houses, and the executive. Will they pass it? I’m betting no.

            I saw a report where we spend a little over 8k per patient, and England spends a little over 3k. I don’t think any pol has the guts to either 1. raise taxes to cover the costs. 2. Take away 5k spending per patient.

    4. The only way to celebrate a transitioning is to snare a bigot.

      1. It puts the lotion on its skin icing on its cake…..

    5. It’s absolutely clear in this new case that it’s a lawyer that see’s a potential payday, and a way to harass a baker into the ground so that if anyone else dares question the alphabet soup of sexually-defined deviants they will know a boot will descend onto their neck.

      I mean, I have nothing against sexual deviants don’t get me wrong. I just can’t understand how or why someone would define themselves first and foremost by their sexuality.

      1. The Left is serious about power

        When will the Right be?

      1. Baron didn’t know what they were talking about so he’s a clueless liar.

    1. The Left seems fine with separating some families.

  4. Surprisingly, some of my colleagues were annoyed to record their position on 10 bills tonight, mainly because doing their jobs made them late to dinners and parties. It takes 5 minutes per vote.
    ? Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 20, 2018

    A huge turd in the House’s punch bowl.

    1. “surprisingly”

  5. The Dipshit Dave Weigel of Germany gets stone cold busted.

    The average dolt in America would probably be shocked if he had any idea just how many JournoLists in America are exactly like this asshole.

    1. Much of the industry is a propaganda machine, so of course they are making up stories.

      Propaganda involves taking a few real talking points and adding a bunch of lies to get the desired impact on the target audience.

      1. Just to name a nearby example of what you’re talking about, a couple of years back the wannabe sex worker who creates these morning threads fabricated an absolutely ridiculous story about being detained by the Secret Service.

        1. Link?

    2. Fake news!

      Literally!!

  6. Imagine Reason’s article about a violent white supremacist working for the GOP:

    Liberal Advocacy Group Staffer Who Frequently Works With Congressional Democrats Identified as “Chepe,” an Antifa Ringleader of the Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson Menacing Incidents; Supports the Violent Overthrow of America, Killing “The Rich”
    “We have got to dispense with nonviolence,” he said as Chepe on Radio Dispatch in December 2016 during a discussion on how to approach those he perceives as fascists.

    1. In about a week, a poo swastika will show up somewhere, and they’ll both sides it

      1. “Heil-di-ho, children!”

        1. In retrospect, Ned Flanders was definitely a Nazi…

          1. It’s his parents fault. They tried nothing and they were all out of ideas.

    2. Antifa is international terrorism

  7. Federal judges dismissed all 83 ethics complaints against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    That was thirty-seven outrages ago anyway.

  8. A pill could revolutionize alcoholism treatment without requiring alcoholics to totally abstain.

    You wash it down with scotch.

    1. It’s just that pill that makes you throw up from alcohol, rebranded as a suppository.

      1. I was going to guess ipecac.

      2. It makes all your drinks taste like Jager. You can still drink it… but why would you want to?

        1. And then it gives you moves like Jagger.

          1. Maybe I meant tastes like Mick?

      3. So, Chantix for alcoholics?

  9. Sam Harris Drops Patreon, Citing ‘Political Bias’ Likely Inspired by SPLC’s ‘Hate Group’ List
    Prominent atheist neuroscientist and bestselling author Sam Harris has deleted his Patreon account, blasting the crowdfunding site for banning conservatives. While Harris did not mention the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Patreon’s actions suggest it uses the SPLC list of “hate groups” to target conservatives.

    “As many of you know, the crowdfunding site Patreon has banned several prominent content creators from its platform. While the company insists that each was in violation of its terms of service, these recent expulsions seem more readily explained by political bias,” Harris wrote in a statement he published Sunday, announcing he would delete his account Monday.

    1. But what will he do now? Patreon is all there is? Why would he choose to stop getting money?

      1. What about gofundme and others?

    2. Has Sam published anything in neuroscience since his Ph.D. work?

  10. This Parkland dad blamed gutlessness, not guns, for tragedy. For that he faced vile abuse
    In the process, he’s been heaped with vicious abuse ? more than one, many more than one, Twitter troll has said losing his daughter was a just reward for supporting President Donald Trump ? and has lost friends. Worse yet, he’s lost faith in his neighbors. Last week, he and Julie finished packing, climbed into their camper and set off for parts unknown. It’s very unlikely he’ll ever live in Broward County again.

    “There’s a culture of lenience here, a lack of responsibility,” he said. “So many mistakes were made that led to these killings, but nothing is happening to the people who made them. The people of Broward are OK with these people. And I don’t need to be around this anymore. I don’t know how many more years I’m going to be around, and I don’t want to spend them in this kind of an environment.”

    1. The father certainly has a good point. If we’re all told that such things must be left to the government to solve, is it really so unreasonable to expect the government to actually do it?

      1. But, but, procedures were followed!

        Still, I blame the shooters. Police are, after all, just men and rushing into gunfire isn’t something you know how you’ll react to until you’re there. Fight or flight is programmed into us pretty damn fundamentally.

        And actually, now that I think of it, the dumber the person the less likely they’ll feel fear. Another reason for keeping cop IQ quota’s in the bargain basement perhaps?

        1. Fuck that. If you don’t want the job, don’t take the fucking paycheck. They always go on about how they’re such goddamned “heroes in blue”.

    2. Ironic how the anti gunners are so violent to those of a different view on gun poltitics

    3. “So many mistakes were made that led to these killings, but nothing is happening to the people who made them.”

      The ruling class is unaccountable.
      See Rotherham for details.

  11. Salon suggests that mean tweets are a “global humanitarian crisis.”

    I guess we’ve run out of other global humanitarian crises.

    1. Well, thank god for that. I’m happy to be in a world where mean tweets are the last remaining problem.

      1. In the Western world at least, it’s probably closer to the truth than other types of alarmism.

  12. Federal judges dismissed all 83 ethics complaints against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    A defeat for the progressive / libertarian alliance, unfortunately. But just the fact there were 83 ethics complaints means he must be guilty of something. When Democrats regain total control of the federal government, removing Kavanaugh from the bench should be a top priority.

    #CancelKavanaugh
    #SaveRoe
    #SUPER-PRECEDENT

  13. The Trump 2020 campaign is already facing a corruption scandal.

    I hope the wolf doesn’t actually eat the boy one of these times.

    1. The wolf is working on its 10th helping.

    2. How old is Wolf, anyway?

  14. The Trump 2020 campaign is already facing a corruption scandal.

    Now do Clinton Campaign 2016, Democratic National Party 2016/2020, and Beto 2020 campaign.

    Opensecrets.org is pretty good at tracking political and campaign stuff. They also conveniently ignore topics that make the Democratic Party look really bad.

    1. Don’t worry, we’re going to see Beto again on a national stage I think. His lack of anything approaching a record or belief’s make him a shoe-in.

    2. There’s a pretty big investigation going on regarding the Clinton foundation. I had no idea until the last time I went to Little Rock. It’s local news there, but you don’t hear much about it on a national level.

  15. “Now, it seems abundantly clear that a lot of the left’s anti-war momentum under Bush was actually just rooted in anti-Bush or anti-Republican sentiment. ”

    “Now” it seems abundantly clear? Right now? We’re just now noticing that R’s and D’s have zero principle and that their opinion on something flops back and forth depending on the label of whoever is doing that something? I mean, no offense ENB, but it’s been that way for a long, long time…??.

    1. Cindy Sheehan’s still trying to claw her way back out of the memory hole?

      1. You kids and your euphemisms.

        1. Each house has its motto. His is “The hole remembers.”

    2. “”We’re just now noticing that R’s and D’s have zero principle and that their opinion on something flops back and forth depending on the label of whoever is doing that something?””

      L + R = 0

  16. Teenagers in Washington state are smoking less pot since it was legalized.

    Only squares blaze legit.

    1. It’s more likely because the supply is getting bogarted by the adults.

    2. Are they smoking less pot or are fewer of them smoking pot?

      1. It didn’t say they were consuming less. Nobody smokes a brownie.

        1. My wife’s brownies always come out of the oven smoking.

          1. Let’s not talk about smoking hot Brownies, LC’s sprouting a woody.

    3. they smoke less because its more power full

    4. When your parents spark up suddenly it’s way less cool to do it. Prohibition makes things more attractive to rebellious teens, I think.

    5. Now that they’re not allowed to vape, they’re doing that.

  17. Government shutdown has once again been averted.

    And it was the same Christmas ever!

  18. (A pox on all their goddamn glass houses.)

    I like the scrappy ENB.

    1. It just took her a couple of decades to realize that the Democrats anti-war stances were just situational. Something that should have been realized when they backed Obama not even bothering to get any sort of Congressional fig leaf for committing acts of war.

    2. She had seemed to go all pomo for a while, but I like the job she’s doing with the roundups.

      Maybe marriage is getting her all conservatived up.

  19. “Norway sees boom in electric cars, fueled by the government”
    […]
    “Eerily quiet vehicles are ubiquitous on the fjord-side roads and mountain passes of this wealthy European nation of 5.3 million. Some 30 percent of all new cars sport plug-in cables rather than gasoline tanks, compared with 2 percent across Europe overall and 1-2 percent in the U.S.
    […]
    “It should always be cheaper to have a zero emissions car than a regular car,” says Climate and Environment Minister Ola Elvestuen,
    […]
    To help sales, the Norwegian government waived hefty vehicle import duties and registration and sales taxes for buyers of electric cars. Owners don’t have to pay road tolls, and get free use of ferries and bus lanes in congested city centers.
    […]
    These perks, which are costing the government almost $1 billion this year, are being phased out in 2021, though any road tolls and fees would be limited to half of what gasoline car owners must pay. Gradually, subsidies for electric cars will be replaced by higher taxes on traditional cars.”
    https://phys.org/news/2018-12-
    norway-boom-electric-cars-fueled.html

    That’s a whole lot of expensive social engineering to move the emissions from Norway to somewhere else.

    1. Norway is hydroelectric. If your electricity is cheap and clean, why not go total electric?

      1. Because batteries are not free.

      2. Because the only way they can do it is coercion. See? That was easy.

      3. Norway is hydroelectric. If your electricity is cheap and clean, why not go total electric?

        Because it’s flipping cold in Norway and ICEs are a great way to generate heat, esp. relative to electric motors.

    2. To help sales, the Norwegian government waived hefty vehicle import duties and registration and sales taxes for buyers of electric cars.

      But remember, if you suggest that government taxes and fees increase the cost of products, you’re an anti-government wacko. Nay, you’re an anti-civilization wacko.

    3. This wealthy European nation of 5.3 million is wealthy thanks to their oil sales.

      Yup.

      How environmentally conscious!

      1. Qatar for wypipo.

    4. “Norway sees boom in electric cars, fueled by the government”

      If they were built by GM they would see Ka-boom in their electric cars.

    5. Norway needs more refugees. That will wipe the smug smiles off of their prosperous faces.

  20. A pill could revolutionize alcoholism treatment without requiring alcoholics to totally abstain.

    This just never ends. Is it a bad dream?

  21. Trump tweeted, “Do we want to be there forever? Time for others to finally fight…..”

    5 minutes later:

    “Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack.”

    And we’re back.

    1. You didn’t even try to change the date.

      That’s an F.

  22. Reason favourite Jeff Flake introduces a carbon tax bill

    “Republicans need to get serious about climate change. That’s why I introduced a revenue-neutral carbon tax bill in the House several years ago. Today,
    @ChrisCoons
    & I have introduced a bipartisan, revenue-neutral carbon tax bill that provides an honest path to clean energy.”

    1. Ron Bailey has been shilling for a carbon tax for about a decade now.

      1. Advocating extra taxes to control the climate seems like an odd position for a science journalist at a libertarian publication.

        1. It’s almost like this isn’t a libertarian publication at all.

          1. If we wanted to institute carbon taxes, it seems like the only reasonable way to do it would be via tariff’s on Chinese made goods but Reason is oddly against Chinese tariffs.

            Bizarre!

            1. I’m confused by this line of thinking. You realize that tariffs on Chinese made goods are paid by Americans, right?

              1. You realize that it means fewer Chinese goods would be bought which would theoretically reduce manufacturing in China, right? And you realize that China pollutes more than almost anywhere else in the world, right?

                I’m not saying it’s a good idea, I’m saying that if you really believe the underlying points that it would be strange to be against Chinese tariffs.

              2. No buyee, no tariffee.

                1. If tariff, less buy.

    2. “revenue-neutral”. Ha! It may be “revenue-neutral” to a Senator. It sure as fuck won’t be to the people who have to pay it.

      1. If they could find a way to *permanently* lower other taxes to compensate for the carbon tax, there might be a case for it. Even then, we’d have to ask about the possible Mad Max scenario of illegal untaxed bootleg gas.

        1. I have no faith in a carbon tax. Governments will give waivers when it suits their ends. It’s just a wealth redistribution game.

    3. Oh, is that one of those carbon tax/wealth redistribution schemes?

      So liberty minded is Flake!

      1. Flake dropped the mask when he realized he wasn’t going to get reelected.

  23. Now, it seems abundantly clear that a lot of the left’s anti-war momentum under Bush was actually just rooted in anti-Bush or anti-Republican sentiment.

    Now?

    1. Wasn’t it clear when Obama launched an illegal war against Libya and the Left cheered?

      1. I wasthinking it was when Madeline Albright said:

        What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?

        but it was definitely earlier. Like shortly after the Clinton inauguration when our “mission” in Somalia went from passing out MREs to fighting Adid’s clan so the UN could installa government.

  24. You take Naltrexone one hour before you start drinking, each and every time you drink (and preferably not on an empty stomach). Instead of feeling that familiar euphoric buzz, drinking just makes you feel kind of sloppy and muddy-headed.

    Gee, that sounds a *lot* better than clear-headed abstinence!

    1. But it does sound better than delerium tremens or intense cravings.

      1. Hey, I like Delerium Tremens.

        Don’t knock it until you try it.

        1. I’ve tried it and I do like it.

          1. I’ve also seen people suffering from severe alcohol withdrawal and that is pretty awful.

          2. Yeah, a bit sweet but I like it a lot as well. I really like those kind of fruity belgians.

        2. It’s a pretty good beer.

    2. This is backwards – devise a pill that gets you buzzed without the side-effects of alcohol. Then another emergency pill to get you unbuzzed if you face a crisis requiring clear-headedness.

      Keep bottles of each pill on you at all times.

      1. Man, I wish I had something that got me drunk without the calories. Weed just doesn’t do anything for me.

        1. Ether kind of does that.

          1. Nitrous. It’s a gas-gas-gas!

        2. Ketamine is kinda like being drunk.

  25. “Policing the world’s politics and bombing brown people is one of the few things that mainstream Republicans and Democrats can come together on, and now here’s Trump, the big meanie, spoiling their fun!”

    Ultimately, this is why the Never Trumpers in the Republican party and the Democrats came together–over accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians. The Democrats wanted to delegitimize the election of 2016, and people like McCain and other neocons are and were adamantly opposed to Trump’s campaign promises to do things like collaborating with Putin to fight ISIS and GTFO.

    Despite what you may have heard, Trump has fought pretty hard to abide by his campaign promises. The only ones he’s failed to keep (off the top of my head), like building the border wall, are promises he hasn’t failed to keep for lack of effort on his part. You may not like all his campaign promises (trade with China and immigration), but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t fought to keep them.

    You know who else kept his campaign promises?

    1. General Sherman?

    2. “You know who else kept his campaign promises?”

      The left.
      They promised if Trump was elected, there would be more violence. He was, they supplied the increased violence.

      1. Flashback to 1964.
        The left said if I voted for Goldwater, the US would get dragged into an interminable land was in Asia, there would be race riot in the cities, and the economy would go bust.
        I voted for Goldwater.
        It all happened, just like they said it would.

      1. No, that was Kodo.

        1. Who the fuck is Kodo?

          1. A ferret from Beastmaster?

    3. Zod?

    4. Of course she just cannot stop at making an argument against using the military to implement political interventions. It has to be a racial issue as well as if it was less objectionale to her if the people being bombed were white.

      1. “Whitey has it coming”

    5. The Pusher Robot?

    6. “Policing the world’s politics and bombing brown people is one of the few things that mainstream Republicans and Democrats can come together on, and now here’s Trump, the big meanie, spoiling their fun!”

      I thought Reason had determined that Trump was the biggest racity racist Nazi Klansman there ever was?

  26. Offtopic – CDC issues report – Americans are too fat to do anything but roll over and ask for someone to stuff food into them now

    Yeesh. The numbers/comps here are just stunning: eg – 20-40 age group for men – avg weight

    1960 – 167 lbs
    1970 – 174 lbs
    1980 – 172 lbs
    1990 – 177 lbs
    2000 – 186 lbs
    now – 197 lbs

    1. Something has changed about our food. I don’t buy it that everyone is just immobile and lazy. There is something else going on.

      1. Not sitting in front of the computer all day long, barely moving?

        1. People used to sit in front of TVs all day. People overly romantisize the past and their childhoods.

          1. No they didn’t. In 1960 most people had small B&W TV’s. No remotes either. Yeah – a blue-collar guy might go to sleep on the sofa in front of the TV – after a day of physical work. The whole big-screen cave/cocooning thing started in the 90’s. The physical inactivity started in the 80’s when big box malls killed Main St and biking/ped became impossible for errands.

            1. Sorry, but ‘main street’ has never been suitable for errands except in Mayberry.

              I grew up in Tucson Arizona – a place that *now* still has fewer than a million people and there was no ‘main street’ anywhere there by the 1970’s. in 1980 downtown Tucson was 90% high density commercial, a civic center, and a teeny little ‘arts district’. Your ‘mom and pop’ was a 7-11 or Circle K.

              In order for main street to work you’d have to put a selection of shops selling food, clothes, hardware, electronics, etc, every couple of miles.

              1. Tucson is hardly a typical American city circa 1960. It’s a post-WW2 city – created on top of what would have been ‘nothing important’ before. Which would mean a single wave of ‘renewal’ (as apparently happened in Tucson in the 1960’s) would eliminate what does appear to be a diverse selection of (prob pre-WW2) shops on some now downtown streets.

                1. So then we’re talking about basically the whole southwest – including southern california – where ‘main streets’ don’t work.

                  1. You can still see the pre-car/post-car differences in a place like LA. Pasadena, Long Beach, Glendale, Burbank – when they still had their own separate identity.

                    But yeah – it is probably the car and its consequences (eliminating mixed/checkerboard zoning/practice) that really hammered Main St – earlier than the 80’s. Just took more time to die in brownfield cities than in greenfield cities.

              2. You just described a shopping mall.

            2. Kids hardly even go outside anymore. When I was a kid I drank Coke all day every day so I should have been a total fatass, but I also rode my bike all over the place and was outside “playing” or whatever almost all the time. Yeah, I watched plenty of TV, but I also did a lot of physical activity.

          2. Also video games. I played video games but also played outside as a kid. Today, not so much. That’s why the free range kids movement is a thing.

          3. “”People used to sit in front of TVs all day.””

            Your parents never made you go outside and play?

            In the 70s I went outside to play with friends. Kids today can play inside on their xbox with their friends.

      2. Well, we do have more Mexican food around now and they are pretty fat for a developing nation…? I think they even have a bigger problem with obesity than we do

        1. “and some of them…I assume are thin people”

        2. That is an interesting point. We also have a much larger Hispanic population. So the average weight today is not the average weight of the same population as it was in 1975. How much of our obesity problem is the result of society having more people from ethnic groups who are genetically prone to obesity than it did before? I have no idea what the answer to that question is but I have never seen anyone try and answer it.

        3. Not in the US. That report does break out the recent data by ethnicity – Hispanic men are a bit shorter than average men – but about 10 lbs lighter. Hispanic women are about the same height/weight as avg woman.

          1. Hispanic women are about the same height/weight as avg woman.

            No, they aren’t

            1. In that age group they are. Assuming you are making a statement based on evidence rather than bias.

      3. Well certainly the average chicken (esp breast) is a LOT larger now than then

        But I suspect the real reason is that we are eating the same size portions and mixes of food that our grandparents ate – but we require far fewer calories (more accurately far fewer carbs/energy – not less fat or protein) than they did. And yeah – we are definitely more lazy now – if the average kid now burns as much energy as the average 60 year old

      4. Free refills on soda and the size of the cups.

        I’d like to blame the forced switch to rapeseed oil consumption (no market forces there) but that would only cover the last 11lbs.

      5. 40 years of being told to eat less fat and more grain probably hasn’t helped.

      6. I don’t buy it that everyone is just immobile and lazy. There is something else going on.

        Proliferation of public education. Those successive generations of Freshman 15 really add up.

      7. most of it isn’t food. start there.

      8. No draft = no mandatory fitness program.

        1. One aspect of the sixties and the Kennedy administration was the fad of 50 mile hikes – – – – –

      9. It is the government sponsored “food pyramid”. The government told us to eat more carbohydrates. And we did. Now, the population of natives has shrunk but we gained tonnage.

    2. Obviously people are getting to be too well off for their own good.

      1. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life I am told.

        1. Just fat and drunk however . . .

        2. But didn’t he become a senator in that movie? That would seem to disprove that thesis…

          1. No, Bluto became the Senator

            It was Dorfman that was given that advice by Dean Wormer

    3. While the trend is alarming, isn’t 167 lbs for an average man a bit on the scrawny side? I wonder what the average height trends look like.

      1. It’s not particularly scrawny for a 5’10 man. I’m sure average height has increased, but I’m not sure it accounts for the difference.

        One thing I want to see more of is what the distribution is. I definitely see heavier people, but I also see more just absolutely obese, 500lb people. And so I wonder how the data skews. Average can obscure a lot

        1. Raw report for the 1960-2000 — and for the recent

          Yeah – std error of the mean has gone up recently (post-1990) but afaics that accounts for less than 20% of the change in the mean

        2. Look at the pictures from the 60s. People were skinny as fuck back then. Which I find interesting, because if you look at pictures of hunter-gatherers, like the tribes in the Amazon, they aren’t particularly skinny. Maybe it was because everyone was smoking in the 60s?

        3. It’s not particularly scrawny for a 5’10 man.

          5’10” and 167 is scrawny.

          1. I am 5’11” and was not scrawny at 165 (after 1 year as an engineer), I was scrawny at 155 (when I left college).

      2. Avg height is a bit less than one inch taller (most of which happened in the 60’s and 70’s)

      3. While the trend is alarming, isn’t 167 lbs for an average man a bit on the scrawny side?

        The point that sticks out to me is the culling effect(s). The 50-yr.-old man in 1960 weighing 167 lbs. lived through the Spanish Flu, WWI, The Depression, and WWII. The 50-yr.-old man in 1970 was born in The Depression, lived through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. As indicated above, the 50-yr.-old man in 2010 has a decent chance of not even having been born in this country and arriving at a fully-formed 185 lbs.

      4. DING DING DING!

        I was gonna ask, “OK, but at 6’5″ I’d have to cut off a leg to get down to 167. What has the average height done during that time frame?”

    4. A good portion of the blame does need to go to the fat ass 200+ pound professional athletes all over the place.

    5. When did the food stamp program begin?

      If we’re trying to figure out how people get so fat and lazy, pardon me while I start looking for moral hazards, and giving people who don’t work free calories seems like a good place to start looking.

      1. That’s actually an interesting point. One great way to raise the average is to raise the bottom or lower the top.

        But it’s almost certainly a variety of factors from expansion of food supply, less manual labor jobs, more sit-at-a-desk jobs, and generally less ‘outside’ past times when compared to ‘inside’ past times. (Replacing baseball with Nintendo, as an example.)

        1. Are you saying the poor have big bottoms?

          1. Here in the South? Absolutely. At grocery stores here in Texas if you see a 500 pound woman in the checkout line she is on at least one food assistance program in my experience.

  27. A specially appointed federal panel of judges has dismissed all 83 ethics complaints brought against Justice Brett Kavanaugh regarding his conduct at his confirmation hearings.

    Hey! Can we get a special prosecutor to investigate this special panel?

    1. The article did not mention what the complaints were about. I think it was 83 people with the same complaint.

  28. http://twitter.com/ByronYork/s…..3194513413

    Can’t get Trump? Indict his children. Jesus Christ these people are depraved.

    1. The day after he leaves office will start some interesting times. We will see the full fury of the government unleashed on a now private citizen, and Reason will cheer due to class snobbery and a desire to work at The Atlantic.

      1. And the people who will do that are so stupid and arrogant they do not think they wil ever reap the wirlwind they sow. Like all such fools, they are wrong.

      2. I doubt it. Remember when Republicans were going to indict Hillary? It fell out of vogue when she lost the election… at least until recently that they need a distraction from the other side investigating Trump.

        Politics has basically come to the point that if you can’t beat ’em, investigate ’em. Once Trump is out of office I’ll bet the hysteria just shifts to the next person in office.

        1. The Republicans are nowhere near as fanatical or depraved as the Democrats. I think the Democrats might actually do it.

          1. The Republicans are nowhere near as fanatical or depraved as the Democrats.

            They (and Ken Starr) are the ones who wrote the current playbook.

            The hysteria seems to amp itself up every cycle. I can almost guarantee that the Republicans would be doing this to Hillary if she were elected. You can almost bet that the next president, no matter which party he/she is from, will be met with constant investigations at least similar to the level Trump is under.

            1. If Republicans were anything like you imagine them to be, life would be great. Sadly, not so much.

            2. Let’s not miss the point that Hillary Clinton is a crook.

              Hillary and Bill were the only partners in Whitewater not to go to prison. They even threw the sitting governor of Arkansas in jail. They would have gone to jail if Hillary and Bill had been private citizens.

              Let’s also not forget that Hillary Clinton accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. That is so fucking unacceptable on its face, it’s hard to fathom.

              The Clintons and Trump are not comparable because they were both presidents.

              The Clintons actually did the things they were accused of but were rescued by the court of public opinion. Becasue they won a popularity contest, that doesn’t mean they weren’t guilty.

              If Trump loses in the court of public opinion, that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of anything but being unpopular.

              Here’s evidence of Hillary Clinton’s culpability while she was the Secretary of State.

              “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

              http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..rms-deals/

              Care to link to something verifiable (like Clinton Foundation and State Department records) that Trump did?

              1. Do you deny that the Mueller investigation is straight out of the Ken Starr playbook?

                My point wasn’t that I think Trump is guilty of anything, or that Hillary is not. It’s simply that modern politics say that you spend more time and effort on investigating your opponents as opposed to actually debating them on facts. Both sides are guilty.

                1. I believe that Republicans genuinely cared about the Clintons’ wrongdoing, be it about Whitewater, selling off access to the president by way of the Lincoln bedroom, hitting up the Chinese government for campaign contributions, corruption that led Hillary to win big by supposedly betting on cattle futures, etc.

                  I do not believe that the Democrats’ interest is in rooting out corruption in the Trump administration insomuch as it’s about rooting the Trump administration out of the White House.

                  1. You might consider that your political views are biasing your opinions.

                  2. Whitewater was a big deal, but Ken Starr was outplayed and indited over something that should have probably just been left alone instead.

                    What’s perhaps a better question is if Democrats will suffer for Mueller the way Republicans suffered for Starr.

          2. “The Republicans are nowhere near as fanatical or depraved as the Democrats. I think the Democrats might actually do it.”

            – I’d accuse you of losing perspective if I thought you had some to begin with. Here’s the thing that a smart person eventually realizes with regard to American politics: There is absolutely nothing different between Republicans and Democrats. They are just different teams playing the exact same game.

            1. Really, so I can depend on the Democrats to protect my gun rights?

              1. Can you depend on Republicans?

            2. The idea that because neither side is perfect, they’re both as good as each other is both irrational and childish.

              1. The idea that either side has any principle beyond maintaining power is also irrational and childish. Take Republicans on deficit spending, bump stocks, Obamacare repeal, Medicare part D, etc… if you have any doubts.

                1. I disagree.

                  The reason we don’t have an assault weapons ban is that there are too many Republicans who would vote no.

                  There’s more than one thing like that.

                  ObamaCare wouldn’t have been largely defanged if Hillary were president.

                  We wouldn’t have the same judges on the Supreme Court.

                  There are differences between them, and they translate into different policies.

                  The Republicans in the House voted on a bill that would have cut Medicaid by $772 billion over ten years. It didn’t pass the Senate because of senators who wanted it to do more. The Republican president pushed hard to get that bill to his desk so he could sign it. A Democrat president would never have signed it, and it never would have cleared the House or been close in the Senate if the Democrats were in control.

        2. “”Remember when Republicans were going to indict Hillary?””

          Remember when Obama was going to investigate the Bush administration?

        3. John Fund remarked that decades ago in the WSJ. Elections were no longer competitive, so the only way to unseat someone was by such means.

  29. When the stopped clock is right twice a day, we need to at least acknowledge when it’s right. Kudos to Trump for pulling out.

  30. The GoFundMe “We The People Will Fund The Wall” is up to $4 million now

    1. It will never happen, but the thought of a privately built border wall and how that would make open borders’ Libertarians’ heads explode is pretty funny.

      1. A privately built wall is no problem (if the land it’s built on is also privately acquired). If a more open immigration policy is implemented, few except people up to no good will be dodging the official border crossings.

        1. I like the idea of a privately built wall. It’s volunteerism in action. I don’t think the wall will be particularly effective, and I’m an open-borders leaning guy anyway, but I love that people are paying for the ideas they are for directly. A beautiful example of volunteerism.

          1. For sure, BUCS. I have no problem with a private wall on private property.

            1. Hmm. IDEA!

              We should make a law requiring all newly built homes in border states to have a 15 foot wall on their southern boundary. Won’t stop anyone, but give it a couple decades and it’ll certainly slow them down and channel them.

              I mean, it gonna work for CA and their solar power requirements, right?

              1. I don’t think that’ll work just because no one wants to buy property along the border since trespassing laws aren’t enforced and there is virtually no chance your property is going to appreciate when there are unofficial roads where migrants die going through your backyard.

      2. I don’t think any libertarian (open borders or not) has any problem with private landowners controlling access to their land on the border. It’s the idea of collective property rights (you know, allowing the majority opinion to decide who can go where) that doesn’t jive with individualism or libertarianism.

        1. “Borders are bad, m’kay?”

      3. I am more concerned about all the eminent domain that will have to be used to confiscate private property near the border.

        1. That and the large number of Americans that will then be trapped *south* of that wall and have to go through an ICE checkpoint to go to the grocery store.

          A lot more Arrivacas will be made.

        2. Frankly, who is going to buy property from someone that own’s it along the border other than the government? This might be the best deal those property owners can expect. That isn’t an argument for a wall, I think it’s a stupid idea, but who is going to buy land from you when you regularly find migrant corpses just laying around?

          1. There’s a pretty simple solution to the immigrant corpse problem. Let them cross at official crossings.

            1. I’m pretty sure there are already official crossings that aren’t being used by illegal immigrants. In fact, I used to enter Mexico through those crossings back before the border became a shit hole. Notably, there were Mexicans entering the U.S. at those crossings even then in the mid-80’s.

              1. I mean they wouldn’t be crossing in the middle of nowhere if they could at a legitimate border post. I don’t think they are crossing there because it’s inconvenient to get to the border post.

      4. Ron Paul suggested what amounted to it 30 yrs. ago. Not an actual wall, but that the people who owned the land on the border could control immigr’n.

    2. Is the GoFundMe page only open to Mexico? Promises made, promises kept.

      1. It’s only open in Southern California, so same difference.

    3. … and now it has passed the $5 million mark. Libertarian moment!

      1. $5.9 million now. That’s 0.6% of their self-defined goal and 0.1% of the way to the funding that Trump has requested from Congress to get started.

        1. $7.5M

          Is it near their goal? Not really.

          Is that a fair bit of money for 3 days of operations? I think I’m gonna have to say yes.

        2. That also means that since this morning the rate of accumulation has gone from $250k per hour to $500k per hour.

          So, I sure as heck don’t feel like taking a derivative right now, but I’m sure someone could figure out the rate of acceleration there.

          At 9:30 by the comments, they were making $250k per hour in donations.

          8 hours later, rounding this up to 5:30, they are making $500k per hour in donations.

          So even if things remain constant at this rate, they’ve gone from hitting their goal in 6 months, to hitting their goal in 3 months.

          If it doubles again in the next 8 hours, that makes their goal in 1.5 months.

          I have a hard time imagining it continuing that path, but if it does, they hit their $1B mark in like, 4 days.

  31. Military-Industrial Complex

    Excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever:

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961)

    Who directly benefits most from wars? The dead? No. The wounded? No. The taxpayers? No. The “military-industrial complex”? Yes. The former General of the Army (5-stars) and President of these United States had warned us to beware of its power and potentially pernicious influence. It represents a dual-edged sword. One edge, defense; the other, deceit.

    1. Eisenhower spent his entire adult life in and around the military. He was a great patriot and a great man. He knew better than anyone that you can’t trust what the military tells you. They have agendas and interests just like everyone else. The military will always claim it is under funded and the enemy is dangerous because to claim otherwise is to destroy its reason for existing. The problem is that once in a while, it isn’t lying and it is pretty hard to tell when that actually is.

      1. The boy who cried terrorism.

    2. More often than not, CEOs and other high level corporate officials at a defense contractor are retired top military brass.

      It’s almost like they are rewarded with a golden parachute for buying lots of stuff.

    3. And yet, that same President used the US Army for civil law enforcement. Find that in you copy of the constitution.
      (Google Little Rock Nine)

  32. Several interesting observations to draw from the Flynn sentencing hearing by way of an editorial by Michael Ledeen in the WSJ:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/th…..545264704?

    Suffice it to say, Ledeen cowrote a book with Flynn, and Ledeen was present in the courtroom when the judge went after the sentencing agreement. Suffice it to say, Ledeen’s take characterizes what happened differently than what I’ve seen reported elsewhere. Reading Ledeen’s piece, you might come away with the impression that the things the judge said were meant to provoke Flynn into changing his plea to not guilty because the judge believes he’s being asked to sentence an innocent man. I might sentence as if you were a party to treason–are you sure you won’t change your plea to not guilty? Ledeen makes a compelling case.

    1. Read Michael Leeden’s entry in Wikipedia, however, and you come across tidbits like this:

      Ledeen . . . wrote a series of articles published in The New Republic[7] and elsewhere about Jimmy Carter’s brother, Billy Carter’s contacts with the Muammar al-Gaddafi regime in Libya. Ledeen testified before a Senate subcommittee that he believed that Billy Carter had met with and been paid off by Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Liberation Organization . . . . A Wall Street Journal investigation suggested that the series of Billygate articles written by Ledeen were part of a larger disinformation campaign intended to influence the outcome of that year’s presidential election.

      Elsewhere, you’ll see allegations suggesting that Leeden was behind the forged documents at the center of the Yellowcake controversy in the run-up to the Iraq War.

    2. Lessons to draw:

      1) Fake news is as old as Plato’s “noble lie”.

      Seeing fake news flourish in a new medium shouldn’t be unexpected.

      It’s important to remember, whenever you’re listening to neocons, that the noble lie is fundamental to what they are. Neocons share with Marxism the belief that there needs to be a revolutionary vanguard at the top who will push the people to go further than they would be willing to go otherwise. The noble lie is integral to that–going back to Leo Strauss.

      2) Our critical thinking skills are always essential, sometimes even more essential than the truth.

      If Leeden has misled people in the past, that doesn’t mean he’s lying now. The White House press corp singing something in unison doesn’t make it true either. Who’s telling the truth? Why does it matter?

      The significance of knowing the absolute value of every variable is often overrated. For instance, if Trump shouldn’t be and won’t be removed from office regardless of what Flynn says, then does it really matter to us if he’s lying?

      1. I agree with Leenen. I find it highly unlikely that the judge was unprepared or allowed himself to get carried away. A federal judge handling a case of that magnatude is not going to be unprepared or let his emotions cause him to say things he shouldn’t.

        If Flynn says that he lied and both the government and Flynn agree that Flynn was not coerced and that the lie was material, the judge really has no basis in fact to find the plea invalid. Yet, the judge can see the facts as well as we can and no doubt sees what a sham this is. The government can’t admit it is a sham because doing so is admitting misconduct. Flyn can’t admit it is a sham because doing so will mean the government will go after him and his kids for other charges. All three parties, the judge, the government, and Flynn know but can’t say the whole thing is a lie.

        So, the judge tried to get Flynn to back out by telling Flynn that if he doesn’t back out of the plea, the judge might not honor the no jail recomondation and is free to sentence him based on all sorts of uncharged misconduct. The only reason I can see that the judge would do that is that he wanted to force Flyn to tell the truth by threatening him with worse consiquences for not doing so than the government could threaten him with for backing out of the plea.

        1. I agree with Leenen.

          I am the Walrus?

          1. That is all you have? Pendantic spelling jokes?

            1. It’s from The Big Lebowski.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWz8NGIisMo

              Starts at 2:40

            2. Obviously you’re not a golfer.

            3. Also, I could have just resorted to calling everyone with whom I disagree childish names, but I didn’t want to try you at your own game.

              Lighten up Francis.

              1. It is good to know that I get under your skin so much. It is intended and you deserve it. Get smarter and it won’t happen so often.

      2. ” Neocons share with Marxism the belief that there needs to be a revolutionary vanguard at the top who will push the people to go further than they would be willing to go otherwise.”

        We’re better than you and have the right to rule.

  33. Look, its simple.

    If you bring the troops home before you’ve won, you’ve lost. And America doesn’t lose. What? What is winning? Its because of people like you that Vietnam and 9/11!

    1. We went into Syria, whacked God knows how many thousands of jihadists who absolutely needed killing. Whacked a couple of hundred Russian mercenaries as a reminder to the Russians that they are the same second rate power they have always been. Now we are going home. Sounds like a feel good story to me.

      1. In some circles, this sort of military action described as ‘mowing the grass’.

      2. NO! Because then the terrorists win! SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

        1. By getting them killed in a shitty foreign nowhere.

      3. I very much doubt we’re going home. More likely they’re moving to Jordan and Iraq. Either way we’re spending record amounts on the military with or without the 2000 in Syria. It’s not we’re saving money.

      4. “whacked God knows how many thousands of jihadists who absolutely needed killing.”

        It shows how the MSM has bought into permanent war that Mattis and his “annihilation tactics” didn’t raise a peep out of them.

        https://goo.gl/f6pyLf

  34. Policing the world’s politics and bombing brown people is one of the few things that mainstream Republicans and Democrats”
    This quote assumes all military actions are racist and it only diminishes anything else written and why I quite reading after that sentence. this site has become useless

    1. But Reason is all over doing something about the evil Russians. So, bombing white people is appearently okay.

      1. Yeah, Reason is constantly agitating for a bombing campaign in Russia.

        Syrians are really pretty white, though. So there is that.


        1. Syrians are really pretty white, though. So there is that.

          I was thinking the same thing. I honestly don’t get why anyone gives a shit what color the people we bomb are since as far as I recall we all bleed red.

          1. Yeah, it’s pretty silly. Most of the world is non-white and Europe has had an unusually peaceful run for a while now and is mostly US allies. So of course our wars aren’t against white people of European extraction.

            1. Indeed, and we quickly forgot that the biggest wars in the history of the planet were mostly between various types of white people.

    2. This quote assumes all military actions are racist

      Not necessarily. It is true that most of our recent military adventures have been in places where the skin tone of the locals is on the darker side. Perhaps it implies, but it doesn’t assume.

      I do agree that its a lazy and not terribly useful way to talk about things, though.

      1. I feel confident that if the Icelanders get uppity and start flying planes into buildings in downtown Manhattan, we’ll bomb the fuck out of them, too. All 978 of them.

        1. We bombed the hell out of the Japanese, and they’re pretty pasty. The Germans too.

        2. We bombed the hell out of the Japanese, and they’re pretty pasty. The Germans too.

  35. Does Trump get any credit from Reason’s demotarians for taking a concrete, anti-war action that both parties don’t support? I won’t hold my breath.

    1. Umm. Isn’t that what happened in this very post? I just read it again and it seems to be pretty clear that Trump withdrawing from Syria is a good move.

    2. This one is quite positive as well: https://reason.com/blog/2018/12…..or-our-tro

    3. Gillespie and Robbie both praised the action.

  36. Yeah, I was listening to Mark Levin on my way home yesterday as per usual and he was pissed about troops coming home. Just a friendly reminder that while I might lean conservative, there are some pretty deep divides there.

    1. Levin (2015): I don’t like Trump

      *Trump bombs Syria*

      Levin: I like Trump

      *Trump pulls out of Syria*

      Levin: I don’t like Trump

      We know his priorities.

      1. Indeed we do, it’s one of the biggest things I absolutely disagree with him on. Well, that and immigration. I’m sure if I thought about a few minutes I’d come up with other things too.

        I will say that in fairness Levin pivoted to being pro-Trump pretty much as soon as he took office. In this case I’m pretty sure he was just ecstatic that it wasn’t Obama anymore but I wager you’re absolutely right about the bombing angle.

  37. So we all agree that Rand Paul is the indispensable man now, right? He convinced Trump to pull out of Syria and helped steer criminal justice reform through the Senate.

    Let us all feast on the tears of Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and the collective #Resist movement which has exposed itself as merely standing for #War.

    1. I need a NeverTrumper Tears mug.

  38. I firmly believe that if Trump resurrected Mother Theresa and nominated her to run HHS, the democrats would complain that he is violating the ‘wall of separation’ clause of the Jefferson Letter by doing a theological thing.

  39. fun watching Lindsey Graham get his panties in a wad … Marco Rubio looks like a child on tv

  40. “Teenagers in Washington state are smoking less pot since it was legalized.”

    If this is true, then maybe it means they saw all those ads where old dudes were saying pot was OK.

  41. Breaking News:

    “WASHINGTON?President Trump told House Republicans on Thursday that he won’t sign the spending bill passed by the Senate because it lacks funding for the border wall, House Speaker Paul Ryan said, complicating the path to keeping the government open past Friday.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ho…..545313360?

    1. I love me some good Christmas drama

      1. It’s a Festivus Miracle!

  42. Every once in a while a monkey typing away will spell a word correctly.

    1. OMG how racist – wait, Trump is white, never mind.

  43. GTFO. STFO.

  44. I KNEW Massie and Rand would turn out to be useful at something besides robbing women of individual rights and licking Beauregard’s Hush Puppies. Not burning cash like the Wehrmacht for a while can’t possibly do the economy anything but good. Three cheers for 4% or so casting enough LP spoiler votes to frighten the bastards into quitting their murder rampage.

  45. Yet another Libertarian Moment, brought to you by Orange Man and the Deplorables who supported him over the hysterical pants shitting objections of Reason.

    You’re welcome.

  46. I cannot agree with ‘Sen. Rand Paul, who declared he was “proud of the president today to hear that he is declaring victory in Syria.”‘ we cannot declare a victory in Syria because 1) it’s not our fight, and 2) victory will be achieved by means other than military force. we can, however, declare that our limited military aims of preventing Daesh from forcibly taking over he reins of power in 2+ countries have been achieved (better late to declare it than never). that’s all we should have been aiming for, militarily. now employ the other forms of power to mediate, if not peace, at least progress. taking sides in a civil war was always a losing plan.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.