Reason Roundup

No Deal for Trump in North Korea: Reason Roundup

Plus: a disturbing DOJ report on juvenile immigrant detention, and National Review & Weekly Standard alums launch a new media company

|

Kyodo/Newscom

A "friendly" departure but no agreement. This time yesterday, President Donald Trump was being heralded for his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the second in a series meant to seal Kim's approval for nuclear disarmament and other good deeds. That didn't pan out.

Instead, talks between Trump and Kim "abruptly ended" Thursday morning, The New York Times reports, "with the two leaders failing to agree on any steps" toward any of U.S. goals.

"Sometimes you have to walk," Trump told reporters at a press conference afterward. "It was about the sanctions. Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, but we couldn't do that."

But the exit wasn't in anger, Trump said. "This wasn't a walkaway like you get up and walk out. No, this was very friendly. We shook hands."

"Context matters," tweets Will Ruger, research and policy VP at the Charles Koch Institute. "U.S.-North Korean relations are in a better place than they have been historically and certainly better than 2017 when there was talk of conflict. Good to see that we are meeting and talking rather than fighting. Diplomacy > war with NK." He continued:

QUICK HITS

  • This is horrifying: The Office of Refugee Resettlement got more than 4,500 complaints about sexual abuse of minors being held at immigrant detention facilities from 2014 to 2018, according to a new report from the Department of Justice (DOJ). From these complaints, 1,303 were referred to DOJ, including 178 accusations of sexual assaults by adult staff members.
  • A bright spot for conservative media in the #MAGA era? Longtime National Review writer Jonah Goldberg will be leaving to help start a new "reporting-driven, Trump-skeptical" media company with former Weekly Standard editor-in-chief Steve Hayes, reports Axios. The yet-unnamed effort "will begin with newsletters as soon as this summer, then add a website in September, and perhaps ultimately a print magazine."
  • #MomoChallenge: The latest baseless parental panic is about a character called MoMo who purportedly induces kids to commit suicide.
  • #CPAC2019: The Conservative Political Action Conference starts today just outside of D.C.
  • Polling PSA: "Everyone should stay calm and take some deep breaths before concluding that the landscape of abortion politics in the United States has dramatically shifted in a single month, no matter how crazy that month was for coverage of the issue," writes Washington Post columnist David Byer about a new poll showing a dramatic shift in abortion attitudes.

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.

335 responses to “No Deal for Trump in North Korea: Reason Roundup

  1. A “friendly” departure but no agreement.

    Reaganesque!

    1. True.

      OT: in this thread, chemjeff advocates that child molestation/rape shouldn’t disqualify a person from receiving asylum from the US.
      Despite raping children while awaiting hearing, the rapist might still “deserve” asylum here.

      Progressives: pro infanticide, pro socialism, pro illegal immigration, and pro child rape

      1. Oh good Lord. No one here is “pro child rape”.

        My only point is that the question of whether or not someone deserves asylum is a separate question from whether or not someone is a good person.

        Otherwise, if asylum is only granted to the “good people”, then it essentially states that it’s okay for governments to oppress people as long as they are the “bad people”.

        So it’s okay for Muslim governments to oppress Christians, as long as they are “bad Christians”. Is that the standard you really want to create?

        Oh wait I know, you don’t actually want to think about any of this, you just want easy peasy tribal labels to follow that don’t require any thought whatsoever. ORANGE MAN GOOD, LIBRULZ BAD

        1. I have thought about it.
          I am against granting child rapists the gift of asylum in my country.
          Don’t care what race/creed/religion they are, nor how they’re treated in their home country.

          1. Then your position is that a Muslim government oppressing a Christian over his faith is just fine as long as that Christian is icky enough in his own personal life. Religious persecution is tolerated as long as the persecuted are bad people.

            Where do you draw the line over which forms of religious persecution aren’t justified?

            1. This is possibly your most retarded conflation of disparate things to date, kiddo.

            2. At child rape. Which again you are defending so that you can have open borders.

              What’s even more cynical is you would never in a million years grant asylum to right wing paramilitary officers seeking asylum because for you being to the left of Trotsky is worse than child rape.

            3. “Then your position is that a Muslim government oppressing a Christian over his faith is just fine as long as that Christian is icky enough in his own personal life”

              No. How fucking stupid are you?

              1. Give Jeff a break, they’re still in high school judging by their knowledge of….well nothing. He has no critical thinking or more than surface level observations.

                1. And they aren’t even particularly interesting or accurate surface observations.

                2. “He has no critical thinking”
                  Chemleft’s the embodiment of the NPC meme.

              2. That is exactly what you and others are saying. That the oppression of Bad People doesn’t matter because they are Bad People.

                1. Chemjeff advocates for us to import people straight into our prison systems. Seems logical if you can’t be bothered to think about it at all.

                  1. I advocate that asylum matters more about what the OPPRESSOR does rather than what the OPPRESSED does.

                    But I get it. Icky furriners don’t deserve more than a half second’s thought. Who cares about hard decisions or hard choices. Just keep them all out! Easy peasy. After all they don’t matter. Only Americans matter. USA! MAGA!

                    1. But I get it. Icky furriners don’t deserve more than a half second’s thought.

                      Especially when they’re child rapists.

                    2. I note you ignored the fact that the only place they could belong in America is in prison living off taxpayers. That’s according to libertarian thought as well, so you have indeed jumped the shark.

                    3. When someone molests children while in line to enter the U.S. they have proven to be an oppressor themselves, dumbass. They don’t get a free pass on their own agency.

    2. Hello?

      What is this, Boxing Day or something?

  2. will begin with newsletters as soon as this summer,

    well there goes his bid for presidency in 25 years

  3. The yet-unnamed effort “will begin with newsletters as soon as this summer, then add a website in September, and perhaps ultimately a print magazine.”

    Nothing says ‘we’re not crackpots’ like newsletters.

    1. Sir, I find your ideas intriguing and… oh, I get it.

  4. The latest baseless parental panic is about a character called MoMo

    “museum of modern ort?! you stupid monkey!”

    1. Oh. That Momo. From the video game.

  5. Everyone should stay calm and take some deep breaths before concluding that the landscape of abortion politics in the United States has dramatically shifted in a single month…

    Some polls just aren’t viable.

    1. Stay calm, everyone. I’m sure that no one noticed when the mask slipped.

      1. Still no articles on killing newborn babies at Reason. Keeping enjoying your late term abortions into the 4th trimester.

        Reason wants more women to be libertarians? Good luck when you refuse to condemn murder

        “Killing babies is freedom!” – Molly Jong Fast (my favorite feminazi)

        1. And yet another joint meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management and Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics (Because Superstition) convenes . . .

          Carry on, clingers.

          1. Brave stance for one already born.

            1. How far to the superstitious side of authoritarianism do you go?

              Should women who seek an abortion be imprisoned?

              Should a woman who recklessly precipitates a miscarriage be convicted?

              Should a 12-year-old rape or incest victim be compelled to give birth to flatter your religion?

              1. “How far to the superstitious side of authoritarianism do you go?”

                Global warming. Go.

              2. Way to move the goalposts.

                Should we be able to kill babies outside the womb, yes or no.

                It’s a one word answer. Democrats say yes

            2. “Brave stance for one already born.”

              He’s 4th trimester, so open season. And since the good of the many outweighs the good of the one, his life is forfeit.

          2. How about the ones out of the womb?

    2. A single month? I thought we were talking 8-9 months.

      1. 9.5 if it seems like that little shit-lump is slow.

  6. Longtime National Review writer Jonah Goldberg will be leaving

    Good riddance.

    1. NeverTrump is a lucrative grift.

      1. *NeverTrumpers* are the grifters?

        The real grifters on the right are the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters, Tucker Carlsons, etc., who have no backbone or spine or principle, and instead just sell out to wherever the winds are blowing.

        1. They are political hacks just like the political hacks on the Left.

        2. Ann Coulter has been ripping on Trump for months. Your DNC talking points need updating

          1. This would be the Ann Coulter who said that Trump could perform an abortion in the Oval Office if he would just build a wall, right?

            1. It’s always so heartwarming when someone trades blind worship for a higher principle like racism.

            2. Yes the same one. She’s been hammering Trump for months.

              Why are you so adamantly denying reality you fucking clown.

              1. Thanks for barking and growling on command, just like I knew you would!

            3. You’re confusing me for someone who wants to stand up for her positions

        3. “*NeverTrumpers* are the grifters?

          The real grifters on the right”

          God you suck. You’re just so bad at thinking.

          They can ALL be grifters you fucking rube. Bill Kristol got a fucking leftist billionaire to fund his NeverTrump vanity project. Try to live in reality for once.

          1. See Toolpuppy bark and growl vacant barks and empty growls!

            Sit, Toolpuppy! Stay,roll over, play dead! (Especially the latter!)

            Now bark and growl some more!

            1. This is so lazy and lame. And it’s the worst kind of lazy- lazy that probably took you ten minutes to come up with.

              1. Hi Toolpoopy clone-sock!

                  1. Thanks for mindlessly barking and growling on my command, StupidDawg, just like I knew you would!

                    1. Should I know you? Lots of crazy losers take shots at me, you seem particularly upset about getting slapped arpund, so much that you’re creepily stalking my posts, but I have no idea who you are.

                    2. I’m your Mom, Toolpoopy! Now come up out of my basement (that you’ve made a filthy, disease-befestered hellhole out of), and pay me my rent as usual, by humping me! Share your diseases with me per our rent agreement! You are LATE, mofo, on your rent! Pay up!

                    3. Well, we established pretty clearly the other day that my mom was a whore who would take on all cummers except Crusty.

                      So, hi Mom.

                    4. Wow, lol, you actually wrote something funny for once!

                      Congrats!!!

                    5. You have some jizz in your hair and you owe me money mom.

    2. So he’s off to code?

      1. How many Trump-hate sites does one need? / Bernie Sanders

        1. No billionaire should have two Trump-hate sites until every billionaire has one Trump-hate site.

  7. Everyone should stay calm and take some deep breaths

    done, now can i rage?

    1. Only if it’s against the machine.

      Get it?

      Rage Against the Machine?

      The band? Remember?

      1. please apologize

      2. Hey why’d you get banned yesterday?

        1. Because I caught you lazily using one of your ancient screen-names and you spammed me like the disturbing freak that you are?

          1. No, that definitely wasn’t it. I was curious, sorry it hurt your feelings to bring it up.

          2. I mean, it obviously bothered you, you made up a lie that doesn’t even make sense. If I spammed you, I wpuld have gotten banned. but you got banned. Calm down, and at least try to make sense or you’ll gat banmed again. Unlike you, I’ve never been banned, so you might avoid it by taking my advice.

              1. See? Take a deep breath or you’ll gey banned again.

  8. The latest baseless parental panic is about a character called MoMo who purportedly induces kids to commit suicide.

    HE’S PROBABLY DRESSED LIKE A CLOWN.

    1. a slender male clown, even

    1. House is COVERED in four feet of ice…

      just to prove he doesn’t have lupus

  9. “Context matters,” tweets Will Ruger, research and policy VP at the Charles Koch Institute

    yeah, but removing all context tells me that this tweet came from a koch-affiliated account and thus can’t be trusted.

  10. I take it that Trump didn’t bring Rodman with him to Vietnam. Rodman would have blocked the shit out of Bolton, and we’d have a deal. Still shocked he didn’t win the Apprentice.

    1. Rodman would have blocked…

      More likely boxed him out and pulled down the rebound.

    2. Poor Rodman.
      He had a place, being weird and liking to dress up as a woman, before the whole transgendered thing became popular.
      Now, what is a straight guy who likes to dress in women’s clothing, but still bang chicks, to do?
      Transgenders really screwed over cross dressers.

    3. Did he take Colonel Braddock?

  11. The terrible economic news just keeps piling up.

    Trump and GOP promised economic growth much better than Obama’s. That’s not what happened

    In just a couple years we’ve gone from the strongest economy in the history of this country (thanks to Obama) to widespread economic ruin (thanks to Drumpf).

    #DrumpfRecession
    #UnbanPalinsButtplug
    #KrugmanWasRight

    1. #NowKrugmanIsLeft

  12. Instead, talks between Trump and Kim “abruptly ended” Thursday morning…

    Leaving us all free to return to endless discussions of Russian meddling and hush money and vulgar politics on full display in Twitter feeds.

    1. Cohen trustworthy/Cohen not trustworthy oscillation wave being calibrated now.

      1. The partisan phase is still out of alignment.

  13. Isn’t momo Italian slang for “dumb ass”?

    1. It is slang for half-moron, half-homosexual.

      1. It would be so much better if the first half was Mormon.

      2. I thought that was To-ny.

    2. Momos are a Himalayan dish similar to dumplings. Cheap and quite tasty.

  14. Teacher, 27, ‘had sex with boy, 13, in front of another student in her classroom and they touched each other while other kids were watching videos’ as their X-rated text messages are revealed

    In one x-rated back-and-forth, Zamora told the boy she wanted to have sex with him ‘every day with no time limit’.

    ‘Wyd?’ she started one conversation with him, using the slang-abbreviation for ‘what are you doing?’

    He replied: ‘Thinking about your sexy self’ and added two pink heart emojis.
    Aww baby (love heart eyes emoji) I wish you were with me,’ she responded.

    The boy replied: ‘I want u bby. (sic).. when can we f**k again?’, this time adding two red heart emojis to his message.

    Zamora hit back: ‘I want you too baby so bad! Whenever we can you know I’m down,’ with a red heart emoji.

    She went on: ‘Like you for real get sexier to me every day lol.’

    ‘I want to f**k you so bad baby those times weren’t enough,’ the boy replied to her.

    She responded: ‘Me neither baby! I want you every day with no time limit.’

    That kid has more game than your average Trump supporter.

    1. I wish I hadn’t read this.

        1. When it’s a 27 year old woman and me it’s alright.

    2. You missed the best part:

      The boy’s parents previously claimed Zamora’s husband Daniel called them and begged them not to report his wife to police after they saw her sexual texts, saying she had made a mistake.

      The parents told police that Zamora’s husband ‘harassed’ the father over the phone, begging him not to go to the authorities and insisting that his wife had ‘made a big mistake, but that she loved the kids,’ according to the documents.

      1. It’s all “the best part.”

      2. Her mistake was loving the kids too much.

        Being cuckolded by a thirteen year old and taking it? People are strange.

    3. Transitioning from pink to red hearts is so hot.

      I’m not sure about the “no time limit” thing though; I mean what about school nights?

      1. It’s not like he has to study or worry about grades.

    4. Isn’t this an old story?

      1. New hilariously disturbing deets, yo.

  15. Ellenville officer accidentally shoots self during incident involving rabid fox

    When Nunuvero and Sgt. Robert Morse arrived, the chief said, the fox charged toward Nunuvero “without warning or provocation.” Nunuvero quickly realized he could not safely shoot at the fox without risking Morse’s safety and that of a civilian who was standing nearby, Mattracion said.

    Instead, the chef said, Nunuvero ran toward a nearby fence, which he attempted to scale before catching his foot and falling to the ground.

    The impact of the fall caused Nunuvero to accidentally fire his service pistol, and the bullet went through Nunuvero’s shirt and then ricocheted off the bulletproof vest, Mattracion said.

    Um, more training?

    1. What did the fox say happened?

      1. A hee a hee… A HEE!

    2. So the cop got out-foxed?

    3. Still not as good as the story of two NJ cops that shot each other trying to shoot a pit bull.

  16. President Trump was right to walk away from his summit with Kim Jong-un rather than accept a bad nuclear agreement, but the outcome underscores that he was bamboozled last year at his first summit with Kim. Whatever genius Trump sees in the mirror, “the art of the deal” is not his thing.

    At this meeting, Kim apparently sought a full end to sanctions on North Korea in exchange for closing only some nuclear sites. That was not a good deal, and Trump was right to walk rather than accept it.

    “Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, but we couldn’t do that,” Trump said, adding: “Sometimes you have to walk.”
    After the Trump-Kim Failure: The president was right to walk rather than accept a bad deal, but look out ahead.

    1. Now, see, if Trump was a brilliant foreign policy wonk like Barack Obama, he would have airlifted Kim pallets full of cash and then accepted the deal no matter how fucked up it was. That’s the Art Of The Deal motherfuckers!

      1. We can’t all be 16-dimensional chessmasters like Barry.

    2. Mainstream news reporters on this were almost giddy this AM “See, Trump failed!!!!, Yeah!!!!”

      Slight exaggeration, but noticeable snickers at least.

      So glad they simply “present” the news.

  17. A bright spot for conservative media in the #MAGA era?

    Another “conservative” – or as I like to call them, “traitorous cowards,” – media outlet to be funded by leftists in order to take down Trump? It’s not going to work!

    MAGA 4EVA

    1. I’d rather read Tony than Jonah Goldberg.

      1. I’d rather read toilet paper than Tony or Jonah Goldberg.

        1. Tony is at least brief.

    1. Why should a Koch / Reason libertarian care whether a progressive is a denialist phony progressive?

      #OBLneedsnewmaterial

      1. All patriotic Americans should care that the White House is currently occupied by a literal puppet of a hostile foreign power who colluded to win a hacked election. When a “journalist” with 1,000,000 Twitter followers spreads misinformation about this crucial issue, of course I’m going to call him out.

        1. Although I have a strong constitution, I fear others not so psychologically fit have been terrified by your homophobic attacks on such a courageous journalist.

          Aren’t you at all troubled that you may have violated the safe spaces of young men who happen to be a little light in their loafers or young women who are questioning their sexual identity or have already experimented with homo-erotic play with their female associates?

          All patriotic Americans, particularly of the Koch / Reason libertarian variety, should be woke enough to realize that launching ad hominem attacks on the likes of Mr. Greenwald is the very quintessence of bigotry and hate.

    2. Yeah, how dare he say out loud what is obvious?

  18. U.S. economy grew at a strong 2.9 percent rate in 2018,

    Man, Obama’s economy is really humming along.

    1. OBL will be pleased to read that you have finally recognized that all of the good economic news is attributable to the dear leader.

      #OBLneedsnewmaterial

    2. I thought Trump promised us 4% growth!

      Maybe the takeaway shouldn’t be that one president had exactly the same growth as the other. Maybe we should be asking why the government, and specifically the president, gets any credit for economic growth at all?

      1. The government does not count black market business, so we might be above 4% growth.

      2. The rest of the growth was supposed to be wall-related

      3. 2016. 1.6%
        2017. 2.2%
        2018. 2.9%

        The trend is great.

  19. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the inspiration behind an upcoming comic book.

    The first storyline should have her democratic socialists joining forces with us Koch / Reason libertarians to #AbolishICE.

    #LibertariansForAOC

    1. Dems finally found a use for ICE that they liked.

      http://hotair.com/archives/201…..-buy-guns/

    2. Does she use her giant teeth to fight the criminal responses of the starving proles?

    3. “Look! Up in the sky!”
      “It’s a Bird”
      “It’s a Brain”
      “It’s a Bird Brain”
      Faster than a speeding bullet point.
      More powerful than a cow fart!
      Able to leap to 10 wrong conclusions in a single bound

      “Yes, it’s Supertwat – strange visitor from Westchester County who came to D.C. with powers and abilities far below those of a mortal bag lady. Supertwat – defender of outlaws and disorder, champion of equal misery, vain, cantankerous fighter against the forces of reason and common sense, who disguised as Miss Gulch, mild-mannered unemployed bartender for a bankrupt divebar, fights a never-ending battle for publicity, social justice and the South American way.”

  20. U.S. Drops Threat of 25% Tariffs on Chinese Goods in Sign That Accord Is Near

    U.S. negotiators also reach tentative deal on thorny issue of enforcement

    WASHINGTON?In the strongest sign yet that an accord is near, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said Wednesday that the U.S. was abandoning for now its threat to raise tariffs to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods.

    WHAT!?! Negotiating using tough tactics, including tariffs, can work to get lower trade restrictions?

    I am sure that Reason staff will put out an article a day for a week about this. NOT

    1. Reason believes in giving away all negotiating leverage up front.

      1. Haha. They do, don’t they?

    2. Well we haven’t gotten anything yet, except of course for higher taxes on imported goods. The negotiating is pretty dumb really, considering Trump is negotiating with a foreign power on what level he should tax his own people.

      It would be like negotiating in a hostage situation by threatening to shoot your own family member.

      1. Poor Leo does not know how to negotiate.

        Luckily, Trump was elected to try and get a better deal with our managed trade policy.

        1. Thanks Trump, for all the import taxes! Oh and thanks too for all the backfiring cronyism to the aluminum and steel industries!

        2. What would a poor trade agreement look like to you?

          1. What we already had in trade policy pre-Trump.

            We can get better.

      2. It worked for Sheriff Bart.

  21. Per the NYTIMES

    “Of those 1,303 cases deemed the most serious, 178 were accusations that adult staff members had sexually assaulted immigrant children, while the rest were allegations of minors assaulting other minors, the report said”

    So migrants assault migrants at a 10:1 ratio higher than the workers, in a detention center that they’re using to escape other countries in which half of them are assaulted by their own people.

    “A 2003 survey conducted by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) in Mexico found that 47 percent of women over 15 in a relationship have experienced some form of domestic violence, and that 96 out of every 100 victims of domestic violence in Mexico are women.”

    I think even one sexual assault is too many, but considering we process hundreds of thousands of migrants a year, I’d say your odds of being assaulted are WAYYYYY higher if you stay in your home country or even hang around migrants.

    Your detention center fear mongering is a total joke. Get your heads out of your asses and do some math.

    1. “CBP: Slightly Better Than Shithole Countries!”

      Now there’s a winning slogan

      1. “Slightly Better”

        How about thousands of times better? You forget that of the millions of migrants there were 178 that were assaulted.

        Do some fucking math my dude.

    2. Pipe down over there!

    3. Keep lowering the bar for Trump, and see where that gets you

      1. Like your TDS, my math has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with false narratives

      2. Gorsuch
        Kavauagh
        2 for 1 EO repeal
        Tax cuts
        Border fence extension
        Immigration law enforcement
        ….

  22. This is horrifying: The Office of Refugee Resettlement got more than 4,500 complaints about sexual abuse of minors being held at immigrant detention facilities from 2014 to 2018, according to a new report from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

    Liz is gonna get a trespass warning for Comet Ping Pong.

    1. Don’t order the Celestial Flower Bed deep-dish pizza at Comet Ping Pong — instead of freshly pissed-on by a 7-year old as stated in the menu it tasted like old-man janitor urine. Maybe it was an off night for them.

  23. Nothing about India shooting down a Pakistani jet fighter?

    War might just be starting there.

    1. I saw Pakistan shot down two Indian jets with one pilot captured, as of yesterday.

      1. The Indians evidently lost a MIG-21.

        Jesus what decade is this?

        1. Goose and Maverick called, they want their plot lines back.

          1. *flips you the bird on this inverted Reason reply

            1. *clicks my teeth back in an Iceman-esque response

              1. STEVE SMITH STRIKE SEXY BEACH VOLLEYBALL POSE. MORE HIRSUTE THAN ICEMAN BUT NOT STEVE SMITH PROBLEM.

    2. There’s a war on Twitter right now…

      1. That Air Force One and its high tech Twitter connection.

    3. News is that Pakistan is going to release the pilot tomorrow.

      Link

      1. Aye.
        Good news.
        But India has elections coming up in May, and seems like they want a fight.
        Pakistan is presenting a more reasonable front… well, one of their governments is.
        The ISI and their use of terrorists as irregular forces will have to be dealt with at some point.

        1. “The ISI and their use of terrorists as irregular forces will have to be dealt with at some point.”

          Yeah that’s the biggest problem with them right now i.m.o.

  24. Dem Politician Uses Racial Slur, Gets a Pass

    Maryland House Delegate Mary Ann Lisanti (D.) apologized Monday night to the leaders of the Legislative Black Caucus after witnesses say she used a racial slur while describing a legislative district in Prince George’s County, though the lawmaker says she does not remember using the alleged slur.

    Lisanti, 51, a white female lawmaker, was approached by members of the Legislative Black Caucus Monday night after it was reported she made the racist comment after work hours at a cigar bar in Annapolis, Maryland, while speaking to a white colleague in late January, the Washington Post reported.

    “She apologized several times,” Democratic Del. Darryl Barnes, who chairs the Black Caucus, said. “She recognizes how she has hurt so many within the caucus, and she hoped to repent from this. She said that she doesn’t remember fully what happened, but she recognizes what happened.”

    1. Maybe she should have said shithole district.

    2. “Virginia’s first lady Pam Northam has come under fire after handing raw cotton to two black eighth-graders during a tour of the Governor’s mansion, and suggested the students imagine what it was like under slavery to pick said cotton, according to the Washington Post.
      According to Leah Dozier Walker, director of the state education department’s Office of Equity and Community Engagement, Northam singled out the only black kids out of 20 young people who had served as pages during the state Senate session.”

      “”The Governor and Mrs. Northam have asked the residents of the Commonwealth to forgive them for their racially insensitive past actions,” said Walker. “But the actions of Mrs. Northam, just last week, do not lead me to believe that this Governor’s office has taken seriously the harm and hurt they have caused African Americans in Virginia or that they are deserving of our forgiveness.””

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..raw-cotton

      1. Mrs N will hereinafter be handing out basketballs.

        1. *guffaw*

      2. I love how cotton is racist now.

        1. I wish Cotton was a monkey.

    3. Democrats are okay with black face, sexual assault, and black face in Virginia because it would lead to Republican Governor.

      1. It’s perfectly valid for devotees of either party to believe that it’s worse for humanity to let the other party into power than for your guy to do a racist thing.

        For one thing, Republicans are inherently racist. Racism informs their entire political platform. So why would giving them power improve things for brown people? Sometimes you have two shit choices.

        1. Poor Tony will never be able to admit that the Democratic Party is the party of slavery and its members were advocates for keeping actual slaves.

          The GOP was formed to abolish slavery.

          Luckily, more and more Black Americans are leaving the Democratic Party because they know the GOP is not a racist organization.

          1. You neither care about nor believe in the things you say, do you? Feel free to reply in Russian.

          2. They won’t admit they voted for a lady that held a former member of the KKK in high regard to the point she called him a mentor.

            So what do you expect?

            1. Is it a standard libertarian position that people can never be redeemed for past mistakes that they own up to and actively work to rectify?

              1. No, that’s the political partisan position. Also the SJW position. Both applied selectively.

              2. I don’t know of libertarians running around trying to judge people on what happened years ago in the same way SJWs and democrats are doing.

                A libertarian position might be one where consistency is expected.

  25. “The Office of Refugee Resettlement got more than 4,500 complaints about sexual abuse of minors being held at immigrant detention facilities from 2014 to 2018, according to a new report from the Department of Justice (DOJ). From these complaints, 1,303 were referred to DOJ, including 178 accusations of sexual assaults by adult staff members.”

    This was a big problem with the refugees Obama unilaterally agreed to take off the Australians’ hands just before he left office (and Trump rescinded)–the Red Cross was reporting that children were being sexually assaulted so systematically, they had to start moving refugees with children to separate facilities.

    When it says that “178 accusations of sexual assault by staff members”, does that mean the accusation were made against staff members or that the staff members made the allegations against certain refugees? Even if 178 of the accusations were made against staff members, that means more than 4,200 complaints of sexual abuse of minors were not directed at staff members, and more than 1,100 of those complaints that were referred to the DOJ were apparently perpetrated by refugees seeking asylum.

    Does it need to be said that we shouldn’t be granting asylum to people who have sexually abused minors? Knowing these people sexually abuse minors and granting them asylum anyway is like what the Catholic church is accused of doing.

    1. Does it need to be said that we shouldn’t be granting asylum to people who have sexually abused minors?

      Why? Asylum isn’t about whether the victim is a saint or not. Asylum is about whether the victim is fleeing real persecution at home.

      One can be a terrible person and still be fleeing persecution at home.

      1. “Why? Asylum isn’t about whether the victim is a saint or not. Asylum is about whether the victim is fleeing real persecution at home.”

        I never thought you were capable of being so completely retarded. It’s amazing.

        Congratulations on going full retard.

        1. Congratulations on not actually responding to the point.

          What do you think the point of asylum is?

          Should a grant of asylum be predicated on how saintly the victim is?

          1. That foreign child molesters belong in prison and then deported to their home countries rather than released into the wild to molest again is so obvious, it doesn’t need to be pointed out to anyone but you. Why would a thoughtful person dignify your response with any answer other than “You’re a fucking retard”?

            1. I didn’t say “released into the wild”. You are the one who said that, not me.

              I said that grants of asylum shouldn’t predicated on the saintliness of the victim of oppression or not.

              Believe it or not, it’s possible for bad people to be oppressed by a worse government.

              Try responding to what I wrote, not to what you imagine I wrote.

            2. You don’t get it Ken, If you don’t give penniless Guatemalans the chance to rape migrants children then you are a racist bigot.

              1. Again, not what I wrote.

                “Granting asylum” doesn’t mean “you’re a saint”.

                Let’s suppose for a moment that a Muslim government is oppressing Christians. However, one of the particular Christians also turns out to be a Bad Person. By not granting asylum to that one Christian Bad Person, what you are essentially saying is that it’s okay for a Muslim government to oppress Christians, as long as those Christians are irredeemibly flawed. Is that really the position you want to take?

                1. Let’s suppose for a moment that a Muslim government is oppressing Christians. However, one of the particular Christians also turns out to be a Bad Person. By not granting asylum to that one Christian Bad Person, what you are essentially saying is that it’s okay for a Muslim government to oppress Christians

                  Yeah, that’s the spicy take being presented in his argument.

                  1. “By not granting asylum to that one Christian Bad Person, what you are essentially saying is that it’s okay for a Muslim government to oppress Christians”

                    Lol yeah, he actually said this. And I am going to club him over the head woth it forever.

                    1. I’m not surprised you will take my words out of context and use them to troll. I wouldn’t expect anything else from you, Tulpa!

                    2. Lol now he’s claiming I took his words out of context, which he does to literally everyone else.

                      The context is fully present. You just can’t deal with the implications of your own stupid rhetorical failures.

                  2. You’re a fucking liar. You deliberately cut off my sentence in order to change the context.

                    By not granting asylum to that one Christian Bad Person, what you are essentially saying is that it’s okay for a Muslim government to oppress Christians, as long as those Christians are irredeemibly flawed.

                    And yes that is your position. That it’s okay for oppressive governments to oppress Bad People. Only Good People deserve to be considered for asylum.

                    1. You’re a fucking liar. You deliberately cut off my sentence in order to change the context.

                      Those extra words don’t make you sound like any less of a lunatic, nor does it provide any credence to your strawman.

                    2. You changed the context of my words to make it sound like not considering the amnesty application of one Christian meant it was okay to oppress all Christians. That is clearly not what I meant and you know it. You are a slanderous liar. Fuck you.

                    3. Chemjeff: “not giving = taking”

            3. Ken, it must suck to have these super-idiots on your side of open borders.

            4. I take back everything I ever said about you Ken.

            5. Grant them asylum in an Arpaio-style prison. Bread, water, tent in the desert, pink pajamas.

              1. Amusingly, Jeff is saying we should grant them amnesty then put them straight into jail. Nevermind that they committed one of the most heinous crimes in the American legal system while applying for amnesty.

                1. Okay then. A Bad Person (however you choose to define a Bad Person) is being oppressed by a foreign government for reasons that have nothing to do with his badness. Religion, ethnicity, you name it. This person applies for asylum in the USA, the Land of Liberty. What do you do?

                  A. Send him away because he/she is a Bad Person. Congratulations, you’ve now given the green light to all the foreign governments that oppression is okay as long as you oppress the Bad People.

                  B. Let him in. Congratulations, you’ve now let in a Bad Person into the USA!

                  C. Some other option. I’m all ears!

                  But hey, it’s more fun to demagogue and hyperventilate, right?

                  1. “But hey, it’s more fun to demagogue and hyperventilate, right?”

                    I don’t know – it doesn’t seem like you’re having that much fun.

                2. For someone who likes to claim that *I’m* a shallow thinker who lacks critical thinking skills, you don’t seem to have thought about this issue very deeply, have you?

                  At what point of Badness do you think a person ought to be at least considered for asylum based on persecution? Suppose an applicant is fleeing ethnic/religious persecution, but he once spanked his child as an act of discipline. Is is okay to consider this person’s application for asylum? Or is he a child abuser who should be sent back because “we don’t want his kind in this country”? How about if the applicant sold drugs in his home country because that was the only way to put food on the table for his family and not get killed by the local drug lords? Should that application be considered? Or should this person be turned away?

                  You all like to demagogue the issue with the extreme case of “child rapist” but there really is a tension between which applications to accept and which to reject based on the actions of the applicant alone, independent of the nature of the persecution that the applicant is fleeing. But hey it’s more fun to point and laugh isn’t it? So much for critical thinking or engaging seriously with an issue. Fuck you.

                  1. The pathetic thing is that you think this issue is somehow deeply philosophical. You are stating that illegal alien felons of the worst kind need to be admitted into U.S. prisons as a human right. Seriously, you are a fool.

                    1. I didn’t think you would come up with a serious answer. Much more fun to hurl insults and demagogue the issue, isn’t it?

                      Where do YOU draw the line between who comes in and who doesn’t?

                      The more you let in, the more Bad People are let in.

                      The fewer you let in, the more you are giving the green light to oppressive governments that it’s okay to oppress people as long as they are the Bad People.

                      So, where do you draw the line, Mr. Deep Thinker?

                    2. Once again, reasonable people would say known felon is a pretty good line to draw. Especially when they commit the felony in the U.S. against children since we’re not relying on foreign law enforcement.

                      In fact, if they are seeking asylum from child molestation charges in Iran, for example, I’d say Iran had the right idea in ‘oppressing’ them in the first place assuming they could prove it. Something about stopped clocks twice a day.

                    3. if they are seeking asylum from child molestation charges in Iran

                      Oh fuck you. I never ever said anything along these lines, not even remotely. My argument has never been “people seeking asylum from supposedly unfair child molestation charges”. It has always been about people seeking asylum with legitimate claims of oppression, but who also happen to be Bad People in some way. At least try to represent the argument correctly.

                    4. known felon is a pretty good line to draw.

                      Considering the number of bullshit felonies that there are, I don’t. A felony could be something like failure to pay child support (which ought to be just a tort, not a felony), or a bullshit gun/drug charge.

                      Once again I am going to draw the line much closer to giving the individual the benefit of the doubt, and I’m not going to have much patience for governments oppressing people.

                    5. You’re not going to come up with some serious answer, because you’re a charlatan and a fraud. You’re a more pretentious version of LC1789.

                    6. I may be condescending to you, but I’m not wrong because of it.

                    7. A eight-year-old with Down Syndrome can be legitimately condescending to chemleft.

                    8. Your condescension arises from your unjustifiably inflated sense of self-worth. You’re just another Team Red shill, but who *thinks* he’s an independent thinker.

          2. “Should a grant of asylum be predicated on how saintly the victim is?”

            If somebody is inclined to sexually abuse children, we don’t want them here. Doesn’t matter how they’re treated at home.

            1. “Do we want them here” and “Do they deserve asylum” are two separate questions.

              It is absolutely possible for the answer to the first question to be “no”, but the answer to the second question be “yes”.

              1. No it’s not.
                Nobody “deserves” asylum

                1. Sure they do, at least in some moral sense.

                  If a Muslim government is oppressing Christians, absent any other information, I think most of us here would argue that those Christians probably deserve asylum in a moral sense based on their religious persecution.

                  If one argues that only the “good Christians” deserve asylum, but the “bad ones” do not, then what one is arguing is essentially that it’s okay for a tyrannical government to oppress people, as long as it’s the “bad people”. And I’m sorry but that’s not an acceptable standard. Religious oppression is wrong, whether it’s conducted against saints or sinners. The particular sinful behavior of the oppressed are different matters entirely.

                  1. “Sure they do, at least in some moral sense.”

                    You sound like a giant fucking idiot when you claim people have a moral imperative to overlook pedophilia and grant asylum.

                    1. I said NOTHING about “overlooking pedophilia”. I said that the question of asylum, and the question of alleged pedophilia, are two SEPARATE questions. Learn to read, people.

                    2. “I said NOTHING about “overlooking pedophilia””

                      And now you’re lying.

                    3. “the question of asylum, and the question of alleged pedophilia, are two SEPARATE questions. Learn to read, people.”

                      Execpt they aren’t. Learn to think imbecile.

                  2. You’re a moron.

                    Not granting someone permission to dwell within your home/nation does not = approval of that person’s home/nation.

                    Your fanaticism has you advocating for knowingly and willingly aiding child rapists because… it’s the right thing to do?
                    WTF man.

                    No asylum for child rapists. That’s my position.
                    Would you like to continue advocating the opposite?

                    1. If you condition grants on asylum based on the virtues/vices of the ones being oppressed, then what you are endorsing is a moral statement that oppressive government is justified as long as it’s the “bad people” being oppressed. And that’s just wrong. Oppression is wrong whether it’s saints or sinners being oppressed.

                      Asylum is about what the OPPRESSOR did to its victims, not on what the OPPRESSED did to deserve asylum. Do you disagree?

                      There is zero inconsistency about condemning both oppression, and the wrong actions conducted by some of the oppressed.

                    2. Furthermore, it’s really rich hearing all this concern trolling about the child rapists, when many of the same people are perfectly fine with the child rape as long as it happens *over there*.

                    3. Furthermore, it’s really rich hearing all this concern trolling about the child rapists, when many of the same people are perfectly fine with the child rape as long as it happens *over there*.\

                      Translation: “Open borders uber alles, even if it means bringing in child rapists.”

                    4. “when many of the same people are perfectly fine with the child rape as long as it happens *over there*.”

                      Name them then. Not the lame Obama-esque “some people” garbage. Name the people you’re talking about.

              2. “It is absolutely possible for the answer to the first question to be “no”, but the answer to the second question be “yes”.”

                You’re engaging in theoretical sophism and ignoring the practical, rational world. It doesn’t matter what they deserve. One of the primary functions of the US government is the protection of American citizens. There’s no way out here in the real world where a handful of us still exist that you can argue that we should let people into the country that are going to harm the people that live here.

                1. Well yes I am making a theoretical argument. The point is that asylum isn’t about what the oppressed did, it’s about what the oppressor did.

                  1. “Well yes I am making a theoretical argument. The point is that asylum isn’t about what the oppressed did, it’s about what the oppressor did.”

                    Asylum isn’t a decision with a single determinant. It’s not just about what the oppressor did. It’s also about what the oppressed is likely to do if we grant it.

                  2. The point is that asylum isn’t about what the oppressed did, it’s about what the oppressor did.

                    Which is a stupid point that no one with an ounce of sense outside of an open borders fanatic would argue.

                    The whole fucking point of the screening process is to keep out dangerous individuals. You’re saying flat-out fine with bringing in MS-13 gangbangers as long as they claim asylum, because for the most autistic of reasons you think living in a third-world shithole automatically qualifies them for residency in the US, irrespective of the danger they’ll bring to whichever community they settle in.

                    Anyone arguing that child molesters should be granted asylum is a retard, and a dangerous one at that.

                    1. Which is a stupid point that no one with an ounce of sense outside of an open borders fanatic would argue.

                      Except that is Ken’s point, and most every other person’s point in this thread – that if a person is being oppressed by a foreign government, that oppression doesn’t matter if that person also is a Bad Person in some way. That we should look the other way if the “wrong people” are being oppressed. That is a horrible precedent to set.

                      You’re saying flat-out fine with bringing in MS-13 gangbangers as long as they claim asylum

                      That is false.

                      you think living in a third-world shithole automatically qualifies them for residency in the US

                      That is also false.

                      Those two false statements stem entirely from your projection onto what you think I believe. Learn to read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote based on your presumptions.

                      The question of asylum is different than the question of whether or not the victim is a good person or not.

                    2. Except that is Ken’s point, and most every other person’s point in this thread – that if a person is being oppressed by a foreign government, that oppression doesn’t matter if that person also is a Bad Person in some way.

                      chemjeff loves him some child rapists as long as they can claim “oppression” by a foreign government.

                      That is false.\

                      Bullshit. You’ve explicitly argued that it doesn’t matter if they’re Bad People, they should still be given asylum as long as they claim “oppression.”

                      Learn to read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote based on your presumptions.

                      You argued that claiming “oppression” is more important than whether they’re child rapists.

                      The question of asylum is different than the question of whether or not the victim is a good person or not.

                      That you actually believe they’re not inexplicably linked is why you’re being treated like an idiot.

                    3. chemjeff loves him some child rapists

                      This is a fucking slanderous lie even by your standards.

                      You’ve explicitly argued that it doesn’t matter if they’re Bad People, they should still be given asylum as long as they claim “oppression.”

                      That is a 100% lie. I never claimed anything of the sort. I said that the decision on asylum is different than the decision on a judgment on the victim’s moral worth.

                      Furthermore I never once said that asylum should be granted in any case based on a mere claim of oppression. The oppression of course has to be genuine and real.

                      You are a lying fuck.

            2. Grant them asylum in an Arpaio-style prison. Bread, water, tent in the desert, pink pajamas.

      2. This.

        Is.

        Beautiful.

        I’m framing this.

        Now do ISIS. No wait, don’t, I’m already pissing my pants laughing

        1. This is why rational people can’t have adult conversations with you. It’s just about points-scoring with you evidently.

          Try answering the question. Why should grants of asylum be based on the saintliness of the victim?

          1. Your not rational in anything you say, Chemjeff.

            P.S. Your Team Blue pom-pom fell by the wayside.

            1. If I’m not holding a Team Blue pom-pom, that’s because I never had one in the first place.

              Go back to sucking Trump dick.

              1. Poor Chemjeff has yet to pull Hillary’s dick out of his mouth.

          2. “Try answering the question. Why should grants of asylum be based on the saintliness of the victim?”

            Because we don’t want to grant residency in the US to people that are inclined to do harm to American citizens.

            1. Okay, then how do you avoid the moral hazard of endorsing oppression, as long as it’s the “bad people” being oppressed?

              1. “Okay, then how do you avoid the moral hazard of endorsing oppression, as long as it’s the “bad people” being oppressed?”

                WTF, man? People that we put in prisons are oppressed. That’s beyond dispute. Maybe 5% of them are innocent, and that’s a problem, but the other 95% are guilty. So we put them in prison and oppress the shit out of them. Are you arguing that there should be no prisons? That we should let them all out? If you’re not arguing that, by your logic you’re endorsing oppression as long as the people being oppressed are bad people. It’s a bullshit argument.

                1. I’d point out that juries aren’t the government. That’s what having a jury of your “peers” is all about.

                  Even so, to “oppress” someone by putting them in jail for violating someone’s rights, you generally have to prove that they chose to violate someone’s rights beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of 12, who has to agree that the defendant is guilty unanimously. In the meantime, you have to respect the defendant’s right to counsel, their right not to testify against themselves, their right to confront witnesses against them, their right to be secure against unreasonable searches, etc.

                  If Jeff can’t tell the difference between rapists who have been convicted with due proces of willfully violating a woman’s rights and someone who’s being oppressed, then Jeff is being willfully obtuse.

                2. I am referring to people who are oppressed in a way that violates their rights, such as via religious persecution. I’m not referring to the “oppression” of prison after proper conviction of a crime.

                  If a criminal is put in jail after due process, that is not oppression.

                  If a person is persecuted based on religious beliefs, that is oppression, EVEN IF the person being oppressed is also a bad person in some way.

                  I don’t have a lot of sympathy for child rapists or child molesters of any type. But I also don’t have a lot of patience for government oppression. It is possible for bad people to be oppressed by an even worse government, and to condemn the oppression without defending the sins of the oppressed. This isn’t that difficult.

                  1. “”I am referring to people who are oppressed in a way that violates their rights, such as via religious persecution.””

                    Sure, but that not the end of the story. Being oppressed may qualify you for asylum, but upon further scrutiny of the applicant there may be something that disqualifies the applicant.

                    1. Being oppressed may qualify you for asylum, but upon further scrutiny of the applicant there may be something that disqualifies the applicant.

                      Now now, Vic. I’m sure Nardz and Ryan will come along soon enough to accuse you of supporting child rape.

                      But yes, someone else finally gets it. Asylum isn’t about the virtues or vices of the victim. It’s about what the oppressor does. Whether the victim is a saint or a sinner is a completely separate question.

                    2. “”Now now, Vic. I’m sure Nardz and Ryan will come along soon enough to accuse you of supporting child rape.”‘

                      Why would they do that? I’m clearly stating that their could be something that would disqualify someone who was previously qualified. Child rape could and should fall into that category.

                      “”Whether the victim is a saint or a sinner is a completely separate question.””

                      Yes it is. But it’s not the only question to be considered when applying for asylum.

                  2. “I am referring to people who are oppressed in a way that violates their rights, such as via religious persecution. I’m not referring to the “oppression” of prison after proper conviction of a crime.If a criminal is put in jail after due process, that is not oppression.”

                    Hmmmm. Holding prisoners in overcrowed facilities, with no air conditioning in hot climates is a form of oppression. Allowing guards to beat the shit out of them with no consequence is a form of oppression. Charging them and their families hundreds of dollars for a simple occasional telephone call is a form of oppression. “The government can do whatever they want as long as there is some semblance of due process before the oppression” is not a rational argument. But whatever.

                    Let’s try a different logical exercise to show how silly your point is. Take an asylum seeker who has proven beyond any doubt that they are oppressed in whatever country they came from. In the asylum hearing, this applicant says “I intend to rape and dismember any and every American woman I can get my hands on”. By your argument, with the entirety of the focus on the government that the oppressed is fleeing and none of the focus on the individual, we should let the guy in.

                    1. Let’s try a different logical exercise to show how silly your point is. Take an asylum seeker who has proven beyond any doubt that they are oppressed in whatever country they came from. In the asylum hearing, this applicant says “I intend to rape and dismember any and every American woman I can get my hands on”. By your argument, with the entirety of the focus on the government that the oppressed is fleeing and none of the focus on the individual, we should let the guy in.

                      If you read what I wrote, I am not actually saying “let the guy in”. I am saying that the merits of a person’s asylum claim should be considered independently of the moral worth of the applicant him/herself. Oppression is oppression, whether it is against a saint or against a sinner. Shifting the burden of proof to the victim to have to explain why he/she deserves to be saved from oppression is a way to legitimize the oppression itself. And based on my own personal biases, I am always going to favor the individual over the collective, particularly over an oppressive government.

                      It is a more difficult question than the demagogues around here pretend to think that it is, and just saying “keep out the baddies” does insufficient justice to the topic.

                    2. “Oppression is oppression, whether it is against a saint or against a sinner. Shifting the burden of proof to the victim to have to explain why he/she deserves to be saved from oppression is a way to legitimize the oppression itself. And based on my own personal biases, I am always going to favor the individual over the collective, particularly over an oppressive government.”

                      Except you’re explicitly considering the collective (“victim of oppression”) over the individual (child rapist). Because one is oppressed, you say, one’s actions (even on US soul awaiting hearing) are irrelevant.

                      You’re psychosis is progressing.

                      Rejecting an application for asylum is not an endorsement of the conditions claimed by the applicant as motivation to seek asylum.

                    3. Except you’re explicitly considering the collective (“victim of oppression”) over the individual (child rapist).

                      This makes no sense even for you. A victim of oppression IS an individual.

            2. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and part of that is denying entry to foreigners who effectively forfeited any reasonable claim to entry with the understanding that they would respect our rights when they willfully decided to violate the rights of a child.

            3. Grant them asylum in an Arpaio-style prison. Bread, water, tent in the desert, pink pajamas.

          3. I can’t believe this is your argument. We don’t grant asylum to rapists because rape it evil. We put them in jail, hopefully forever.

            You want to swerve your argument around religion, or oppression, go ahead. People flee for all kinds of reasons, and none of those reasons excuse rape.

            So either start defending ISIS or shut up.

            1. No I get it. Only Good People deserve asylum. Bad People do not. It’s fine for oppressive governments to oppress Bad People.

              1. In which it’s noted that Jeff doesn’t understand non-sequiturs.

                1. All I want is to hear that people in ISIS who want to come to the US deserve to do so because they are oppressed. Everything else he says lines up, why not just take this the whole way?

                  1. ISIS is the oppressive government in this scenario, moron. If those suffering under ISIS’ tyrannical rule wish to apply for asylum here based on a legitimate claim of oppression, then their applications should absolutely be considered on their merits, and not rejected out of hand. Would you agree?

      3. >Why? Asylum isn’t about whether the victim is a saint or not. Asylum is about whether the victim is fleeing real persecution at home.

        >One can be a terrible person and still be fleeing persecution at home.

        LOL

      4. I don’t think it’s about the asylum seeker being a saint. But not accepting actual criminals who actually harm people seems like a reasonable line to draw.

  26. Maybe Goldberg has figured out there is good money to be made separating progressive donors hoping to fund a conservative concern troll operation from their monty. If so, I wish him well. I suspect, however, he is not leaving NR by choice.

    The mistake Goldberg made was that he was too deep inside the beltway bubble to understand Trump had a real chance to win. He thought there was no way Trump was going to win. As a result, Goldberg didn’t see any reason to hedge his bets on Trump or in any way moderate his criticism of Trump in the run up to the election. Since Goldberg didn’t think he would have to actually live the counterfactual of Trump being President, the more outragous his cirticisms the more damage to the country he could later claim to have saved the country from. Indeed, once Trump won the nomination and Goldberg refused to support him, he had no choice but to claim Trump was a menace to the country to justify his refusal to support a Republican nominee.

    1. Not even Trump thought he had a chance to win otherwise he wouldn’t have insinuated that voter fraud was afoot before the election.

      1. Yeah because it is just unthinkable that the Democrats would engage in voter fruad. They are as pure as the driven snow. And Trump absolutely thought he had a chance to win. Only idiots who thought he couldn’t win and want to justify how wrong they were think otherwise.

        1. I hate the Old Beaner but I’m pretty sure Cohen revealed that Trump ran as a marketing stunt. Which ironically is evidence that his communication with Putin about a hotel was based on said marketing stunt, not an abuse of future power.

          1. That is what Cohen claims but the guy is a total liar. Who knows if anything he says is true? Also, Cohen could think that but that doens’t mean he is right.

          2. Also amusingly, Cohen said Trump didn’t think he would win which literally cuts the nuts off most of their own arguments about any potential mens rea.

          3. “I’m pretty sure Cohen revealed that Trump ran as a marketing stunt”
            Oh.
            Well if Cohen says it happened…

        2. Trump’s pollsters got 48 states right.

    2. Well unfortunately for Goldberg and those on the right like him the unthinkable happened and Trump won depriving them of the ability of forever living in the fantasy land of a nonexistent Trump administration and the horrors it would have produced. When Trump of course didn’t turn out to be anything like their horror stories predicted as President, they were left with the stark choice of admitting they had been fools and had tried to torpedo a Republican President based on lies and fantasies or just pretending reality isn’t what it is and keep claiming that Trump is some horrific threat to the Republic facts be damned. Goldberg and the rest chose the latter course and look more ridiculous and make more enemies the more time passes. Goldberg threw away his carreer because of his love for virtue signaling and desire to live a fantasy of saving the country from Trump!!

      1. “they were left with the stark choice of admitting they had been fools and had tried to torpedo a Republican President based on lies and fantasies”

        Not exactly. Trump is crude and a boor. Rejecting him is virtue signaling by the preening literati.

    3. NR remains pretty non-Trump.

      I doubt Jonah was booted for being anti-Trump.

    4. The only reason to read NR was to get Andy McCarthy’s take on the Mueller and SDNY investigations. Now that they’ve put his pieces behind the paywall, I never visit the site.

    5. It wasn’t even like he had to look far Ramesh and Rich were hedging like crazy only Jonah and David French blew pass the third base coach and barreled home a good three seconds after the catcher had the ball.

  27. This is horrifying: The Office of Refugee Resettlement got more than 4,500 complaints about sexual abuse of minors being held at immigrant detention facilities from 2014 to 2018, according to a new report from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

    Like Trumpistas say (seriously) “If these kids didn’t want to be sexually assaulted, they should not come over our borders. This is MAGA country after all.”

    I guess it’s better they’re sexually molested than SHOT dead, like some very nice Trumpistas have suggested…

    1. Like Trumpistas say (seriously) “If these kids didn’t want to be sexually assaulted, they should not come over our borders. This is MAGA country after all.”

      Ok name one and provide a quote.

      You do this a lot, maoing shit up, and then flee when challenged.

  28. Of all the NeverTrumpers, I found Goldberg to be the most reasonable of the lot. He didn’t have Bill Kristol or Max Boot type freakouts. He consistently said that he supported Trump when he was right, but that he wasn’t compelled to defend Trump when he does something wrong just because Trump claims to be a Republican. He correctly pointed out that Trump at the head of the party led to a corrosion of the Republican Party in general – they’ve abandoned any pretense of commitment to any sort of conservative principles, now it’s all about finding ad-hoc justifications to support whatever Trump is doing at the moment. *Just like the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton was its leader.* When Bill Clinton was molesting interns, Dems found a way to rationalize it away for the sake of holding on to power. It’s the same deal with Trump. But oh well. Sure, Jonah Goldberg is the grifter here, and not Trump the Con-Man In Chief or his army of Fox News and social media sycophants. Oh no.

    1. Like I wrote up-thread, I would rather read Tony than that gasbag Jonah Goldberg. He personifies the cuck comfortably kept by his neo-con and progressive paymasters.

      1. So the alternative to Jonah Goldberg-style “cuck”-ism is to change one’s principles depending on who’s in charge.

        “These are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others.”

        1. So, you were okay with Goldberg piling on the Covington kids?

        2. God you’re such a bitch, you whine upthread about people attributing things to you that you didn’t say, yet that exact tactic, which is one you commonly engage in, is on display from you right there.

          1. God you’re such a bitch, you whine upthread about people attributing things to you that you didn’t say

            Which is hilarious because they’re quoting him verbatim. He literally argued that we shouldn’t care about whether an asylum seeker is a child molester or not, as long as the person can claim to be oppressed by someone else.

    2. So you think it was reasonable when Goldberg wrote an entire book calling Progressives fascists? Goldberg was always a sophist and a clown. And the Right should be embarassed that it ever embraced Liberal Fascism and pretended it was anything but a slander.

      Did Progressives in the 20s and 30s admire many of the things that Mussoulini and Hitler were doing and think they both were reasonable leaders just trying to lead their countries out of dire trouble? Sure. But that only seems so hideous to us because we know how it turned out. The people living then didn’t know that Fascism was going to murder tens of millions of people. Should they have known? Probably. Hitler said what he was going to do. The progressives and indeed nearly everyone in the world didn’t believe he meant it. That makes them guilty of being foolishly naive. It does not make them guilty of being “fascists” in the way we see the term now knowing how things turned out.

      1. So you think it was reasonable when Goldberg wrote an entire book calling Progressives fascists? Goldberg was always a sophist and a clown. And the Right should be embarassed that it ever embraced Liberal Fascism and pretended it was anything but a slander.

        This is real rich coming from you, John.

        Pre-Trump: “Thank heavens we have people like Jonah Goldberg on our side, willing to call out the progressives as being the fascists that they really are!”

        Post-Trump: “Screw Jonah Goldberg for not licking Trump’s boots, his books weren’t really all that good anyway!”

        1. I always thought Liberal Facism was bullshit. I defy you to find any place where I said anything different. Now, explain why you think Goldberg is so reasonable. Do you think liberal fascism is not a slander? If so, explain why. Or do you think calling progressives fascists is reasonable.

          How many times do you have to be made a fool of on this board before you realize ad hominem isn’t a valid argument? You just never learn.

          1. Yeah, I’ve never understood the praise for Goldberg’s writing. He blathers on for page after page, and his “thinking” resembles a Twister game played by drunk college kids.

            1. Hey, a Twister game with tall, svelte college coeds who are drunk sounds good to me.

              1. OK, you have a point. Instead, picture a Twister game in the old-folks home, played by a bunch of Bernies and Hillarys.

          2. Liberal Fascism was pretty good.

            Is there a better example of fascism than Obamacare?

        2. See there you go chemleft making up quotes to argue agaunst again. It’s so funny watching you do it after you bitch about it.

      2. Can you look at what the Green New Deal proposed and not see the relationship to fascist economics? And if you read the book, you would realize that he was saying that progressivism and fascism come from the same intellectual wellspring. The Democrats and the ACLU’s increasingly situational approach to civil rights based on demographic identity only confirms what Goldberg had been getting at.

        On the other hand, his anti-Trumpism leads him into perverse rationalizations, like his insistence that anything the Trump administration does that he agrees with must be because Trump is not paying attention to that part of his administration’s policy and therefore is not really to Trump’s credit.

        1. It didn’t have a fascist corps, at least in so far as it being fascist is some kind of a pajoritive. While it is true Hitler made the trains run on time and did start the Hitler youth, that doesn’t make Switzerland or the Boy Scouts fascist.

          1. Fascism is an economic system. The other stuff is the inevitable result of authoritarianism.

            1. The total extermination of entire races of people is not the inevitable resutl of authoritarianism. There have been lots of authoritarian governments throughout history and really only one tried to exterminate entire races of people as a matter of its core ideology.

    3. He correctly pointed out that Trump at the head of the party led to a corrosion of the Republican Party in general – they’ve abandoned any pretense of commitment to any sort of conservative principles

      It’s like you’ve ignored the last several years of jokes on this board that the Republican Party doesn’t actually support any sort of conservative principles except when it’s convenient.

      Maybe if you realized that the history of the Republican Party didn’t start with Trump, and that political realignments are actually not unheard of, you wouldn’t make such a hilariously obtuse statement.

    4. “Of all the NeverTrumpers, I found Goldberg to be the most reasonable of the lot.”

      Not a single person who knows anything about you is surprised that you’re a Goldberg jock-sniffer.

      1. Goldberg jumped right on the pile of progressive scum who were excoriating the Covington kids.

  29. What has the United States gained by the fact that Trump can’t find any friends on the playground except the weird Asian kid?

    1. Tony, no gratitude? I paid you a compliment in this thread. Then I just repeated it.

      1. Thanks. I’d rather read me than Jonah Goldberg too.

        1. Not me Tony. I would rather take a Rorschach test with dirty toilet paper than read your nonsense.

          1. I’d be fine if you stopped.

            1. Tony is right on this. All you bitches who whine about reading shit you don’t like can DIAGF. Exercise some god damned agency and stop reading.

    2. “the weird Asian kid?”

      And you call Trump a racist, you feckless cunt.

    1. Fuck Twitter.

      1. F*ck Pakistan!

  30. An American president spends 40 hours in the air and claims to take the word of a two-bit dictator on faith, then cancels a signing ceremony and slinks away with nothing but his tail between his legs.

    Sad.

    1. “An American president spends 40 hours in the air and claims to take the word of a two-bit dictator on faith, then cancels a signing ceremony and slinks away with nothing but his tail between his legs.”

      An internet asshole claims to know what happened in an attempt to make the world safer.
      Pathetic, even given your level of assholery.

  31. “Sometimes you have to walk away”
    Maybe it would be better to do your homework before you start something. Then you would be ready to make a deal and would not have to walk away.

    1. Walking away is all part of Trump’s method of arting the deal. Next comes threatening NK with endless frivolous litigation if they ask to get paid.

      1. Walking away is a good tactic. It establishes a boundary.

        Ya gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run.

    2. Reasonable people now credit Reagan walking out of Reykjavik as an important step in the U.S. winning the Cold War the way we did. At the time, Reagan was excoriated for it.

      Sometimes, it really is best to walk away, and that’s been demonstrated in similar circumstances in the past.

      Surely, you’re not saying it would have been better to do a bad deal? The Trump administration showing that he’s willing to deal but not willing to make a deal just for the photo-op might be a good thing.

      1. Walking out was the best option, and praise be to Trump for taking it. But the point was that there was no chance of any deal because the admin. didn’t do its homework.

        So what version of the Cold War is Trump winning by this stunt? What was accomplished other than further buttering up the world’s worst dictator?

        1. Trump could have done what Obama did with Iran and just give them everything they want and more because he needed a deal for his legacy.

          1. You need to stop reading only rightwing propaganda, John.

            1. You need to stop lying to yourself and just try to be less of a moron

              http://thehill.com/opinion/nat…..-worth-the

              1. Who the fuck was talking about Iran or Obama? It’s almost like you want to admit that you’re trying to distract from Trump’s failure.

                That’s the opinion of a conservative. I’ve read them. I could link you to opinions that say that the Iran deal was a triumph, years in the making, that Trump torpedoed out of sheer malice and idiocy.

                1. You are praising the virtues of walking away from a deal. I assume that you see Obama not doing that as a bad thing right?

                  1. I’m praising Trump for taking his failure on the chin instead of throwing some sort of tantrum in the middle of talks that involve nuclear weapons. Baby steps. One day when he grows up he might be a real president.

                    1. Meanwhile, Obama ate a dog.

                    2. Negotiations are a two party event. If they fail it’s because both sides didn’t come to an agreement. That is not necessarily a fault of one party. It just means an agreement wasn’t reached.

                      But partisan hacks are going to place blame according to their bias.

                      Korea wanted all sanctions lifted with very little in return. Trump walking away was the right thing.

                    3. NK was probably willing to settle for having its dear leader placed on the same level as the president of the US on the world stage.

                      What did we get again?

                    4. So we gave away a photo op. Big f’ing deal !!

                    5. A President who ate a dog.

    3. Haha.

      This guy and Tony have never walked away from anything in their lives, evidently.

    4. So I guess doing homework means understanding perfectly the future and how things that haven’t happened yet will turn out?

      Your statement is idiotic.

      1. John is against doing your homework because Trump doesn’t do his homework.

        People find less pathetic reasons to believe things from fortune cookies.

        1. Tony, I assume you can tell us the contents of this homework Trump didn’t do, because presumably you have done it to be so confident of this criticism?
          Otherwise you’d just be mindlessly repeating progressive/neocon talking points, and that’s something intelligent people don’t do.

          1. I don’t know, I’m not a nuclear or foreign policy or North Korea policy expert. Did Trump bring any of those along? It took years and painstaking work to get the (widely praised) Iran nuclear deal. Trump obviously thinks he can negotiate with Kim Jong-Un the same way he deals with HVAC suppliers. His whole presidency has been a long, sad spectacle of everyone learning that he sucks at this because he’s not smart.

            1. “I don’t know, I’m not a nuclear or foreign policy or North Korea policy expert”

              Then why are you running your dicksucker like you are?

  32. This is horrifying: The Office of Refugee Resettlement got more than 4,500 complaints about sexual abuse of minors being held at immigrant detention facilities from 2014 to 2018, according to a new report from the Department of Justice (DOJ). From these complaints, 1,303 were referred to DOJ, including 178 accusations of sexual assaults by adult staff members.

    So, the other 4,322 complaints about sexual abuse were by illegal-on-illegal sex abuse?

    When Trump tried to separate women and kids from men, some people flipped out.

    These illegals can self-deport.

    Hmm….maybe this is NOT about sex abuse or government keeping safe those in their custody.

  33. Trump said that he takes Kim Jong Un at his word (about Otto Warmbier). John, you’d have no problem with this if it was Obama, right?

    1. “Trump said that he takes Kim Jong Un at his word (about Otto Warmbier). John, you’d have no problem with this if it was Obama, right?”

      Shitbag, try posting something which isn’t, on its face, dishonest. Or STFU.

      1. I just want a measurable percentage of the outrage you idiots spewed for years on end over Benghazi.

  34. We’ve seen a lot of reports of rapey asylum seekers in Europe, especially in the aftermath of the Happy Rapey New Years in Germany a few years ago. Reports of sexual assault on children are apparently common wherever you have refugee camps.

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and speculate, here . . .

    It’s only been relatively recently that masturbation became acceptable in the imagination of the American public. And I don’t just mean people talking about it in public or women not even knowing that orgasms were possible. I’m talking about guys who wouldn’t self-stimulate because they thought it meant that they were sexual deviants, the self-stimulating was homosexual, or that self-stimulation meant that they were mentally insane. I’m not saying men never masturbated in the past, but I think it was a lot less common than it is now. So, what did people do back then with their urges?

    Well, one of the things they did was they got married straight out of high school, when they were about 18 or 19 years old. Another thing they did? I suspect prostitution and brothels used to be much more common than they are now. Hell, Trump’s family fortune originated with his great grandfather, who owned the biggest brothels during the Alaska gold rush. When there were no available women to be found around, I suspect sexually assaulting children was much more common then than it is now.

    1. Contrary to rumor, sexuality didn’t begin in the 1960s, but people started talking openly about sexual topics during the sexual revolution. Surely, this helped make self-stimulation more acceptable thing for people to do to themselves. It was still a funny topic, but guys were no longer made to feel like they were gay, crazy, or deviant for doing it. Add that to the ubiquitous availability of porn, and I think you may have an explanation for declining rape rates, declining child sexual assault rates, etc. You can go it alone!

      Other cultures and societies that haven’t gone through this cultural transformation should be expected to gravitate to rates that are more in line with the statistics our society might have shown before we went through that transformation.

  35. The latest baseless parental panic is about a character called MoMo who purportedly induces kids to commit suicide.

    It’s odd you think this is a baseless parental panic just because the TV lady said hordes of parents are panicking, I thought you were a little more cynical than that. I mean, didn’t you just get done posting a piece about the bullshit “international sex-slave trafficking ring” that the media is too dumb/lazy/sloppy to get their facts straight about because who gives a shit if the story is true as long as it’s scandalous?

  36. “reporting-driven, Trump-skeptical”

    The irony was clearly lost on Goldberg. If you’re going to focus on reporting and facts, you can’t be biased from the onset. Failed before he even started.

  37. From the WaPo article:

    “Even if there is a bump in pro-life sentiment, it’s not clear to me that it’s going to last. If the events in New York and Virginia really did change people’s minds about abortion, they might change back to their original position when other events push abortion out of the news.”

    I love it that he thinks late-term abortion legislation and the defeat of an infanticide bill will drop out of the news in a spontaneous process with no mention of the media *choosing* to drop the topic.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.