Reason Roundup

Justin Amash's Principled Stand Against Trump Will Not Make Him Popular in the GOP

Plus: Game of Thrones ends, Trump's trade war with China regrettably does not.

|

Libertarian-leaning Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) has become the first Republican legislator to signal support for impeaching President Trump on obstruction of justice charges. On Saturday, he penned a series of tweets outlining his case.

Amash, an attorney, notes that he read the entire Mueller report, and conferred with his staff extensively. His conclusions are similar to those reached by Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News legal analyst and former New Jersey Superior Court judge. Amash and Napolitano are two of the most high profile Republicans to break with Trump. They are also both libertarians and have faced a heavy barrage of criticism for daring to disagree with the president—most notably, from the president himself. Trump accused Napolitano of previously angling for a Supreme Court seat, and now he has accused Amash of being a "total lightweight" and a "loser."

Trump wrongly insinuates that Amash is doing this for self-promotion. In reality, there is nothing to be gained politically by defying Trump, since there is little room in the GOP for Trump critics. Indeed, Amash's principled stance has already earned him a primary challenger in the form of an unabashedly pro-Trump state representative named Jim Lower, who called Amash "out of touch" with voters. Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk attacked Amash as well, smearing him as un-American in a bizarre and conspiracy-minded tweet.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) gave Amash more support than anyone else, calling his declaration "courageous" but declining to support it.

Impeachment is still a distantly unlikely thing, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) has little interest in pursuing the matter. For all those who wish to be rid of Trump, defeating him in the 2020 presidential election is by far the most viable path.

FREE MINDS

Two left-of-center news outlets—Vox and The New Republicpublished long articles pushing back on my piece about Harvard's abhorrent treatment of law professor Ron Sullivan, who was fired as faculty dean at the request of activist students. Vox's Matt Yglesias correctly noted that the controversy "managed to touch practically every hot-button issue in the world," and wrote:

There are important aspects of any university where it's critical to not leave the students in charge of the big decisions. But the specific role of faculty dean essentially requires you to be popular with the students. Harvard assigns freshmen to houses at random, and while it's technically permitted for upper-class students to switch houses or live off campus, both are fairly strongly discouraged. A house is not a democracy per se, but in a practical sense, maintaining the confidence of the students is a primary job requirement.

Given that backdrop, it's probably unwise in general for faculty deans to involve themselves in any kind of controversial activity.

TNR went much further:

Even if one thinks none of that all criminal defense work is just part and parcel with due process, there's no question that Weinstein is not just another criminal defendant. He is the man whose misdeeds were so severe that they set off a movement that has toppled dozens of famous men who were previously untouchable, and countless others in positions of power (including two connected to this magazine). His case represents a tidal change in American culture, as women not only become empowered to speak out against abusive men, but are believed.

Perhaps that's precisely what appealed to Sullivan about Weinstein's case: the ultimate opportunity to push back against the supposed excesses of #MeToo.

Ron Sullivan could've gone quietly: apologize to students, resign from Winthrop, and focus on his law work. Instead, he chose to prey on liberal sensibilities to further his personal crusade. In his media campaign to drum up support over recent months, he resorted to the sort of rhetoric his new army of defenders loathe.

These are well-articulated critiques, but largely unpersuasive. The idea that uncomfortable words are a form of violence is central to the new activist worldview, and it was vital for Harvard to put a stop to it. Instead, the administration caved. This was about sending a message that on campus, the only acceptable opinion of the #MeToo movement is the one that aligns with the most progressive, safe-space-craving students.

FREE MARKETS

President Trump shows no signs of backing down from his trade war with China, which is already having a negative impact on rural America, according to CNN:

Telecom companies in rural areas may face increased costs or network disruptions if they are unable to buy the gear they need from Chinese suppliers—and that could affect customers who depend on those connections.

"Farmers, ranchers, small businesses in rural America, the people who support those businesses in rural America—your teachers, all that," said Carri Bennet, the general counsel for the Rural Wireless Association, a trade group representing rural telecom companies. "Our members are in small, little communities mainly of under 10,000 people … It doesn't help them. It ends up hurting them."

But most Republican leaders are backing Trump's move. Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) told CNN Anchor Jake Tapper that even though the tariffs would raise prices for Americans, this was a "sacrifice which is essential to keep China from continuing to kill our jobs and our businesses that employ people." Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Pa.) also defended Trump's trade war.

QUICK HITS

  • Game of Thrones' series finale, "The Iron Throne," aired last night. The first half was interesting, while the second half was a huge letdown. Read my recap here.
  • Billionaire philanthropist Robert Smith announced he would pay off the student loan debts for all 430 graduates of Morehouse College's class of 2019. The total cost is $40 million.
  • Some of the families who participated in the college admissions scandal had also been advised to list their kids as minorities.
  • Literally no one: "Want to Dismantle Capitalism? Abolish the Family."
  • I thought people would be offended because the robot can't consent, but no, it's even stupider than that https://t.co/4M5BNpq8CN

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.

193 responses to “Justin Amash's Principled Stand Against Trump Will Not Make Him Popular in the GOP

  1. On Saturday, he penned a series of tweets outlining his case.

    Oh boy.

    1. YES! More comments on Amash vs. Trump. This should be productive and informative for all.

      1. Do you really expect Boehm to do an article about how Trump ended the steel and aluminum tariffs and that impact along with how the DOW Jones is doing today after news of ending said tariffs?

        reason is a gossip and propaganda outlet now.
        #GetUsedToIt

        1. The Mueller Report is trending again. You gotta make hay while the sun is shining.

          1. I guess.

          2. Amash is part owner of a firm, MIT, that own Tekton which ILLEGALLY claims to make products in the US when they are actually made in China. He is a total scumbag, trying to protect his illegal financial interests.

            1. The Tekton company website has this info about tool origins:

              “Country of origin is listed on each tool’s product page. At this time, less than 10 percent of our tools are made in China, 15 percent in the United States, and about 75 percent in Taiwan”

            2. On their website, they say 10% of their product is made in China, 15% in US, 70% in Taiwan.

              I suspect they are more believable than you are.

              1. That makes 85% from a China.

                1. And if they’re admitting it on their website then they aren’t illegally lying about it as was claimed.

                  1. So how often to you pull up a company webpage when you are at Home Depot buying a tool?

                2. It looks like Taiwan is not subjected to US tariffs like Communist China, so if a motivation lies with tariffs affecting the bottom line, this is less likely with only about 10% of origin materials coming from the China and affected by tariffs.

    2. “Outlining his case” means he pointed to the Mueller report and said he’d read it and discussed it with his “expert staff”. Amash neglected to actually lay out a principled outline of his case. This is nothing more than grandstanding and self-promotion.

      1. Grandstanding and self-promotion are the real principles that politicians adhere to.

    3. GOP?! It makes Amash unpopular here!

      1. You obviously don’t read the comments if you think there’s a difference.

        1. Awww, people notice that progressives dominate the left and are psychotic totalitarians.
          Not enough “both sides!” for your feelz

          1. The fact that there are more than 2 sides of the political spectrum is the subtle point that goes totally over your head. On a supposed libertarian comments section, of all places…

            1. Think again, Leo. The two sides are Republican and not Republican.

              1. Incorrect.
                There is progressive and not progressive.
                If you fail to see that, you’re useless

                1. So which of the two is Amash now? A “progressive” because he doesn’t reflexively parrot the talking points of Trump?

                  1. Pro deep state coup and psychological warfare on the domestic populace is absolutely progressive.

                  2. Mueller started in his report that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Trump for obstruction.
                    This is not ‘talking points’. It was written by Mueller and his team in the conclusion.
                    Are we now to believe that Amash is touting a different conclusion than Mueller’s team and are supposed to give his opinion any credit.
                    Amash is an idiot. If he has a different conclusion then he should have put forward his arguments for this. As it is, his statements are completely worthless.

            2. Think again Leo.

              reason has not been Libertarian in some time.

              The only Libertarians around here are some of us commenters.

      2. Unpopular here because liberty is incompatible with law enforcement stretching to bring procedural charges in an investigation of an innocent party.

  2. Game of Thrones‘ series finale, “The Iron Throne,” aired last night. The first half was interesting, while the second half was a huge letdown.

    NO SPOILERS. (But the final choice of ruler had all the dirt on them so they kind of had to vote for him.)

    1. IT WAS HER TURN!

      1. WHY DO YOU HATE DIFFERENTLY-ABLED PEOPLE?

    2. DAENERYS IS TRUMP!

      WHERE’S YOUR ENDORSEMENT NOW, ELIZABETH WARREN?!?!?!?!

  3. Trump wrongly insinuates that Amash is doing this for self-promotion.

    I like Amash be ffs he’s a politician.

    1. Trump wrongly insinuates that Amash is doing this for self-promotion. In reality, there is nothing to be gained politically by defying Trump, since there is little room in the GOP for Trump critics.
      Amash is looking at a run as a libertarian. Everyone in Washington knows this.
      He’s hoping to grab the GOPe and RINOs from one side, and the Democrats who won’t be able to vote for whatever far-left extremist the new Democratic Party inevitably picks.

      Robby, Nick and Co. are all aware of this. Don’t let them fool you.

  4. But the specific role of faculty dean essentially requires you to be popular with the students.

    Apparently mostly the outrage enthusiast students.

  5. Even if one thinks none of that all criminal defense work is just part and parcel with due process, there’s no question that Weinstein is not just another criminal defendant.

    THIS GUY GETS IT.

    1. Right, no need for a trial, all the accusations prove he’s guilty.

  6. “Some of the families who participated in the college admissions scandal had also been advised to list their kids as minorities.”

    Ugh, I’m sure conservatives will seize on this as a reason to roll back affirmative action. But that’s exactly the wrong response. If anything, affirmative action needs to be more robust.

    #LibertariansForAffirmativeAction

    1. There’s nothing wrong with choosing what race you identify as.

      1. You really only need to find approximately 1/1024th of your DNA to apply.

        1. Fuck that.

          If I can be a dude with two X chromosomes, then I can be as black an Asian as I want to be.

          1. I don’t think anything is stopping you. Race isn’t legally defined, is it?

    2. Tia Becky?

  7. I thought people would be offended because the robot can’t consent, but no, it’s even stupider than that

    Appropriation is a real problem. That job should have gone to a robosexual actor.

    1. Peter Weller on line 2…

  8. Billionaire philanthropist Robert Smith announced he would pay off the student loan debts for all 430 graduates of Morehouse College’s class of 2019.

    How would you like to be one credit shy that semester?

    1. …or someone who worked their way through college and didn’t take out student loan welfare.

      1. #NothingIsEverFree

      2. Is that even possible at a private college anymore?

        1. Save up for college and then work part-time while attending school.

          Take CLEP tests to challenge courses, so you can finish your Bachelor’s in under 4 years.

          Do people actually take 4 years to finish an Undergrad degree?

        2. Yes, but it’s very difficult for most folks. Though I suspect universities would be forced to cut costs and lower tuition rates if more prospective students were committed to debt-free education (and Fedgov didn’t give out loans like candy on Halloween).

        3. No it’s not possible anymore. That’s just part of a 4 Yorkshiremen skit by old people about the good old days when we were poor – and grateful. Now get off my lawn.

          It’s really quite amazing tho what the impact of student loans has been re the cost of uni. UPenn has its tuition history online:

          1945 (1st year of GI Bill but before most were demobbed) – Tuition $400; R&B $530; Other (books/fees) $70. At a time when minimum wage was 40c/hr or $1050/year. Most new HS grads could prob get that and work up to $1300/yr pretty quickly. Couldn’t really work through UPenn at that level – but with scrimping and PT work and getting married, it becomes doable.

          2018 – Tuition $45,500; R&B $14,500; Other $5400. Right now, the avg starting pay for a college GRAD is prob close to that tuition and only the tuition. so now financially you gotta get the loan just to get to the point where you can get the degree to get a job that pays half as much relative to tuition as it did in 1945.

          I think the crossover point where colleges really began to view tuition as a mortgage on future income and become rentiers on that was the late 80’s and early 90’s.

          1. At some point, society will realize that the transformative power of the internet will make college degrees less important in disseminating knowledge. Investing that same money in a home or investing it will pay off much bigger than a useless degree …unless you want to become a lawyer, doctor or other similarly credentialed profession . Tuition rates will make this happen much faster. Many kids I know these days are opting to not go to a 4 year college and I don’t blame them.

            1. Many kids I know these days are opting to not go to a 4 year college and I don’t blame them.

              I don’t blame them either. But they aren’t going to effect any change until employers stop sucking at the public teat to train their workforce. Employers are the ones who are insisting on college degrees (and the job signalling model by Spence that won him a Nobel explains that the actual major doesn’t matter in that – merely the expense of acquiring it).

              Employers have got to start doing apprenticeships – or ensuring that they have entry-level jobs internally – or doing far more to provide the work-study options that change the type of extra education that is demanded. Right now they are simply like petulant children expecting the taxpayer to train their workforce and their future employees to be able to predict the future and go into debt to achieve it and outsourcing to China if the wrong decisions get made. It’s dumb as fuck – and that behavior is REWARDED by taxpayer distortions given to employers.

          2. So what you’re saying is that if you choose to go to an ivy league school, work a relatively low-wage part-time job, your family did not save for or contribute to college expenses, and you don’t qualify for any need-based or merit scholarships/grants then it is impossible to do it without incurring debt. I suppose you’re probably right, with those qualifiers.

            You make a good point in your last paragraph. And, in theory, that’s not really a terrible assessment. The problem is that the majority of student loan dollars are spent on lifestyle improvements/maintenance and not directly invested into one’s direct education costs.

            1. So what you’re saying is that if….

              Well that WAS what was possible in 1945. So except for the racist/class-based exclusion that was deliberately done by the Ivies then, it is entirely possible to do that again. It is cynical in the extreme to argue that the Ivies had to be bought off of their racism/legacyism by govt grants and student loans. Because in fact they have responded to those grants/loans by jacking up their prices – NOT by using those funds to reduce the need to jack up prices.

              The problem is that the majority of student loan dollars are spent on lifestyle improvements/maintenance and not directly invested into one’s direct education costs.

              That is transparently false if you look at each of those different cost components – tuition, R&B, fees. It is tuition that has ramped up in price the most.

              1. … What? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. The original question was: “is it possible to go to a private school debt free?” You said no and cited the costs of attendance at Penn, a very expensive school. I’m saying it is absolutely possible to do it debt free. The biggest factor in being able to do that is school selection.

                1. Tuition at Morehouse (the school in this article) is $25,500 with R&B and fees about the same as UPenn – so about $45,000/year total. With almost certainly less financial aid recirculated back by that school cuz they don’t have the endowment or the higher tuition of Penn. There’s no way a HS grad can work his way through that nut – without the degree, part-time, without debt, and without family.

                  So yes – the same thing applies now even at a school at half the tuition of UPenn. EVERY school in the US is basing their tuition on a)some students paying full-price in order for the school to subsidize other students in the form of financial aid and b)tuition based on a mortgage on the student’s income with the college leeching off that. And increasingly the same dynamic is applying to the better public universities too (except community colleges which are still quite cheap).

                  Get out of whatever nonsense you are carrying with you from your college days or whatever ideological cliches you carry in your head. Have all libertarians turned into a bunch of old codgers from Monty Python?

                  1. Why are young adults paying over $2000 per month for room & board? Shack up with a bunch of roommates and pay $500 or less per month.

      3. Yeah cause its totally welfare to be paying 3.2 – 6.8% interest on LOANS for higher education. Fuck off with that “welfare” bullshit. It’d be welfare if it were FREE. Its NOT.

        1. So dipshit… the government paying the interest for subsidized student loans is not “welfare”?

          WOW, just WOW.

          1. 6.8% loans are specifically unsubsidized, asshole. The rest are somewhat subsidized, which we could call welfare, I’ll give you that. But I will point out that people are taking welfare because morons from your generation made college totally unaffordable for people. I worked a full time job during my entire college career and still ended up $40K in debt at an in-state school (I turned down acceptances to out of state schools to save money). My job barely covered rent and the rest of living expenses while I was going to school.

            Also, sure I acknowledge that I’m just another dipshit like the rest of the people on this forum, but at least I’m not an asshole like you.

            1. Poor dipshit does not know anything about subsidized and unsubsidized student loans.

              I will give you a link, since you are too stupid to use the internet unsupervised.
              Federal Student Aid information

              I saw you wrote some other stupid shit the other day too. Its like you new people visiting here don’t even review the good commenters and how they post before posting your nonsense.

          2. Also, I wouldn’t equate something like food stamps to student loans. One gets paid back, the other doesn’t. The government helps a bit with time-cost-of-money. It’s really a stretch to call student loans welfare. I am not surprised someone that would jump to insulting people by calling them “dipshit” would also bend language to mean whatever they want it to mean.

            Libertarians, progressives, liberal, conservative, they all do that kind of bullshit and its unconvincing.

            1. When you tell people to “fuck off” and you’re an idiot posting idiotic and incorrect things, you deserve what you get.

  9. “Justin Amash’s Principled Stand…”

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    1. It is a stand. Until he lays out an actual case judgment on whether it is principled should be withheld

    2. +100 naked assertions

    3. Always believe the accuser!
      #MeToo

    4. hilarious.

    5. I’d be a lot more persuaded this was a principled stand, if he had also called for Obama to be impeached. By the standards Amash is relying on, there was at least as much reason to impeach Obama, realistically quite a bit more.

      But he didn’t. Why?

      I suppose because it wouldn’t win him media acclaim…

      1. Obama didn’t have a Mueller report.

        Obama was clean as the Virgin Mary.

        1. Isn’t it weird that the Media and Congress never call for special prosecutors when a leftist executive is investigating itself like in the IRS or Fast and Furious non scandals?

          1. +10

      2. Well he called for Rutherford Hayes and Woodrow Wilson to be impeached. How many ex-presidents need to be impeached in order to remove them from office? Hell if the White House is still infested with ex-Presidents who won’t leave office, maybe what we need is a can of Raid instead.

  10. President Trump shows no signs of backing down from his trade war with China, which is already having a negative impact on rural America

    The president has had enough breakfasts to know you don’t try putting the eggs back in the shells after the omelette is starting to smell so delicious!

  11. Footage shows hundreds of migrants occupying French airport terminal
    “France does not belong to the French! Everyone has a right to be here!” one person can be heard yelling into a loudspeaker.

    1. Rapid DNA testing reveals a THIRD of migrants faked family relationship with children to claim asylum during ICE pilot of the procedure in Texas
      ICE ran the pilot for a few days this month in El Paso and McAllen, Texas
      About 30% of migrants tested with rapid DNA were lying about familial relations
      Migrants with children can claim asylum and avoid detention in most cases

      1. Watch this story get buried faster than Hillary conspiring with British and Russian spies to undermine US elections.

        1. Maybe Trump and his moronic dingleberry munchers should spend 1% of the time they spend yapping about a fucking wall to instead yap about hiring the immigration judges who would be the ones who could quickly rule on that sort of fraud and deport them.

          Instead, Trump has suspended hiring judges (with what is now close to a 3-yr backlog) cuz the budget for that is part of his wall and that’s the only thing you asshats can think about. You people are so fucking stupid.

          1. We dont need more immigration judges.

            We need to speed up the hearings to 5 minutes each. Most asylum claims are superficially non-qualifying. Being poor is not a qualifying reason for asylum in the USA.

            The more illegals deported, the less will be here to waste taxpayer time and money. The more immigration lawyers shown to suborning perjury and prosecuted, the less lying attorneys to file false applications and waste taxpayer money and time.

            Then the few immigration judges that we actually need to hear valid claims can give honest applicants their hearings.

            1. Most asylum claims are superficially non-qualifying. Being poor is not a qualifying reason for asylum in the USA

              No. YOU are superficial and authoritarian and want to find a reason – any reason at all – to eliminate due process in this country. In FACT, the vast majority of those claims from those countries are already denied. But that’s not good enough for you. You want to eliminate due process itself. So you ignore the actual solution to that backlog in favor of your preferred arbitrary and authoritarian approach.

              1. Yes, dum-dum, my wanting to give liars a 5 minute hearing to see that the application is superficially bogus is so Authoritarian. I’m like Stalin.

                You post nonsense and you’re lucky I am schooling you, rather than just ignoring you like a bunch of good posters do on here.

          2. yea Trump hasn’t appointed enough judges…..

            As of April 4, 2019, the United States Senate has confirmed 93 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 37 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 54 judges for the United States District Courts

            1. Immigration judges are NOT part of the judicial branch. They are employees of DoJ-EOIR. And like it or not, they have not been hiring anywhere near enough judges/attorneys to keep up with the caseload – which is why the backlog has gone from 521,000 cases (end of FY2016) to 877,000 cases (current). And have now suspended hiring.

              That rising backlog is in fact the ONLY problem now with the flows of immigrants along the southern border (and those courts would also be the only way to deal with visa overstayers too by issuing bench warrants) since those people are LOOKING to get an asylum claim heard not to evade border patrol.

              But no. Let’s build a big YUUUGe byootifool wall that can provide American jobs for dumbass American machine gunners eager to protect us from the invading hordes of children and their real/fraudulent parents.

              1. He’s legally barred from hiring enough immigration judges. Congress deliberately appropriated too little money for their salaries.

                1. Yup, Brett. There is a deliberate attempt by Democrats and open border people to undermine any effort to enforce current immigration law and American’s deciding who and who cannot enter the USA.

                  It is funny that Trump is sending illegals, awaiting their bogus asylum hearings, to Lefty bastions of Socialism (Commifornia).

                2. Bullshit. The budget for that dept (which includes the estimate for the judges/attorneys that will include) has gone from $437 milion to $504 million to $673 million over last 3 years. So Congress is appropriating money – but his fucking wall is a vacuum that needs to siphon 10x more than that. So they aren’t gonna even spend their budget (which I agree is prob not enough to start reversing that backlog) cuz yuuge byootiful wall is a photo op and judges ain’t.

    2. Speaking of which … Didja see the piece on CBS Sunday Morning(!) yesterday celebrating an Italian law under which anyone with “Italian blood” is entitled to become an Italian citizen?

      U.S. pragmatic nationalism bad, but Italian genetic nationalism good?

      1. #Volksdeutsche for Italy?

        1. Ja! I mean, Si!

        2. Buonasera mein fuhrer.

  12. Jehovah’s Witnesses thinking about hiring Scientology’s law firm:

    “Jehovah’s Witness who posted criticisms on Reddit can remain anonymous, judge rules”
    […]
    “A Jehovah’s Witness whose online postings were intended to stir debate about the religion’s practices fears that he, or she, would be excommunicated and shunned by friends and family members if named publicly.
    A federal magistrate in San Francisco has ruled that the self-identified Darkspilver can remain anonymous, except for identification to lawyers for the religion’s Watchtower publication, which says the posting violated its copyright.
    “The First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech,” U.S. Magistrate Sallie Kim said Friday….”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Jehovah-s-Witness-who-posted-criticisms-on-13855357.php

    1. Jehovah’s Witnesses thinking about hiring Scientology’s law firm

      That should at least get you to OT3, just based on the dollar amount.

  13. San Francisco’s mayor shows the country what a real attack on the free press looks like
    When two San Francisco police officers knocked on Bryan Carmody’s door in April they politely requested that Mr. Carmody, a freelance videographer, reveal who had leaked a police report to him about the mysterious death of the city’s public defender.

    “They were nice about it,” Mr. Carmody said. “Of course I said, ‘No, I’m not going to tell you guys.’”

    But when a dozen officers returned to his home on Friday, this time their guns were drawn and they came equipped with a search warrant, a sledgehammer and a battering ram.

    1. Since then, she’s been two-steppin’ back and forth so much it looks like she’s auditioning for American Bandstand.

  14. Still think climate change isn’t an emergency?

    Man-eating tigers could hunt down more humans due to climate change

    Imagine being so overheated you can barely move — then you realize a tiger is charging at you! That’s the future we’re looking at unless we put Democrats back in complete control of the federal government.

    #VoteDemocratToPreventTigerAttacks
    #Only12YearsLeft

    1. Why do I care what a man who eats tigers does?

    2. #VoteDemocratToPreventTigerAttacks

      Best hashtag, evah!

    3. Lisa, I want to buy your rock!

      1. +1 bear tax

  15. “Justin Amash’s Principled Stand Against Trump Will Not Make Him Popular in the GOP”

    I guess Robby must read the Reason comments section.

    1. Wait…I though Amash was a Libertarian (according to reason).

      1. Curious why you capitalized ‘Libertarian’ and not ‘reason’?

        1. “reason” does not capitalize their name anymore.

    2. It’s important to consider popularity when making a principled stand.

  16. Justin Amash’s Principled Stand Against Trump Will Not Make Him Popular in the GOP

    reason finds advocating for impeachment without any evidence of a crime a “principled stand”.

    reason is so far off the rails, that they left the train and are driving a clown car themselves.

    *pictures Nick, Shikha, KMW, Boehm, Sullum…. in tiny fiat clown car seeing who can drive off cliff the fastest.

    1. The government spies on an opposition political candidate. Free minds and free markets leads one to support that for some reason.

      1. By “free minds and free markets”, reason means Sheeple that think they are free and cheap shit from Communist China.

  17. “President Trump shows no signs of backing down from his trade war with China, which is already having a negative impact on rural America, according to CNN:”

    The people who are suffering the worst from Trump’s trade war appear to be the people who support him the most. That, of course, makes them stupid–or so progressives would have us believe.

    Actually, the people who make the biggest sacrifices often support a cause the strongest. I suppose progressives would have had the French surrender to the Nazis even more quickly? After all, it’s the soldiers on the battlefield that suffer the most!

    Actually, World War II was quite popular with the American soldiers who suffered it. The unskilled in rural America have been suffering the worst from trade with both China and Mexico. Under Trump, they’re thriving like they haven’t since the 1960s in terms of employment demand and wage gains vs. inflation.

    Progressives are in a bind.

    On the one hand, they can’t make the case for free trade because free trade rhymes with capitalism–and they’re against that.

    On the other hand, it’s hard to pretend that things are bad for unskilled workers in middle America right now because unskilled workers in middle American can see how they’re doing with their own lying eyes.

    So, I guess that leaves progressives with suggesting that unskilled workers in Middle America are stupid because they’re the ones making sacrifices for what they believe in. Just for the record, being willing to suffer for what you believe in isn’t a bad thing in itself. In order for that to be bad, you have to be wiling to suffer for a cause that isn’t worth it.

    1. Progressives are a bunch of rich, bored, white people. They don’t know what it means to sacrifice. That’s why they’re so gung-ho about killing cows and removing cars, they are too stupid to understand sacrifice.

    2. So, I guess that leaves progressives with suggesting that unskilled workers in Middle America are stupid because they’re the ones making sacrifices for what they believe in.

      To progressives, that’s a feature, not a bug.

      1. Sacrificing for a good cause is a good thing in the progressive mind–if it’s being forced on you by the government in pursuit of a common goal for the common good.

        These individuals who are willing to suffer in order to let Trump duke it out with the Chinese, on the other hand, that’s completely different. What they’re doing makes no sense! They’re stupid individuals voting for Trump!

        Here’s an article about why people making choices for themselves about climate change is such a big problem–it gets in the way of their support for authoritarian and socialist solutions.

        https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/people-drop-support-for-a-carbon-tax-when-getting-less-effective-nudges/

        The sacrifice needs to be forced and for the progressive idea of the common good in order to be progressive.

        1. +100

    3. If you think Kamala cares about anything but herself you are giving her far too much credit.

      It’s just another “get even with people who aren’t like me” proposal to appeal to the usual Democrat grievance crowd. It will never get enacted. She’s treating that grievance crowd like fools. She is correct about that: they’ve always been fools.

    4. The problem with your thesis is that nobody is actually suffering due to the trade war.

  18. Only Immigrants Can Reverse America’s Baby Bust

    This country risks becoming under-populated unless Orange Hitler’s draconian anti-immigrant policies are reversed. Fortunately Democrats are moving toward the Koch / Reason open borders position. By early 2021 we’ll have a President who will start repairing the damage.

    1. I prefer adult busts myself.

      1. +1 for adult with baby busts.

    2. What we need in this country is incentives for people to have children when they can’t afford them–especially when they can’t afford them. Do you have any idea how many people are employed in public education in this country? If all they have is empty classrooms to teach, what are they supposed to do? It’s not like anybody in the private sector would hire a lifelong government employee.

    3. A white, English speaking class of retirees being supported by a heavily taxed immigrant class that differs in ethnicity, language, etc is a totally stable situation in a culture that screams about white privilege and pushes against assimilation.

      1. What a terrible opinion.

        You need to read more Shikha Dalmia. She’ll explain why immigration improves everything.

  19. “The idea that uncomfortable words are a form of violence is central to the new activist worldview”

    And yet Reason grants these very people legitimacy in public debate.

      1. Of course they do. You’ve seen it, reason giving these activists a platform by talking about their positions. Everyone knows that the way to deal with these people is to completely refuse to legitimize them by even discussing their point of view.

        1. Am I blind or are their opinions taken seriously above?

          I must be taking crazy pills because my lying eyes show their opinions about speech and violence RIGHT UP THERE

        2. Im going to mock the shit out of that progressive garbage because that’s what it is. Have fun playing footsy with people who want to take away our freedom of speech, I’ll berate them while I still can

  20. Surging Suicide Rate Among Young Girls Raises Questions About Role of Social Media

    I blame the Drumpf Regime. They’re literally turning this country into The Handmaid’s Tale. It’s inevitable girls will feel helpless and depressed.

    1. No hashtag or whatever they’re called?

      1. His thick republican hate is clouding his creativity.

  21. East-coast elite? What east-cost elite?

    Politico reporter posts “observations” from Iowa:

    Observations from Iowa – it is very flat, driving is monotonous, there is more unbuilt land in one block than NYC has in an entire borough, dirt roads are terrifying, no one carries almond milk and caucus-goers are extremely well-informed.

    And @ndhapple and I will never be so happy to step onto a subway again.

    1. City people like being in cities. Who could have guessed?

    2. >>>dirt roads are terrifying

      learning to drive on them helps w/the controlled reckless abandon

      >>>never be so happy to step onto a subway again

      that’s just wrong.

    3. Mariane Matera
      @MarianeMatera
      17h17 hours ago
      More
      Whenever New York journalists go into the South or Midwest, they write after campaign books about it like they were Lewis and Clark.

      1. LOLOL

  22. >On Saturday, he penned a series of tweets

    Publius Redux

  23. Women CEOs make more than men — but there’s a catch

    Wait, I’m confused. Does that make them more evil than men or more empowered?

    1. Wait, I’m confused. Does that make them more evil than men or more empowered?

      No, because women are not men. duh

  24. Kamala Harris is both a social justice warrior and a vile socialist. Now she’s marrying the two:

    “The Democratic presidential candidate released a plan Monday that would put the burden on companies to demonstrate that they are not engaging in pay discrimination. Ms. Harris’s campaign said companies would be fined 1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to continue for work of equal value.

    The campaign estimated that the plan would generate about $180 billion over 10 years, with revenue decreasing over time as equal-pay practices become more common.”

    “Presidential hopeful’s plan: Take 1% of a company’s profit for every 1% difference in wages for equal work”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/kamala-harris-seeks-fines-for-firms-that-fail-to-close-gender-pay-gap-11558346400?

    There’s a frank discussion I’ve had with social justice warriors I meet about white privilege. I may have worked my way to the top, but I wouldn’t have been successful if I were of another race–or a woman! My response begins with the observation that the people I outperformed, the overwhelming majority were other white men. I always contributed far more to the company than my salary was worth. Did I outperform the other white men at my company because I’m white or a man?

    I worked 12 hour days, six days a week, when other white, black, brown, and yellow men and women were out socializing and raising families. Where other people of other races and sexes failed to be persuasive, I succeeded. Where other people of other races and sexes failed to perform, I outperformed. When I started guiding the performance of my firm, I avoided mistakes that white men and women in competing firms failed to avoid. I recovered from mistakes where other firms run by white men failed.

    My performance defied any categorization you want to make on the basis of race, gender, or orientation. One of the reasons I outperformed was because there was no limit on my pay because of my race or sex. If a firm failed to compensate me adequately after I outperformed the others, I’d fire the company and hire another one to employ me–sometimes starting at the bottom of the totem pole.

    People like Kamala Harris talk about inequality, but what they really hate is meritocracy. They hate people like me for defying their stereotypes, and they want to cover our backs with leeches to slow us down.

    Fuck Kamala Harris.

    1. +100

      No Excelling Worker Left Ahead.

    2. I couldn’t even imagine the burden this would put on a company to comply, and the regulatory bureaucracy it would create to audit that for compliance.

    3. Amen, brother.

    4. put the burden on companies to demonstrate that they are not engaging in pay discrimination

      See, this is why Amash is a schmuck. He’s peeing his pants about Trump’s lack of finesse, and meanwhile there are real totalitarians like Harris just outside the gates, sharpening their knives for a delicious feast on the carcass of American prosperity.

    5. If this goes through, I guarantee you that in 20 years we will be seeing an increase in complaints about men not doing their “domestic job” at home.

      My wife is successful at any company she goes to. Her latest one is full of gender bias- men who automatically doubt what she says because she is a woman. I wouldn’t have believed it 5 years ago, but we share a home office, and I have heard it so blatantly that I would have been foaming at the mouth had men talked that way to me. Nevertheless, she works hard, proves these idiots wrong, and ultimately she prevails because of her work ethic…and because I hold down a lot of the fort at home.

      If my wife weren’t free to travel with a week’s notice; if she had to get off work early to collect kids from school, or get dinner on the table; if she couldn’t get work done at night because she was handling the bedtime routine- she wouldn’t be as successful as she is. As you did, Ken, she has put off a lot of family stuff in order to succeed at her job. And I have picked up the slack.

      Gender bias may or may not be a problem at any given office, but Harris’s plan will not get rid of that bias. Instead, women will be able to do work and home life in full, and many husbands will happily let women do that. So they will work all day, and then work at home all day. There will be no difficult decisions around the dinner table where a wife asks the man to handle things so she can land the Danbridge account. Why would she, when she is going to get equal pay either way?

  25. Amash, an attorney, notes that he read the entire Mueller report

    Unlike every leg-humping, Cheeto-throating, unprincipled partisan sociopath addicted to this chat room. Nothing personal.

    1. Reading and comprehending are not the same.

    2. Why are you socking again Shreek? Still trying to hide from the consequences of your being banned for posting kiddie porn?

      1. Actually Mr. Buttplug provided a wholly satisfactory explanation for what happened. He merely forgot his password. There was no ban after all.

        1. Yeah, he has all the credibility of a child pornographer. And there was absolutely a ban. I saw his posts vanish.

        2. >>>He merely forgot his password.

          guessing works for rest of humankind?

    3. Blowhard Woodchip
      May.20.2019 at 10:49 am
      “Nothing personal.

      No problem, you fucking lefty ignoramus.

    4. Why are all our regular lefty fifty-centers changing their socks right now? Even Tony’s been trying some new handles.

      1. The TDS will increase to such new levels come election 2020 and then the bannings will re-commence.

        They need to have some older socks to keep the website traffic high in case of spam bans.

  26. Hi,

    I don’t know what happened but I woke up in the past.

    It’s December 12, 2007 and when I checked the BBC News, it had a frightening story. The least I can do is to warn someone in the future.

    Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013′

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

    1. Ahh, you missed the important words, “could be” .

    2. Lefties want Science to be based on FEELZ rather than scientific method.

      Then anything is possible!

  27. Reason calls self-promotion “principled”.

    If you love law enforcement overreach and prosecutors stretching the law to extremes to charge people under investigation for crimes that did not happen, then you might be a Robby Soave/Justin Amash type. Wave to liberty as you leave it behind.

    1. Trump says mean things about the media and is supported by people Reason hates. That makes it different when the FBI and CIA abuse their power to try and frame him for a crime because “Principles”!!

  28. If Amish is so “principled”, why doesn’t he have a problem with the obvious abuses of power committed by the FBI and DOJ under Obama relating to the Russia investigation? It would be one thing if Amish condemned Trump while also condeming the abuses of power by the FBI and DOJ. I still would not agree with him about Trump but I would at least be willing to listen to him. But anyone who isn’t willing to talk about the abuse that went on in DOJ and the FBI and still tries to attack Trump, is just showing themselves to ba an opptunist or worse.

    Moroever, since when is the idea that someoen can be guilty of “obstruction of Justice” in an investigation of a crime that didn’t occur and wasn’t a crime even if it did, a “libertarian principle”? Amish has just shown himself to be a typical lefty who doens’t like it when the cops go after someone he likes piece of shit.

    1. +100

      1. The current rumor on the internet is that Amish’s family makes millions importing cheap shit from China and is just pissed over Trump’s trade policy. I have no idea if that is true. I would like to know if it is because if it is true, it puts his “principles” in an entirely different light.

        1. This is from the Tekton company website:
          “Country of origin is listed on each tool’s product page. At this time, less than 10 percent of our tools are made in China, 15 percent in the United States, and about 75 percent in Taiwan.”

          That means some of the tools have 85% +/- of their origin materials coming from outside the USA.

          Not sure if Taiwan is part of the tariffs because the media refuses to separate Taiwan from Communist China if they don’t have to.

          1. I don’t think Taiwan is covered by the tarriffs.

            1. Taiwan tariffs

              Looks like you are correct that they are not affected by recent Trump tariffs but have other trade restrictions in place.

        2. Removing Trump from office over the voters’ objections would be wrong even if all of the Amash family’s money came from manufacturing things in Detroit.

    2. There isn’t a principle at stake in the choice not to defy the voters. Impeachment is a political decision. If Amash removed the president from office over the voters’ objections, he’d be violating some other principles. If the framers wanted Congress to disregard public opinion, they’d have left impeachment to the courts. Overturning an election without any for public opinion is unprincipled.

      1. You are right. But Libertarians increasingly reject popular soveriegnty and consent of the governed. Amish thinks it is okay to overturn an election because he thinks people should have a say in their government just so long as he always agrees with their choices.

        1. It’s like “No taxation without representation” only more so.

          No, you cannot kick our leaders out of office without our input. That’s why the framers, in their wisdom, gave the essentails to Congress.

          No taxes without congressional authorization.
          No wars without congressional authorization.
          No impeachments without congressional authorization.

          The people’s will must weigh in on these things in order to preserve a free society and its legitimacy. Sometimes, the people only weigh in by kicking the bastards out on their asses when they step over the line. That’s what happened to Boehner’s merry band of TARP enthusiasts, they got their asses kicked in the Republican primaries. When other Republicans read their districts and decide that they don’t want to lose their seats– even if Trump is guilty of obstruction–they’re doing as the framers intended. That’s the principle.

          It’s interesting, too, that Nancy Pelosi is reluctant to call for impeachment for fear of what it will do to her party in 2020, but Justin Amash isn’t. What does he think he knows that Pelosi doesn’t?

    3. It’s AMASH not AMISH. Come on, man. You can do better.

    4. Justin Amish doesn’t tweet. He does rap though.

  29. What “principle” does Amash have? Seems like selective outrage, i.e., unprincipled. If we take him seriously, he simply shows a lack of knowledge about the requisite subjects to have an informed opinion.

  30. “On Saturday, he penned a series of tweets outlining his case.”

    Cites from the actual report as to what particular issues he thinks rise to the level of impeachable would be nice.

    1. A really great point and a terrifying one about the guy at Harvard being punished for representing Weinstein. It was made in the NYT comments section of all places.

      Imagine in this happened in the medical school. Harvey Weinstein was diagnosed with cancer, and an oncologist who also happened to be a dean agreed to provide treatment. Would you say that the oncologist was unqualified to be a dean because he was involved in providing medical care to Harvey Weinstein?

      http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/330863/#respond

      If you are willing to say that someone considered a piriah is not entitled to legal representation even when the stakes are spending the rest of their lives in prison, I don’t see how you wouldn’t also say they are not entitled to life saving healthcare.

      This certainly goes a long ways towards explaining the Left’s obsession with the government owning healthcare doesn’t it?

    2. Exactly. He should outline his case and put it in an oped with citations to the actual report. I have yeat to see any of these clowns ever come up with a concrete example of something illegal that Trump is supposed to have done. It is always just a hand wave about how horrible he is without any actual specifics.

      1. Its like the claim that some of the stuff Trump has done is good but it was NOT because Trump had a strategy or a plan to do those things. They just happened randomly.

        Trump does some stuff that I don’t like (okayed bumpstock ban) but Trump has certainly campaigned on issues and accomplished some of those campaign promises.

      2. Particularly, since Amash is casting aspersions on his colleagues motivations for not agreeing with him.

        1. And is a lawyer. He knows how to make a specific charge and putforth evidence in support of it. He chooses not to do so because he knows Trump isn’t gulty of any crime but chooses to slander Trump as a criminal nonethe less. Pathetic.

  31. A really great point and a terrifying one about the guy at Harvard being punished for representing Weinstein. It was made in the NYT comments section of all places.

    Imagine in this happened in the medical school. Harvey Weinstein was diagnosed with cancer, and an oncologist who also happened to be a dean agreed to provide treatment. Would you say that the oncologist was unqualified to be a dean because he was involved in providing medical care to Harvey Weinstein?

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/330863/#respond

    If you are willing to say that someone considered a piriah is not entitled to legal representation even when the stakes are spending the rest of their lives in prison, I don’t see how you wouldn’t also say they are not entitled to life saving healthcare.

    This certainly goes a long ways towards explaining the Left’s obsession with the government owning healthcare doesn’t it?

    1. these are the same people that would send everyone they disagree with to die in the gulags. It’s the same overriding ideology

      1. +10

  32. Justin Amash’s Principled Stand

    What principle?

    1. The principle is that the American people are too stupid to know when an election should be overturned. That’s what libertarianism is all about now, I guess.

  33. while the second half was a huge letdown

    At least Bran has moral fiber.

  34. Some of the families who participated in the college admissions scandal had also been advised to list their kids as minorities.

    To be fair, they learned by watching Liz of the Fauxhicans.

  35. Amash just gave his conclusions, no reasoning. Opposing Trump is an easy thing to do in this culture, so opposing Trump gets you multi-media headlines galore. Even if Amash lost as a Republican he could always become employed at the networks, or CNN, or MSNBC, etc. Or become a college professor. He’s not being brave and he’s not taking a risk. At worst he’ll have to change professions.

  36. Hopefully, it will make Amash unpopular with libertarians as well, because his views are incompatible with libertarianism.

  37. 1. “Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.”

    It’s telling that Justin Amash doesn’t identify a single one of these examples that supposedly constitutes obstruction particularly on the “corrupt intent” element. Not one! I’m sure any person could be charged for obstruction for anything by an overzealous prosecutor. The question is whether that is the norm in practice and whether it should be so. For example, James Comey acquitted Hillary even though it wasn’t his job, on the grounds that a specific intent requirement was not met, slyly ignoring the fact that he had shown gross negligence which was the standard that should have been applied under the statute. When it comes to obstruction, there is a much higher intent requirement which is corrupt intent. I would like to know which acts or series of acts were wrongful and where corrupt intent can be established.

    2. “Impeachment . . . simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.”

    Or, “conduct that violates the public trust.”

    Yes, so the point here is that impeachment can be just about anything. Doesn’t need to be a crime or even close to it. Just “dishonorable.” Justin’s absolutely right. But that means that “impeachable conduct” is a virtually meaningless phrase. So Justin’s getting a lot of attention for himself while making a point of no substance.

    3. He goes on to talk about “many crimes” that were described but again, not a single example. No explanation of corrupt intent.

    4. He’s right that obstruction of justice doesn’t necessarily require proof of an underlying crime. But obstruction of justice does require that there be proof of “corrupt motive.” Why did the person “impede” or fight back in any way against the zealous prosecutors? You don’t need to prove there were actual crimes, but you need to explain why the motive was “corrupt.” Usually the question is, were they trying to cover up the crime that was being investigated? In the case of Trump, the answer is no.

    5. “Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution.”

    “They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.”

    Funny how Amash is a big fan of Congress “jealously guarding its powers” but apparently doesn’t think about the separation of powers and apply the same virtue to the executive branch. Just as important as Congress’ ability to make law and to impeach is that the executive power is lawfully vested in the President.

  38. Amash needs to chill out on his TDS. Trump ain’t perfect, but he seems to think he’s Literally Hitler, and worse than the alternatives… When he’s clearly better than any other alternative that is realistically on the table.

    1. +10

  39. Easy on the leg-humping, Always Trumpers. He only has two, and they’re getting bruised and semen-stained.

  40. Considering Trump isn’t loss proof, no, you can’t say “there is nothing to be gained politically by defying Trump.” Amash is hedging just like all the other never Trumpers and Democrats who refuse to work with him. They hope he will lose in 2020 and his supporters will die off. I’m not sure they realize they’re stuck with us for the next 100 years, but that’s their loss.

    There is NOTHING principled about gaming elections instead of working to the maximum benefit of your electorate.

    1. +100

  41. […] has engaged in “impeachable conduct” continues to generate praise, blowback, and other reactions (including […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.