Donald Trump

Trump's Message: If You Hate Me, You Hate America, and You Should Leave the Country

Lindsey Graham, who once called Trump a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," seems to agree.

|

So far Donald Trump has not shot anyone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, so his hypothesis that he could do that without losing any supporters remains untested. But leading Republicans are worried that he hurt the party by crossing a different line: the one between "go back" and "send her back." The former is his advice for members of Congress he perceives as hating America; the latter is the chant his criticism of those alleged America haters—in particular, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who immigrated to the U.S. from Somalia as a child—elicited from the adoring crowd at his rally in North Carolina on Wednesday.

"It was quite a chant, and I felt a little bit badly about it," Trump said in response to a reporter's question yesterday. "I started speaking very quickly." Actually, Trump stood impassively at the podium for 10 seconds while the crowd chanted "send her back," making no attempt to discourage it. But after Republicans such as his daughter and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy expressed concern about the message sent by the chant, Trump retroactively revised his own response. "I was not happy with it," he said during the same Q&A. "I disagreed with it. But again, I didn't say—I didn't say that; they did. But I disagree with it."

With few exceptions, Republicans had no problem with Trump's argument that people who criticize U.S. policy (except for Trump himself) should "go back" to the countries they "came from," even if they were born in the United States, because "if you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!" But they began to have qualms when the self-deportation of U.S. citizens whose opinions offend Trump became mandatory. There is a distinction there, but I'm not sure it's one the GOP should rely on in trying to fend off the charge that the party has been taken over by mindless jingoism.

After excoriating Omar at the rally, Trump moved on to Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who in January promised "we're going to impeach the motherfucker." Here Trump revealed what he really has in mind when he accuses Democratic legislators of hating America. "Tlaib also used the F-word to describe the presidency and the president," he said. "That's not nice, even for me. She was describing the president of the United States and the presidency with the big, fat, vicious—the way she said it—vicious F-word. That's not somebody that loves our country."

To love our country, in other words, you have to love Trump. And if you don't, you should get the hell out of here.

That view is not limited to Trump or the ardent fans at his rallies. "I don't think it's racist to say," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who in 2015 called Trump a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," told reporters yesterday. "I don't think a Somali refugee embracing Trump would be asked to go back. If you're racist, you want everybody to go back because they are black or Muslim. That's not what this is about. What this is about to me is that these four congresswomen, in their own way, have been incredibly provocative."

Graham, a Trump critic turned sycophant, seems to be endorsing the view that Americans who fail to "embrac[e] Trump" should leave the country. But don't worry, because that applies to all Americans who don't like Trump, regardless of their color or creed. A native white Christian who criticizes the president should leave, while a black Muslim immigrant who adores him is welcome to stay.

Republicans like Graham who bend over backward to defend Trump's indefensible rhetoric may come to regret it. I say "may" because I am honestly not sure. According to the official White House transcript of Trump's remarks at his "Made in America Product Showcase" on Monday, he was greeted by applause when he said "if you hate our country, if you're not happy here, you can leave" and again when he repeated "if you're not happy, you can leave." The 2020 elections may show whether the people who applaud that profoundly un-American sentiment outnumber the people who are rightly appalled by it.

Advertisement

NEXT: Cities Across the Nation Are Making Commutes Harder With Increased Scooter Regulations

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Trump’s Message: If You Hate Me, You Hate America, and You Should Leave the Country”

    Explains him saying that to Acosta.
    Pelosi.
    Al Green.
    Chuck Schumer
    CNN — all of them.
    MSNBC — all of them
    Kristol
    French.
    Goldberg.
    Amash.
    Sanford.
    Watters.
    Biden.
    Harris.
    Booker.

    I can continue if you so choose. Or is your point “Well, the Squad is America solely….”?

    1. Warning!!! Achtung!!!

      As of this posting, 24 of 84 (29%, darn close to 1/3) of the postings here are by Tulpa the Smug-Slug! If you are looking for mostly substantial, thought-provoking, or humorous postings, you might want to abandon this thread!

      1. Wow, how can you let me trigger you that much?

        1. Inappropriate triggering of any sort should also certainly be grounds for deportation, and in this regard it is to be hoped that our nation’s leading criminal “satirist” will be among the first to be shipped out. See the documentation at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          1. How long are you going to peddle this bullshit?

          2. I might have been interested in reading, but you keep beating us over the head with it. Way to scare people away from your cause.

      2. I don’t even read your posts.
        Why would anybody?

        1. How does he allow a person to have power over him like I have?

          1. I mean, holy shit, he actually counted lolololol

            1. At least I know how to count… Or how to do a search-string and see how many “hits” there are… And the total count is pre-counted right at the top, you might notice if you strained your tiny brain…

              How many neurons do you have? I bet that I could count them on one hand!

              1. Wow you are super butthurt triggered, over 9000.

                1. Super butthurt triggered Tulpa thinks everyone is a mirror image of Super butthurt triggered Tulpa… Look up psychological “projection”, asshole!

                  1. SQRLSY – “I’m so triggered I’m going with ‘I know you are but what am I'”

              2. “And the total count is pre-counted right at the top”

                The percentage isn’t.

                Ahahahahahahah you lose again bitch! Ahahaha you tried to make it seem like you weren’t a pathetic loser and you made it worse ahahahahahaaj

                1. Yes, I admit that I can use desktop calculator to turn 2 easily-found numbers into a percentage (ratio).

                  So what, moron?

                  1. So you’re actually triggered enough to do that over internet comments, that’s what loser!

                    Ahahahah that’s so fucking sad for you.

            2. Yea, that’s pretty amazing.
              Congratulations?

        2. You don’t read my posts? Then how did you manage to comment on this one?

          1. By typing his post and pressing reply you stupid fucking clown lolololol

            1. Lolololol NOTHING in his post references SQRLSY at all, and SQRLSY is so fucking stupid that he responds with “You don’t read my posts? Then how did you manage to comment on this one?”

              Ahahahahah WHAT A FUCKING RETARD AHAHAHAHAJAJHAH

              1. Nadless Nardless submitted his post under (in response to) my post. Do you even EVER bother to THINK about ANYTHING before you retch up your mindless blatherings at the keyboard?

                1. And again, because you’re fucking stupid, THAT DOESN’T MEAN HE HAD TO READ IT FUCKTARD

                  AHAHAHAHAHA you made a fool of yourself and now you’re desperate to avoid admitting it ahahahajaj

                  1. Nardz – sees ” SQRLSY” hits reply, types out “I don’t even read your posts.
                    Why would anybody?”

                    SQRLSY, being an imbecile, is baffled as to how that is possible without reading his post, because SQRLSY is a moron.

                    Lololololl

                  2. He read that I made and post and responded. He’s pissed that others would DARE to think differently than he does, and (in clear if moronic response) makes mindless posts (thread-shitting) to spread his hatred and ignorance… Kind like YOU, Tulpa-Smug-Slug-Satan…

                    1. “He read that I made and post and responded”

                      Which, OF COURSE, is not the same as ACTUALLY READING YOUR POSTS!!

                      AHAHAHAJA YOU FINALLY REALIZED HOW STUPID YOU LOOK AHAHAHAHA

                      “He’s pissed that others would Dare”

                      No, AGAIN, because you’re an idiot, he DIDNT READ YOUR POST. YOU are pissed that he told you, and have been making a fool of yourself over it.

                    2. Tulpa, PLEASE ask me if I care about your thread-shitting posts!

                      Also please look up “sacrificial anode” or “galvanic anode”… Such an anode attracts corrosion to itself, to protect the main structure (ship or building) from corrosion. My posts here serve as “galvanic anode” to protect the rest of the thread from you and your posts (it attacks you and your thread-shitting comments; you are corrosive corrosion!).

                      So yes, I am an anode… a “galvanic anode”…

                      You are just plain, a corrosive anode!!!

          2. Sometimes I skim a line or two, saw you were about to bitch about Tulpa, as usual, then replied.
            Comments really aren’t rocket science

      3. Oh, you assume I’m Tulpa.

        Aren’t you precious?

        Bless your heart.

        1. You are obviously not Tulpa.

          1. We are all Tulpa

      4. Wow! You’re obsessed, aren’t you SQRLSY.

        1. I’m at least slightly concerned about freeing up Reason.com from endless, boring, meaningless thread-shitting… And you? Just liking to preen about your moral and-or psychological superiority, or is there anything more, of any significance? Or are you just another morally superior thread-shitter?

          Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!

          1. Then stop posting

            1. Says he or she who never reads my posts…

      5. I would certainly abandon any line of reasoning advanced by you squirrelly. As you are a mental midget possessed of many bad notions and premises.

        1. And you are a morally superior conservatard, who feels no need to advance logical or fact-based arguments. Got any links to show that any well-learned, studious, knowledge-treasuring folks have found that I am “a mental midget possessed of many bad notions and premises”?

          No? Then you are just another self-satisfied blow-hard! Put up or shut up!

          1. My logic is vastly superior to your own. Which is natural as my cognitive abilities are many orders of magnitude greater than anything your pea brain could imagine.

            And no one pays enough attention to your inane babbling to really focus on it. Now go kill yourself. No one could ever love one as worthless and idiotic as you.

            1. Thank you for your links and thoughtful comments and moral superiority! I bow in the face of Your Utterly Obviously Superior Smugness!

              1. Which is based on my obvious superiority. There are a few people that are your peers here. Rev. Arty, Tony, Buttplug, etc..

                But for the most part you are retarded garbage.

                1. Opinions are like assholes… Everyone’s got one!

    2. If you really want to blow reasons mind, have then look into #DeportMelania and have them do an article on the blue checkmark journalists who pushed that tag.

    3. Eh Trump is a racist, it’s kind of hard to deny that if you listen to even a small portion of his speeches it becomes dead obvious. It really is to fire up his base. However his base is shrinking every day as the boomers die off and whites overall are quickly losing ground as the majority. So instead of embracing diversity, they clutch their pearls and sign the death warrant of the republican party as the party of hate, big government, gerrymandering, and xenophobia.

      1. You’re referring to the democrat party. And trump isn’t one little bit racist. Though every Progressive is.

        1. You’re right.

          Trump isn’t one little bit racist.

          He’s 100% completely racist.

      2. Yawn. I’d say that the ideology that panders to guilt, grievance and victim hood is losing influence. When the drama queens talk about concentration camps people tend to tune out. To say nothing of socialist losers whining about how everything is so terrible and unfair.

        In other words don’t change a thing. Haha.

      3. Wise Old Fool
        July.19.2019 at 7:48 pm
        “Eh Trump is a racist, it’s kind of hard to deny that if you listen to even a small portion of his speeches it becomes dead obvious….”

        One more added to the list of those for whom we hope TDS is fatal.

      4. “it’s kind of hard to deny”

        I totally deny it.

        What it seems impossible to do is for the verminous race baiters to ever actually *make a case* that anything Trump has ever said is racist.

        1) Full transcript of what was said.
        2) Definition of racism.
        3) Show how what was said, in full context, fulfills the definition of racism.

        It’s always just point and shriek “Racist!”

        Trump broke the #EnemyOfThePeople. It’s time to break the race baiters.

    4. Actually, if you hate what Trump is doing for America, you probably hate America… and your leaving would be no loss to America.
      For example, Trump is trying to secure the border. If you’re against that, you should probably go somewhere that has no borders, like… like…

      Antarctica. Or the moon.

      I generally find that the depth of critique from the Left amounts to “Orange Man Bad!”

  2. “The 2020 elections may show whether the people who applaud that profoundly un-American sentiment outnumber the people who are rightly appalled by it.”

    Please. No one gives a damn outside of twitter and journalism and this whole thing will be forgotten within a week.

    The only thing that will matter in the 2020 election is this: Can democrats win back the 2 million or so voters who flipped from Dem to Republican in 2016? Hint: highly unlikely.

    1. Don’t they just need like 200000 more votes from Florida and Michigan?

      1. No.

        1. That’s all they would have needed in 2016. Do you think that the democratic field is just too thin this time around?

          1. You’re thinking of Connecticut, not Florida.

            1. Sorry all those lame shit hole states blend together.

          2. Or Pennsylvania, not Florida.

            1. Florida was Red by 100000 votes (also had 100000 Libertarian votes which is hilarious) and they possess 29 electoral college votes plus the 16 in Michigan should have done it, no?

              1. Florida was never going to Hillary. The swing states were Michigan and Pennsylvania.

                1. And, while I don’t know many Floridians, I do business there occasionally so I know a few. The state was littered with Trump signs, and there are no leftist cities or populations to get the vapors over Trumps behavior. The closest you have is Miami, and it is split by conservative Cubans.

                  1. Got it. It wasn’t as close as I thought then.

                    1. I looked, 113k. Not sure where a Dem goes to get those in Fla.

                    2. “Tulpa AKA “feeling smug”
                      July.19.2019 at 12:57 pm
                      I looked, 113k. Not sure where a Dem goes to get those in Fla.”

                      Puerto Rico.

                  2. The Jews, according to a source of mine, are becoming quite fed up with the Ds – so much so, that he thinks even New Jersey could come into play.

                    1. Is that source a scientific poll, by any chance?

                    2. Jews:

                      2016: 70% D
                      2018: 75% D

                      Source: Pew

                      Did something happen since last year?

                    3. Omar and Tlibs history of questionably anti-Semitic remarks. The Democrats failure to pass a resolution condemning Anti-Semitism. The BDS movement becoming mainstream, etc. It may not move a majority but it could either convince some to vote 3rd party, stay home or even vote GOP.

                    4. Sounds like wishful thinking more than a scientific poll.

                    5. It is neither. It is an observation and a hypothesis based upon those observation. Notice I never stated it was an assured thing, just a possibility.

                    6. Tony has a hard time with ‘reality’ or ‘truth’; he’s a lefty.

                    7. “Did something happen since last year?”

                      Funny you should ask.
                      Why yes, something has happened since 2018: your squad was elected, particularly Ilhan Omar, AOC, and Rashida Tlaib.
                      Soldiermedic covered the particulars.
                      My source is a Jewish friend. For real! He gets the monthly secret conspiracy check and everything.
                      He lives in Florida now. His mother is a… elder? I don’t know, some kind of bigwig… at the temple in NJ.
                      He’s fairly well connected with the community.
                      I’m skeptical of Trump getting a majority of the Jewish vote, but he’ll get a larger share than the usual R.

    2. “The 2020 elections may show whether the people who applaud that profoundly un-American sentiment outnumber the people who are rightly appalled by it.”

      Logical-fallacy level = UNSUSTAINABLE

    3. Well, a platform based on poverty pimping race baiting, mega political correctness, tranny bathrooms, economically crippling our already debt riddled country, and ‘Orange man bad!’ Are sure to bring in droves of voters. Especially the ones who are now gainfully employed since we got rid of the community organizer.

      1. If I say I have white privilege I am automatically above all people of color, and they have to admit it too. I throw them a bone by pretending to be sad that I have the privilege of being better than them.

  3. I guess we are going to ignore all the al Qaeda apologetics/US Military comparisons, flag-hating, revisionist history nonsense and pretend it is all about Trump

    Oh wait, who wrote the article…

    1. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany…

      1. There are way too many to remember. But that means she hates Israel, not that she hates America. And the Squad hates America

        1. The 2020 elections may show whether the people who applaud anti-Semitism outnumber the people who are rightly appalled by it.

          1. Sadly, I think that’ll be closer than it should be. Jew hate never stopped, it just stopped being OK to voice for a little while.

            1. But, but they don’t hate Jews, just Israel… Or something.

              1. Lefty antisemites hate the Jews if they are successful, in their own land and able to defend themselves.

                Righty antisemites hate the Jews if they are anywhere else.

                1. And how mainstream are the righty anti-semites? Whereas how mainstream is the “Squad”? Try and spin as much as you like but the right has very few supporters of Anti-Semetism, and they are usually soundly chastised or disowned by mainstream conservatives. How far did the Democrats get in passing the resolution condemning Anti-Semitism?

                  1. There is no need for a resolution condemning anti Semitism.

                    Congresswoman Omar proposed a resolution supporting boycotts against Israel supported by Tlaib. It is dead on arrival.

                    1. So no need for a resolution condemning Anti-Semitism but perfectly okay to pass a resolution condemning Trump’s remarks, and labeling them racist despite race not being mentioned (or even anyone mentioned by name)?

                    2. Soldiermedic

                      I am going to be nice once.

                      Do not put words in my mouth.

                    3. “There is no need for a resolution condemning anti Semitism.”

                      But there was need to pass a resolution condemning “hate” in general?
                      The comparison here isn’t whether or not a resolution needed to be passed, it’s between taking a stance on a particular member’s specific statements vs covering for that particular member with a mealy mouthed criticism of an abstract generality.

                    4. Nardz

                      She was out before she hit first base.

                      Do not think we disagree about that.

                      To play into Omar introducing a bogus bill is a mistake.

                  2. “How far did the Democrats get in passing the resolution condemning Anti-Semitism?”

                    Yea, that’s a real bellwether.
                    Bad, bad news.

        2. Instead of ‘The Squad’, can we just call them ‘Cunt Patrol’?

          1. “Cunt patrol” was my nickname in…

            Wait –

            What year is it?

            2019?

            …Nevermind.

  4. The fundamental problem is that a huge number of net tax consumers are being supported by an insufficient number of net tax producers. The simple solution is restriction of the right to vote to net tax producers, active military, and veterans.

    Of course clueless victims of progressive educators will not agree.

    1. Yes, those who disagree with your mindless argument must be clueless progressives. Or is it you who is in a bubble?

      1. So he’s talking about you when he says “net tax consumers”

        1. Can’t be. My voting record is spotless.

          1. How’s your “net tax consumer” record? Right.

            1. Tax Free Savings Account has done wonders

              1. Hey, you’ll reach “Not a net consumer” eventually. Meanwhile, you should work harder to not be a parasite.

                1. You mean voting L isn’t enough? Also, apparently I work just as hard as everyone else in this thread. Fridays are pretty dead for me, how about you?

                  1. It’s not Friday where I am currently.

                    1. Aussie?

                    2. Osaka airport.

                    3. Cool city, very traditional

                    4. Yes it’s very nice. Not much time to sightsee when I’m here.

                  2. Yes, hun, voting for any letter isn’t enough.

                    If you don’t earn about $100k/year, you’re a “net tax consumer” and part of the reason the country is going deeper and deeper into debt.

    2. I would love to have this issue pushed to the forefront for one reason; take a guess at which racial/ethnic/national groups are net tax producers and which ones are net tax consumers.

      1. Funny thing is I’m sure WJack imagines all the “net producers” would vote to eliminate all the benefits for the “net consumers” which would of course just turn them all into net producers (by virtue of there being nothing for them to consume) and then they would all vote to eliminate his silly “net producer” voting requirement

        1. A larger percentage of the country doesn’t produce anything at all. If they are encouraged to contribute more in taxes than they consume under even under reduced government spending, that’s a big improvement for them and a big improvement for society.

          Overall, such a voting scheme would lead to a new equilibrium with lower government spending and people being encouraged more to work.

      2. Oh sure, stoke a race war based on racial resentment. What could go wrong?

        1. Productivity is racist

          1. Bingo!

        2. Calls for reparations say hi to baby jeffrey.

        3. Pedo Jeffy loves his deck of race cards.

          He also loves child pornography

        4. Rep Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice”

          So about stoking that race war thing…

          Now I’m sure you condemn it in the strongest terms, once cornered. Before that you truly didn’t give a rat’s. Nor did you when they smeared Romney, or McCain, or Bush (I or II), or Reagan. It’s just a convenient little smokescreen that you can toss out:

          In a key episode, Journolist members openly plotted to bury attention on then-candidate Barack Obama’s controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, for instance, suggested an effective tactic to distract from the issue would be to pick one of Obama’s critics, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

          And you’re still the same idiot who advocated for complete civil disengagement with those with which you disagree.

          Spare us the pretend concern.

        5. “Oh sure, stoke a race war based on racial resentment. What could go wrong?”

          says racebaiterjeff

    3. One question, does active military and veterans include non-citizens who are now or who have in the past served in our military?

      1. Sure, it’s not a very large number and they at least did serve.

  5. “impassively at the podium for 10 seconds while the crowd chanted “send her back,” making no attempt to discourage it.”

    ….why, exactly, should he?

    Yes, defend the people attacking you. ALWAYS a good idea. Explains Reason’s love of the police and their lack of criticism when people chant mean things at them.

    “But they began to have qualms when the self-deportation of U.S. citizens whose views offend Trump became mandatory.”

    When has that happened? I’ve heard of no legislative proposals to do that. Can you cite the obligation for critics to leave America.

    I said, in 2016, I await a Republican in the White House because I kinda miss dissent being a form of patriotism. It surely was not from 2008-2016.

    “To love our country, in other words, you have to love Trump.”

    Jacob, is English a fourth language to you? I hate to criticize somebody who doesn’t speak the language natively…but I do question your capacity for basic literacy.

    “Graham, a Trump critic turned sycophant, seems to be endorsing the view that Americans who fail to “embrac[e] Trump” should leave the country.”

    The quote of his you included did not say anything close to that. So, when did he say that? Your dreams?

    “he was greeted by applause when he said “if you hate our country, if you’re not happy here, you can leave” and again when he repeated “if you’re not happy, you can leave.””

    …and? They AREN’T free to leave? Is that the claim?

    Don’t like where you are? Go elsewhere? Isn’t this was libertarians say when people mention that the jobs have left their home towns? “Just go elsewhere”.

    1. You do an admirable job of shooting the fish in the barrel that is pretty much anything Sullumn writes.

      What a dumb ass.

      1. If a politician, say, Trump, badly mischaracterized his opponents views, and lied about what they said, quoting things they never said, and conflating others, Reason would have Jacob Sullum write a piece calling him a dangerous demagogue and an authoritarian rising to power thru treachery

    2. making no attempt to discourage it.

      He stopped speaking and frowned, waiting for them to stop. He is not one to berate the voters. That is Team Blue’s job.

      1. Deplorables

        1. Bitter clingers.

          1. Irredeemable.
            The worst part

    3. “if you’re not happy, you can leave.”

      One would think that this sentiment would be supported by libertarians (*actual* liberals), being voluntary and all. Too bad Reason is staffed by illiberaltarians these days.

    4. ….why, exactly, should he?

      Because it’s wrong to deport *citizens* based on political differences?

      1. Seb Gorka says whaaaaaat?

      2. Funny how Jeff never had a word to say about Prog calls to deport Gorka.

        1. Then there’s the fact that Trump didn’t actually call for anyone to be deported…

        2. Or #DeportMelania on twitter.

      3. When did trump threaten legal force to deport any of them you dishonest shit? You were given his full quote yesterday. Trump basically challenged them to prove their failed policy choices worked in other countries before bringing the failed policies here. This is no different than Trump telling deBlasio to fix crime ridden NYC first, as he has.

        Why are you such a dishonest person?

      4. Did HE say it?

        No?

        Then, again, why should he do anything?

      5. More lies from Pedo Jeffy.

  6. American Mussolini

    1. Obama hasn’t been President since 2016 dude. And as much as I don’t like Obama, I don’t think comparing him to Mussolini is right at all.

      1. I’m not necessarily saying that Trump is a fascist but the Mussolini comparison seems apt in many ways.

        1. No it doesn’t. Trump is nothing but a centrist Democrat from the 1980s. You have to be a special sort of historically illiterate to think Trump is anything out of the norm before the year 2008.

          1. I’m referring more to his rhetoric and stature. But adding to that his nationalist socialist policies (i.e. government expansion, protectionism) just makes it obvious to me. You don’t think so?

            1. Ronald Reagan slapped tariffs on cars and electronics that would make Trump blush. Was he a National Socialist too?

              You guys are as bad as progs. Everyone who disagrees with you about anything is a socialist now. It is pathetic

              1. Those are nationalist socialist policies, yes. Also, I’m referring more to his rhetoric and stature.

                1. What government expansion dummy? Trump has reduced the regulatory state. At least try to feign honesty.

                  1. Just the largest federal spending bill in American history. I will give him some credit for the low hanging regulations that he cut.

                    1. The spending bill passed by veto proof majorities? Honesty please.

                    2. By the way… based on your definition of fascism, every president since washington is fascist. The spending always increases. I dare you to read an actual history book some day.

                    3. Veto proof R majorities. Again, I didn’t say fascist, I said socialist, which is what increased government spending tends to amount to. Add on some nationalism to that and you get some blurred lines. But please, fellow libertarians, continue to defend your beloved R executive and Senate from baiting criticism. Maybe it will start to open some eyes.

                    4. So you failed civics. In no time in the last 3 years have the republicans ever had a veto proof majority in EITHER the House or the Senate.

                      But the dems had a filibuster proof minority which is why team red log rolled on the social spending that team blue wanted in order to clear spending for defense. They also attempted to actually cut entitlements with obamacare reform but it didn’t pass because of “enlightened” centrists like yourself. And finally, they DID pass a significant tax cut which greatly lowered corporate rates, reduced tax subsidies to high-tax blue havens (and boy do they HATE having to pay their full fair share), and lowered marginal rates. The only unfortunate part of JCTA was that it made the tax code more progressive.

                      So you’ve got more than a stretch to just claim everything was socialist.

                2. “Those are nationalist socialist policies”

                  Tres subtle

                3. Haha, so mercantilism is the real Nazism because they devised tariffs hundreds of years ago. Nice one.

                  1. I didn’t say Nazism. Trump is a nationalist and this is state funded protectionism. What would you call it?

                    1. “I didn’t say Nazism….”

                      MelvinUpton
                      July.19.2019 at 12:41 pm

                      Those are nationalist socialist policies, yes….”

                      Of course not.

                    2. Thanks for backing me up. I’ll call out nationalism and socialism when I see it. Make all whatever associations you want.

                    3. Are you a relative of Ilhan Omar (or whatever her real last name is–not the fraudulent one she used to get asylum)?

                    4. So what do you call income and payroll taxes?
                      If tariffs on imported goods are protectionist, tariffs on internal goods are…?

            2. “I’m referring more to his rhetoric and stature”

              Then you don’t know too much about Mussolini

              1. Stature, not height. But please, continue to berate me about this pointless comparison.

                1. It’s like you think we can’t see you said “RHETORIC and stature”

                  But please, keep pretending your comparison isn’t stupid.

                  1. ” Also, I’m referring more to his rhetoric and stature.”

                    Holy shit your stupid ass doubled down.

                    1. I figured the rhetoric part was less controversial than the obvious height discrepancy which I thought you were sharp enough to point out. I guess you spend lots of time listening to Trump’s speeches so who am I to debate an expert.

                    2. More like I’ve actually acquainted myself with Mussolini. Even passing knowledge of him makes you comparison sound silly.

                      “I figured the rhetoric part was less controversial”

                      There’s your problem. You’re ignorant of the actual Rhetoric.

                    3. I’ve seen a handful of Mussolini videos, although he was upside down in one of them. Something to think about.

                    4. The one decrying fascism is warning trump and conservatives they may end upside down.. holy shit what a funny thing to say.

          2. Being historically illiterate is natural for like 90% of general the public, and closer to 99.9% of the progs.

            1. Being historically illiterate may be natural for the majority of the general public, but it is existentially necessary for progs

        2. It seems apt of you’re a raging retard quoting various headlines from dishonest journalists. First it proves your ignorance to what fascism actually is. Second it points out your dishonesty of not actually knowing what trump said, just the dishonest paraphrasing of his words. Third it proves your ignorance on actual executive actions trump has taken against these women, it is none.

          A lot of fucking retarded people defending Sullum here.

          1. Oh relax. Mussolini was arrogant and idealistic. That was the only connection I was making to which I also added that Trump is a nationalist ideologue. I didn’t call him a fascist.

            1. Trump really isn’t an ideologue. Prioritizing the needs of one’s own nation in the role of that nation’s executive is simple pragmatism.

              1. Fair enough if you think he truly believes that protectionism helps the American people. While he might actually think that, it’s more than fair for me to criticize it as the bad economics that it is. Also his nationalist rhetoric is despicable and nothing but ideology. Pragmatic only in the sense that it garners such an incredible amount of political support. But I guess that should come as no surprise based on the wealth of historical evidence.

                1. Also his nationalist rhetoric is despicable

                  Why? Because the voices in your head say so? This rabid hatred of patriotism is what’s truly despicable. And even worse the censorship that Reason and you seem to want above all else.

            2. Trump is not an ideologue he is a pragmatist.

              This is stunningly fucking obvious.

            3. MelvinUpton
              July.19.2019 at 2:53 pm
              “Oh relax. Mussolini was arrogant and idealistic. That was the only connection I was making to which I also added that Trump is a nationalist ideologue. I didn’t call him a fascist.”

              Oh, relax. Folks here are just pointing out that you’re a lying piece of shit, and seemingly proud of it.

      2. Mussolini was way cooler than Obama.
        Nobody had a smug mug like Benito

    2. What with all the deregulation and tax-cutting, Generalissimo Orange Man for sure…

  7. “[P]rofoundly un-American sentiment”. . . pot / kettle.

  8. So, like Cuomo who said pro-lifers have no place on New York?

    Again, SCREW YOU Jacob.

    1. According to the last Democratic nominee for the Presidency, Trump supporters are:
      “the basket of deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it … — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America”

  9. 49 states or 50?

    1. Lol.
      The voter fraud in 2020 scares me, though.
      I can’t see the Ds holding back, and you can’t trust establishment Rs to not stab us all in the back

  10. About 10 years ago I’d read this blog and generally agree with the libertarian views espoused by the writers and commenters. I’d also read on liberal blogs how libertarians were nothing more than Republicans who liked to smoke pot, and I’d disagree with those statements.

    Not anymore. Trump has done everyone a great service by ripping the mask off the “conservative” movement and the libertarians, as reflected in the comments to this post.

    1. Trump has done everyone a great service by ripping the mask off the “conservative” movement and the libertarians, as reflected in the comments to this post.

      Fuck yeah! God damn both sides to hell!

  11. I’d love to leave again.* I wonder if I can convince some of the MAGA folk to help fund my departure… A GoFundMe maybe? Worth a shot, me thinks. LOL.

    *I moved back to the US, reluctantly, five years ago.

    1. “I wonder if I can convince some of the MAGA folk to help fund my departure”

      Sounds about right for a Prog.

      1. I’ll send you a link once I set it up and I look forward to your contribution to my exit. 🙂

        1. You mean apart from the benefits I already pay for?

          1. Of course.

            1. I’ll pass.

              1. Hmm. I need to work on my pitch, evidently. I suppose I’ve never been particularly good at sales and marketing.

                1. It’s probably why you’re on benefits.

                  1. Only the taxpayer-funded abortion benefit.

                2. I hear Venezuela does a great job taking care of their people. The socialism is really working out there.

                3. Jalene
                  July.19.2019 at 1:40 pm
                  “Hmm. I need to work on my pitch, evidently….”

                  Your stupidity needs work first.

    2. “”*I moved back to the US, reluctantly, five years ago.””

      Why?

      1. Family…

        1. Hopefully not for a caretaker situation. Those kinda suck. My parents still live in AR, and I’m in NYC so I think about it every now and then. If it is that kind of situation, good luck and best wishes.

          1. Yeah, it was. Thank you for the kind wishes.

      2. He needed a butt lift.

    3. Why not get yourself some skill so youd be worth something to an employer. Then you could choose to leave without the need to be a bloodsucking parasite.

      1. You’re right. But the #MeToo movement has severely limited my options and ability to apply my skill set effectively.

      2. Why get education or new skills when you can have Bog Daddy Trump use the power of the (formerly too big and evil) government to protect your coal mining job?

  12. “Republicans had no problem with Trump’s argument that people who criticize U.S. policy (except for Trump himself) should “go back” to the countries they “came from,”

    Probably because that isn’t what he said.

    1. They hear Trump with their TDS ears, which badly distort the signal.

  13. I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill over this. Because the president emoted on Twitter isn’t a good reason to do anything we shouldn’t already be doing for other reasons or to stop doing anything we shouldn’t already have stopped doing for other reasons. In other words, Donald Trump emoting on Facebook is an unimportant issue.

    Did you guys know there’s a trade war going on?

    Did you guys know that the end of the 45 day waiting period to see if Mexico can stop the flow of asylum seekers through their country is almost up?

    Did you guys know the Iranians are playing with shutting down the Strait of Hormuz?

    Did you guys know that Facebook has revised their plan on Libra, to make it fully centralized (as opposed to other cryptocurrencies) and fully regulated by the federal government?

    Did you guys know they need to lift the debt ceiling today?

    1. Ken, you are sadly misinformed. Those issues you list do not even come close to being “important.” What matters to most, and the ONLY thing that matters, is perceptions created through posts on FB, Twitter, and the rest. (sarc font off) 🙂

      1. Hey, it’s you the lame fucking sockpuppet!

        1. Indeed it is me! And I hope your day is going well and that the sun is shining for you!

          1. “Indeed”

            So now that you’ve admitted being a sock, let it go. It was lame.

            1. I am sorry: I admit nothing except that you choose to call me a sock puppet. As you can tell, such a moniker bothers me not at all. Again, have a great day and maybe I will catch you on the flip-side.

              1. “Tulpa AKA “feeling smug”
                July.19.2019 at 1:01 pm
                Hey, it’s you the lame fucking sockpuppet!

                AlbertP
                July.19.2019 at 1:58 pm
                Indeed it is me!”

                Yeah, that’s an admission.

                1. Okay. If you say so. But consider this: I am a only a sock puppet for myself. It’s not like I am a lawyer, a journalist, or a politician, who are often puppets for others. 🙂

                  1. Jesus we have emojis now?

                    ????

    2. I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill over this.

      Oh yeah, Mr. Smartypants? What libertarian lifestyle magazine are *you* senior editor of, huh?

    3. I’m more impressed that all of these pols so deeply concerned about those poor immigrants don’t seem to give two shits about Trump using, IMO, a common sense solution to deal with the asylum problem.

      Too busy whining about tweets.

    4. Supposedly they’ve captured to British flagged vessels and am holding them hostage.

      1. *two British flagged vessels.
        It does seem to be an odd strategy, attacking European flagged vessels in international waters when you’re hoping the Europeans will turn on Trump and force him to re-enter the agreement.

        1. European countries are notorious for caving to threats/terrorism

          1. If it were France or Italy, probably. The Brits you can never tell. Especially as the country is torn on Brexit so a good military action could help the current Parliament in upcoming elections.

            1. Good point.
              But:
              Neville
              Chamberlain

              1. Which is also a decent point, albeit I believe one every British PM thinks about whenever they’re faced with this sort of situation.

        2. It is not surprising.

          In the tanker wars the US reflagged vessels and put together escort duty. I think the Iranians are challenging the US to do the same again. They are trying to create a flashpoint in order to have some leverage. They know that Trump is not a military hawk and prefers economic war.

          1. If I was Iran, I would be more worries about the Royal Marines “Special Boat Units”. US commandos may be more famous but the Brits invented commando warfare.

            1. And the Royal Navy still remembers when it ruled the seas.

              1. And they still can do convoy escort duty. They know that as well.

                I am anti war and it should never have got to this point.

                If trump thought this was a bluff he was wrong. If he does not step up to the plate now he does not belong as commander in chief.

                1. So capitulation (like Obama did) is desirable to war. Worked for Chamberlain didn’t it?

                  1. I am of the opinion that capitulation in a military sense is not possible at this point.

                    What needs to happen is military escort and robust response to meet the threat.

                    Trump tried a bluff and it did not work. There is no way to allow attacks on civilian shipping in the gulf. So either diplomacy or missiles. Trump did not authorize missiles when he could have. Where is the diplomacy?

                    I am not happy that it got to this point. Better diplomacy if it can be done.

                    1. Trump has offered multiple times to have discussions. The British actually were negotiating when this happened.

  14. The GOP has devolved into a pure personality cult. They could not care less about any underlying principles or philosophies – it’s simply a question of whether you’re with Trump or against him. It’s lazy and shameless.

    1. Seems to me that the Democratic Party has turned into a personality cult–devoted to Donald Trump. I don’t think average Democrats can talk about any issue without factoring Trump into the equation somehow. They’re obsessed.

      1. That’s true but not an exoneration of the Republicans by any means. One side behaving badly doesn’t mean the other side should too.

        1. Are you capable of separating policy from personality? If not you are the one with cult of personality issues.

      2. This is what happens when the man elected is literally Hitler and we’re hours away from the death camps being constructed.

        1. Haha. How many hours?

    2. Fuck off Screech.

    3. The GOP has devolved into a pure personality cult.

      *thinks about the prior administration and it’s acolytes*

      *doubles over in laughter*

      1. Obama-Era Republicans were non-entities because they didn’t have policies to oppose what the Democrats were doing. They were the party of Not-Democrats.

        Now, for Democrats, it’s not even Not-Policy or Not-Party but just Not-Trump.

        It’s kinda funny to think that the only thing that prevented Republicans from being Not-Obama was that it was so easy to just write those people off as racist.

        1. The house top had hundreds of policies die in Reid’s desk in the Senate. what the fuck are you talking about? Tea party was formed based on policy disputes, anti trump marches are formed based on trump. How fucking ignorant are you?

          1. Yes, as evidenced by their clear commitment to fiscal responsibility and improving the healthcare system with their own original ideas since Obama left office….OH WAIT

        2. Amash would like a word

      2. Exactly.

        Also, The cult of Hillary was so strong many of them cried when she lost the election. They are still with her.

        1. The cult of Hillary was so strong that she did win the election, and is currently in the White House, with a democratic supermajority in both houses of Congress, and a Supreme Court consisting of RBG and 8 RBG cyborgs, and she’s passing law after law to make the world perfect.

    4. Your post is well cited. Or maybe it’s the fact that the gop doesn’t care about the personality and looks at the results that have been done with policy.

      1. Right…that’s why “only he can do this” right?

        Trump is all “me me me” and to pretend it’s not a cult of personality is just insanely un self-aware.

        1. jomo
          July.20.2019 at 10:40 am
          “Trump is all “me me me” and to pretend it’s not a cult of personality is just insanely un self-aware.”

          One more added to the list of those for whom we hope TDS is fatal.

    5. We support Trump because of the policies.

      Build the Wall.
      Drain the Swamp.

      We could do with a lot more of both, but Trump is the only game in town for either.

  15. Why do so many of Trump’s critics have to make equally absurd leaps of logic as Trump’s leaps of logic? It kind of makes their attempts to position themselves as the voices of reason laughable.

    1. I’m not asserting that this is definitely the right answer, but I honestly believe it’s because some people figure that the old ways of communicating/debating/proving things simply (and demonstrably) don’t get through to like 40% of people any more.

  16. Trump’s Message: If You Hate Me, You Hate America, and You Should feel free to Leave the Country

    FTFY

    1. +1000

    2. We get that you think that’s what it means. So now do the part where the only version of ideas about America you accept have to match yours exactly or else it’s Civil War II time. And that is directed at you as well, “loveconstitution.”

      1. jomo
        July.20.2019 at 10:43 am
        “We get that you think that’s what it means….”

        “We”?
        Is that a turd in your pocket, or were you hoping another TDS victim was here with you?

        1. Sevo, I have yet to see you ever make an actual cogent argument. You appear, at least based on the posts you write, to be incapable of arguing ideas and solely capable of levying personal attacks. Prove me wrong.

          1. “jomo
            July.20.2019 at 7:42 pm
            Sevo, I have yet to see you ever make an actual cogent argument. You appear, at least based on the posts you write, to be incapable of arguing ideas and solely capable of levying personal attacks. Prove me wrong.”

            A-hahahahahahahahah!
            Now THAT is a complete lack of self awareness!

      2. ” So now do the part where the only version of ideas about America you accept have to match yours exactly or else it’s Civil War II time”

        Politics is about building and enforcing a consensus on the justifiable use of force.

        When the consensus is lost, it is a civil war, tyranny, or both.

        It used to be taken for granted by all Americans that government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people meaning all Americans.

        The Left increasingly rejects that.

        Progressivism means government by an unelected ruling class, supposedly “expert” at rule. So much for “of the people”.

        The Left increasingly rejects free speech, and a few years back proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn the 1st Amendment to keep any corporation but their official organs of propaganda from political speech. So much for “by the people”.

        And now they’re rejecting “for the people”, going all in on the globalist conceit that the US government exists for the Greater Good, and not for Americans, which in practice means whatever is best for the global ruling elite.

        1. I didn’t realize there was a bloc of two-thirds of Congress, or two thirds of the states, that can simply be labeled “the Left.”

          Just saying, you might have to work a little harder than that when making such assertions. Who seriously proposed such an amendment? Some rando wingnut?

  17. Basically many Democrats are emulating Trump and his tirades. They see that it works. It is unfortunate but true. I expect the debates next year will be mostly poo flinging and one up insults. Fuck both of these parties and their slavish members.

    1. I would point out it is a human failing, and nothing at all to do with parties.

      1. Just gonna drop this Twain quote right here: “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”

        1. More relevant I think

          “I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”

    2. “Both sides!”

  18. This is not an issue that’s good for them in an election year, and I’m not sure where the Democrats and their cronies in the media can go with this. There may not be a good way to spin it around the Overton window–other than painting Trump as a racist. Yeah, that might be their go-to response anyway, sure, but it’s also the best card they have to play in the shitty hand they were dealt on this one.

    In addition to the Green New Deal, Medicare For All, and whatever other socialist horseshit the Four Retards of the Derpocalypse are selling, now the Democrats are trying to defend an antisemitic representative on the issue of bullshit asylum seekers–one of which is representing the ex-pat Somali community? No, heading into an election year, that isn’t the fight I’d want to pick if I were them.

    Maybe the representative’s refugee roots are the rational angle! Maybe the Democrats should try to argue that the Somali refugee community has been of enormous benefit to Minneapolis, America, and the world, and what American needs is more of that! This series from *right-wing* NPR might be a good place to start looking for statistics.

    It’s called, “The Somali-Minneapolis Terrorist Axis”.

    https://www.npr.org/series/102787287/the-somali-minneapolis-terrorist-axis

    I know, I know, I know it seems selfish to think that asylum policy should good for America when there are sad and lonely asylum seekers in the world, but we’re coming up on an election year. ANd that is what we’re talking about, here, right? Whether Trump should be reelected even after pointing out that American policy should be good for the United States–no matter what an antisemitic representative from Somalia says?

    In the minds of the left, rolling Trump out next to anything makes whatever you’re comparing him to look good. It’s a delusional states with a name: TDS. Not sorry that I don’t suffer from the delusion.

    1. Yeah, that might be their go-to response anyway, sure, but it’s also the best card they have to play in the shitty hand they were dealt on this one.

      It’s the only card they have. None of the targets in question are particularly effusive in their praise of the US, after all, so it’s not like Trump’s criticism is inaccurate.

      1. Why is it their duty to have to prove to the world that they love the US? 3 of the 4 are natural-born citizens. It used to be the case anyway, that for all citizens, but DEFINITELY for natural-born citizens, that the presumption was that they are patriots, unless they demonstrate otherwise.

        1. Who said it was their “duty” fuckboy?

          1. or to prove to the world.

        2. “unless they demonstrate otherwise.”

          Hmmmm and how would they do that one wonders…

        3. “their duty”

          LOL at your sad, pathetic strawmanning. Try harder when you stick up for your lefty boos.

          1. Incidentally, “duty” is something you undertake even if you don’t really want to do so, because you feel you have a social or moral responsibility; Siegfried Sassoon volunteering to go to war comes to mind.

            Not reflexively slagging their own country for everything under the sun probably shouldn’t be considered a hardship for the average Congressional representative.

        4. Why is it their duty to have to prove to the world that they love the US? 3 of the 4 are natural-born citizens. It used to be the case anyway, that for all citizens, but DEFINITELY for natural-born citizens, that the presumption was that they are patriots, unless they demonstrate otherwise.

          1. Why is it their duty to have to prove to the world that they love the US? 3 of the 4 are natural-born citizens. It used to be the case anyway, that for all citizens, but DEFINITELY for natural-born citizens, that the presumption was that they are patriots, unless they demonstrate otherwise.

        5. Pedo Jeffy, the presumption is always that a democrat is an unpatriotic subversive, just like you.

        6. “Why is it their duty to have to prove to the world that they love the US?”

          It’s not. They can continue to spew their hatred of America and Americans all the live long day.

          But it’s equally *not* the duty of Americans to love those who hate them.

    2. And when it comes to Omar her past looks increasingly sketchy. Innocent until proven guilty in my view but so far she won’t comment on a story that ain’t going away.
      https://theohiostar.com/2019/07/19/omar-silent-on-new-claims-that-she-has-a-different-real-name-and-entered-country-fraudulently/
      Read the linked article by Steinberg if you’ve got the time. Not saying it’s true but the guy’s been working.

    3. Why limit it to Minneapolis? The whole state is benefiting.

    4. So much cultural enrichment!

  19. “”To love our country, in other words, you have to love Trump. And if you don’t, you should get the hell out of here.””‘

    Stretch Armstrong can’t stretch that far.

  20. Have any of these women ever said anything indicating how much they love the US? Most of it seems to be relentless bitching about its history and how it will be great at some point in the future, when white people deservedly become second-class citizens.

    1. When have you said anything about how much you love the US?

      1. Jeff – “I’m not a Prog, I just side with them and give them cover every time I have the opportunity”

        1. Do you love the US, Tulpa? If so, prove it.

          1. Not really, I’d fuck the US, and probably date it, but it has baggage.

            1. I wouldn’t fuck the US. Not with Florida dangling down there.

              1. Haha. And those dripping keys! What’s up with that?

            2. This seems like an appropriate occasion for this:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlYZYThl348

          2. By the way, love that you didn’t deny anything you are obviously guilty of.

            1. I’m not interested in your pathetic trolling today, troll boy.
              Find someone else to bother.

              1. In other words

                You’re a coward and I’m right.

              2. “I’m not interested in your pathetic trolling today”

                You were a minute ago when you thought you had a gotcha before I slapped the shit out of you.

      2. You mean why am I not crying about how much it sucks and how racist it is, while benefitting from the very institutions and socio-economic structures that it provides?

        1. And being paid by taxpayers, aka the horrible racist people who inhabit the country

        2. Now do “make America great again.”

          Wait a second. Would that not indicate that maybe there was something about America needed fixing? So why did you stay here then?

          1. Yes – the rise to dominance of America-hating Marxism that culminated in the election of a president whose guiding principle was to “fundamentally transform America” and the dispiriting 8 years of his administration.

            1. But Obama’s presidency was more a symptom of great loss than anything, and a symbol of developing pathological decadence in the wake of Cold War victory.
              Add in Clinton’s scandals, the dot com crash, Bush the younger, 9/11, the Iraq War dynamic, Katrina. and the “Great Recession” – the national mood was not confident.
              But some of us like greatness.
              Others, such as yourself, are still consumed by resentment born of self-loathing, and are experiencing a psychotic breakdown of the hive mind.

              1. You guys are pretty much making my point for me. To be clear, I am not into Ilhan Omar’s politics. But you’ve literally just done the exact thing…when YOU don’t like how things are going, it’s your right/prerogative to stay and try to fix it. When someone else has a different idea, they gotta go.

                You don’t know shit about me, or what I want. I love America, and I’m not ashamed to be American. That doesn’t mean I have to love 100% of what Trump or any other President does or says.

          2. You dumb motherfuckers can’t even make up your mind whether America was never great, or if it never stopped being great. Try that lame-ass gotcha with a Boomercon, shitlib, you might get better results..

            1. Sounds “tough” but still dodges the question.

      3. The preservation of the constitution comes to mind. For me at least. Can’t say I’ve ever heard a progressive speak well of the constitution

      4. I do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America against any enemy, foreign or domestic; that I will bear allegiance to the same…
        10 May 1995 at the Spokane MEPPS in the federal building, downtown Spokane, WA. Any further questions?

      5. “When have you said anything about how much you love the US?”

        With every tweet.

        I’ve got emojis in my twitter handle. Lots of people on the Right do.

        How about you, racebaiterjeff?

        1. heart and american flag emojis

          I wrapped them in less than and greater than signs, and apparently that set off the markup demons to disappear them.

        2. Kinda like how wearing a flag lapel pin is “proof” that you’re a “real American” ever since 9/11?

  21. Trump makes me think of an aging “Today’s Tom Sawyer, he gets high on you and the space he invades, he gets by on you.”

    It would have been better and more accurate for them to chant “We judge you to be conniving & dangerous and we wish we never had to think of you again.” I think that’s more along the lines of what they actually think / feel.

    1. Rush had the chops to pull off the song even with those cheesy lyrics.

      Trump fans to me are more like Tommy from The Who

      From you I get opinions.
      From you I get the story.
      Listening to you I get the music.
      Gazing at you I get the heat.
      Following you I climb the mountain.
      I get excitement at your feet.

      Oh and the studio has Keith Moon on a rare good day and botched the recording. They muffled his drums to the point where he may as well have been playing plastic buckets. Rant off.

      1. Echo, you consistently display a profound lack of insight.

        1. Appreciate the compliment.

          Were we talking about classic rock?

          I like drums. Animal from the muppets vs Dave Grohl from Foo Fighters.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cxVSO9w6_Y0

          It is fun. Chill. Nobody is saving the world here.

  22. I think, in the eyes of Trump and many of his followers, every citizen is equally a citizen, but not every citizen is equally an American.

    So Omar is a CINO – “citizen in name only”. She has the right papers but she doesn’t really deserve to be called an American.

    So who does deserve to be called an American? People who hold beliefs similar to what the right-wing believes. Pro-gun, pro-life, pro-border security, pro-mercantilistic trade wars, pro-Constitution (well, parts of it anyway), pro-military, pro-police, pro-Christian (or at least not hostile to Christian values), and against radical change as a rule.

    If a person wants to ban guns, that person is not only wrong, but un-American.

    If a person wants to nationalize health care, that person is not only wrong, but un-American.

    If a person puts Christianity in context as simply one valid belief system among many competing, and also valid, belief systems, then that person is not only wrong, but un-American.

    That is the danger of nationalism. The belief that if an “other” holds views that stand in contrast to what “real Americans” believe, that the “other” is not just wrong, but deserves to have his/her patriotism questioned.

    That is the type of monster that Trump has unleashed. It was always there on the right, but always at least subdued to a degree. It has never seemed so overt as it is now.

    It would be nice if we could get back to a place where we believed “anyone can be an American”.

    https://relevantmagazine.com/current/watch-ronald-reagans-moving-pro-immigrant-final-speech/

    1. “I think”

      No one cares what you think except as a launching point to make fun of how stupid you are.

      1. Got to give it to the little pederast, when he hits rock bottom he really starts to dig.

    2. “but not every citizen is equally an American.”

      What is that supposed to mean? Are you one of those ridiculous mush heads that thinks we all share some kind of great American spirit. If being an American means anything, I can guarantee you that it is not a quality equally demonstrated by everyone.

      1. What I think it means, is that in the eyes of many on the right, to be a citizen only means that one has the correct papers, but to be an “American” means to hold some specific set of ideological beliefs.

        For example, I’m willing to bet that if you polled Trump supporters, that you would find that a majority of them would agree that one can’t be a “real American” unless one believes in the Second Amendment as it was interpreted in a DC v. Heller sense. That is what I mean.

        1. “What I think”

          No one cares.

          1. It’s more nobody believes than cares.

        2. How about just some measure of fealty to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights

        3. You mean expecting people to actually respect the rights of every American as guaranteed in the Constitution? Oh the horror. Hint DC vs Heller is fully supported by the likes of Maddison, Henry, Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, etc as spelled exhaustively in their personal letters and public discourse.

          1. Jefferson thought the constitution should be torn up and rewritten every so often.

            One such reason could arguably be because “arms” have gone from muskets to weapons of mass destruction since he was around.

            1. “I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful servitude.”
              -Thomas Jefferson

              1. “Mexican infants 2,000 miles away are a threat to me!”

                -Conservatives

                1. He uses a real quote you respond with made up talking points that completely misrepresent what your opponents are saying. See the difference?

                  1. No it doesn’t.

                    1. Great rejoinder, completely put me in my place. Your overwhelming evidence and support of your position is just so convincing no one can disagree with you obvious overwhelming intellect. Wow, “No it doesn’t”. Just such a powerful, well thought out argument./sarc
                      I specified sarcasm because you are so disingenuous that you will attempt to claim I actually agreed that you won.

                2. Did I say I was one of the “conservatives?”

                  But the reason immigrants could be dangerous is that some of them are a little too eager to use their guns. Bearing arms is a liberty I’m not about to take away from anyone, including illegal mexicans, but entering any country on the bucket list really isn’t.

                  1. Entering illegal is a misdemeanor and overstaying is a civil infraction. If people are so scared of that they’re willing to suppress human liberty on a mass scale, they’re not really walking Jefferson’s talk.

                    1. Please inform us how they are having their human liberty suppressed on a grand scale?

                    2. “…overstaying is a civil infraction….”
                      You are full of shit.

          2. And Jefferson didn’t want the Bill of Rights torn up, not even the Constitution. He did want the Constitution re-examined (but again not the BoR which was considered separate from the Constitution in function by it’s writers).

            1. I don’t really care. He was wrong about a lot of things, and once he was president he pretty much conceded them.

              1. For someone who doesn’t care, you misrepresented what he said to try and strength your position. This once again proves how dishonest you are and how willing you are to outright lie to support your position. No tactic is to low for you, are they Tony?

    3. People who want to ban private firearms ownership and regulate speech are un-American.

      1. I don’t understand why that’s so hard for Jeff to grasp. It’s the two biggest things holding the country together. Moreso than voting.

        Hey Jeff, your progressive buddies do not believe in property rights. But by all means keep defending them.

        1. Freedom of speech and the right to keep oneself armed are the difference between citizens and subjects

        2. Well, keeping things together except for the 30,000 needless deaths a year. Things are not being kept together for them.

          But sacrifice for the greater good, am I right. The libertarian way.

          1. So it’s a right only if you like the outcome?

            1. Tony is a utilitarian. He thinks morality is only what brings the greatest good to the greatest number. How our why doesn’t matter, just the end result.

              1. It’s a little more complicated than that.

                My main point was that the argument presented is just as collectivist (utilitarian) as any other. It just happens to be wrong.

                1. Wrong? By what definition?

                  1. Wrong as in it doesn’t’ accomplish even its stated goals, let alone goals that are worth anything.

                    1. What is it’s stated goal? A check on the government, so how is it not achieving that goal? And why is giving people the right to protect themselves and resist tyranny if needed not a worthy goal? Basically, you have nothing other than guns bad, therefore they must be banner as your argument. But the truth is that there is around 80,000,000 legal gun owners in the US. That means less than 0.04 % of legal gun owners, if we assume that all 30,000 deaths are the result of legal gun owners (a completely ridiculous assumption) will misuse their guns in such a manner as to kill someone else or themselves. Of the 10,000 or so of those 30,000 that are not suicide, but the result of crimes, legal gun owners account for a couple percentage points. Basically, overturning the 2A would only punish legal gun owners with little to no benefit.

      2. I am absolutely opposed to banning firearms, and opposed to state censorship of speech. Nevertheless I believe the people who do want to ban firearms, and who do want state censorship of speech (like Jesse), are advocating for those things because they genuinely think it would make America a better place. I think they’re wrong, I think it would make America a worse place, but I don’t doubt their convictions to their own cause.

        When we start defining patriotism in terms of ideology, we are going down a really slippery slope that I really don’t want to go down.

        1. My personal ideology (and one I expect every elected official to respect since they swore an oath to uphold and defend it) is that of respect for the Constitution as written. That means if you want to change it use the process laid out to change it.

          1. People disagree about what the constitution as written means. You don’t get to decide.

            1. No, I go by the explanations given by the actual authors. But I guess they are wrong too? And before you bring up slavery etc, the Constitution has been amended to deal with those, and thus the meaning has changed through the correct process. If you don’t like the 1A or 2A try and get them changed. Don’t try to twist their meaning to fit your desired outcome.

              1. “If you don’t like the 1A or 2A try and get them changed.”

                That sounds hard… Can’t we just get the courts to do it?

    4. If a person wants to ban guns, that person is not only wrong, but un-American.

      Correct. The right to bear arms is an intrinsic part of what it means to be an American.

      If a person wants to nationalize health care, that person is not only wrong, but un-American.

      Correct. America outlawed slavery.

      If a person puts Christianity in context as simply one valid belief system among many competing, and also valid, belief systems, then that person is not only wrong, but un-American.

      Incorrect. The Declaration and the Constitution both make it very clear that there are many belief systems. It does not speak to whether they are competing, or whether they are valid–simply that they exist.

      A person who ignores the text and decides, based solely on their prejudices, that America favors Christianity to the detriment of other faiths is both wrong and un-American.

      There, hope that helps.

      1. Or someone who interprets the 1A to mean the government can ban the expression of religion so not to offend atheists, is also wrong.

    5. communists are vicious totalitarians and are definitely un-American. It’s not a crime to call them out for what they are and urge them to go somewhere else.

    6. Did you know that 50 some years ago the Russians were floating dead dogs around in satellites? Did you know that AMERICAN politicians were so terrified that they’d drop the dogs on us that they built a rocket ship? Did you know that AMERICA spent unspeakable amounts of money (adjusted for inflation) to send two AMERICANS to the fucking moon? Did you know that they wandered aimlessly about for a while but ultimately planted flag in the lunar soil on live TV (or maybe they filmed it in a studio. It really doesn’t matter.)? What flag do you think it was? The Somali flag? the Puerto Rican flag? The African flag? Fuck no. It was Old Glory. The Fucking AMERICAN flag. Since you obviously hate AMERICA you should probably go back to Sweden or England or Monaco or whatever shithole country your ancestors emigrated from. But you’ll never escape Old Glory shining down on you every night (not the Betsy Ross edition because that one is racist).

      1. Poor Laika.

    7. Why not bring it a little closer to home? Under this president, if anybody wants free markets, they’re un-American. If anybody wants free minds, they’re un-American, too. And therein lies the problem.

      1. According to you:
        Free market = internal tariffs on labor/productivity (income and payroll taxes), with no duty whatsoever on imported foreign goods; so, policies which explicitly favor foreign production over domestic
        Free minds = the desire to fundamentally change the US through totalitarian central government and/or hatred of the US, its history and fundamental value of individual rights

      2. Reason: Free trade is when American workers pay payroll and income taxes, while Emperor Xi pays no tax on exports to the US.

    8. CINO? AINO?

      “That is the danger of nationalism. The belief that if an “other” holds views that stand in contrast to what “real Americans” believe, that the “other” is not just wrong, but deserves to have his/her patriotism questioned.”

      It’s funny how those who hate America and Americans get their panties in a bunch over having their patriotism questioned. Let your hate flow through you! Don’t be shy!

      “It would be nice if we could get back to a place where we believed “anyone can be an American”.”

      According to the last Democratic nominee for the Presidency, Trump supporters are “not America”, along with a great many other slurs:
      “the basket of deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it … — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America”

      I must have missed your outrage over this statement.

  23. As much of an arrogant troll as trump may be, Jacob Sullum’s headline here is total garbage. Quoting trump, “She was describing the president of the United States and the presidency with the big, fat, vicious—the way she said it—vicious F-word. That’s not somebody that loves our country.”

    Sullum’s response: “To love our country, in other words, you have to love Trump.”

    But thats not what trump said. Not even by a long shot. I think most people can agree that a national representative publicly cussing the president is a little disturbing.

    Jacob, your opinion was a major let down. Just the kind of thoughtless propaganda I would expect to read on my Google News feed.

    1. This is typical of the progtards. They always explain what Trump said without ever actually supplying the actual quote. Which is typical of their inherent dishonesty.

      Goddamn the progressives.

      1. And the sad thing is this will live on forever as proof of Trump’s racism, despite any lack of evidence of racism.

    2. “I think most people can agree that a national representative publicly cussing the president is a little disturbing.”

      Hmmm. Yeah that makes sense. Seeing as how you were all so equally concerned that the President literally called a sitting senator “Pocahontas.”

      1. How does Pocahontas have anything to do with this? I mean it’s not the equivalent of calling someone a mf-er.

        1. You’re right. Calling someone Pocahontas is arguably WORSE, because it’s based on a personal characteristic (i.e. ethnicity or perceived ethnicity) as opposed to behavior.

          1. Well, contrary to your statement, the Pocahontas comment was entirely based on behavior, not personal characteristics. Trump was the one who claimed that Warren was making up stories, but he gave her the name to corrospond with Warren’s comments since she was the one who claimed to be Native American.

  24. ” I say “may” because I am honestly not sure.”

    Buried the lead

  25. Trump’s Message: If You Hate Me, You Hate America, and You Should Leave the Country

    Notice no quotes on that from Slumming Sullum.

    1. Sullum, Boehm. Dalmia…………

      Pathetic lying loser Squad.

  26. “Send her back” worse than Kristallnacht!

    1. But let’s totally ignore Omar’s latest attack against Israel or Maxine Waters wanting to jail people who smear politicians…

      1. Why is she not allowed to attack Israel?

        Can I say you’re not allowed to say mean things about Iran?

        1. Did I say she wasn’t allowed? I was pointing out the double standard involved in your sides selective outrage, dumbfuck.

          1. Try again Tony with your false equivalency. And dishonest interpretation of my remarks. It is the only way you can defend your sides blatant hypocrisy.

          2. Why is it bad that she criticizes Israel?

            How do you people get off telling other people to be more patriotic when you demand absolute loyalty to a foreign country and everything its government does?

            1. Did I demand absolute loyalty? You need to argue with what I said not the voices in your head. I said the double standard were anything even remotely dealing with race your side labels as racism if uttered by a conservative but if a progressive does something along (or worse, she has a long history that is well documented) you twist yourself into a pretzel defending is or ignoring it. And you are perfectly aware that is what I was saying, but you can’t defend that so you resort to straw man arguments (perfectly aware that you are being dishonest).

              1. She’s not more racist than Trump.

                Agree or shut up.

                1. Why? You haven’t provided evidence to support this statement nor have you the power to dictate when I can or cannot reply, nor do you have the power to set the rules of public debate.

                  1. I have the power to decide if I’m talking to a sane person or not.

                    1. Agree or shut up is not you deciding if you are speaking to a sane person, it is an absolutist statement indicating that you cannot tolerate anyone disagreeing with you. In fact, your insistence that only those who agree with you have the ability to speak would indicate that it may be you or has a problem with sanity, it suggests a fragile ego and delusions of grandeur.

            2. Tony

              She can do so. So can you. Do you agree with her?

              1. Meh. Nobody is all right or all wrong. Did you not watch Game of Thrones.

                I’m for whatever solution to the Israel-Palestine kerfuffle that results in the least misery. So I’m gonna vote for pragmatic intelligent people and not right-wing zealots, just in case it makes a difference.

                1. You consider her pragmatic and intelligent?

                  1. She’s not in my district.

                2. The TV show? Game of thrones. Watched some of that.

                  You had more to say than a fantasy TV sexy drama.

                  Who you gonna vote for I saw. I do not care.

  27. Sullum used to be one of the last sane voices here. How low he’s fallen. Stossel is their final hope.

    1. Bailey is their final remnant of journalism at Reason. Still decent most of the time.

      The last best hope was Ed Krayewski. Young guy, but reading him was like reading actual journalism from the 70s or 80s. Even writing with bias, he was *honest* about it, and gave the devil his due.

      Naturally, Reason sacked him. Can’t let anything off The Narrative onto their pages.

  28. Ahhh, my Rhomite friends. The fact is that we are in Civil War and it is time our side joined in battle against the lib/commies and that is what POTUS does.

    “There’s no ned to fear. Underzog is here.”

    1. Whenever I’m depressed about politics, I just watch a Stossel video. He’s the best.

  29. He might of used the term “Constitution” but since Trump is the closest to uphold the Constitution in the last 100-years; he’s got a point.

    1. I’d love to know what “uphold the constitution” is a dog whistle for in your mind, because he’s taken a giant McNugget shit on about half of it and he’s not even done with one term.

      1. Examples?

        1. You can’t ban people from a specific religion from entering the country, dude.

          1. Except he didn’t ban people from certain religions, he didn’t ban anyone but did suspend entry from certain countries for a period in order to place tighter controls. Even if you by the fact that these are Muslim majority countries, he never banned entry from the majority of Muslim countries. And, if I’m not mistaken the USSC upheld his decision, so this isn’t the proof you thought it was. The facts don’t support your accusations.

            1. Also, you don’t get a pass for political totalitarianism just because you say “because God tells me so”.

              We have specific laws against immigration for totalitarians.

            2. You’re lying. His initial proposal was to ban all Muslims.

              So tell me more about how much you love both the constitution and Trump.

              History will no doubt be kind to Trump supporters.

          2. What Tony is essentially saying is that immigration from any country can never be restricted because, inevitably, whichever country is seen as producing the dangerous immigrants will have a majority in one religion or another.

  30. American carnage! The American dream is dead!

    Damn those colored folks saying such things.

    1. “The American Dream” was a myth designed by progressives to try to make a America the number one immigrant destination in the world and justify introducing the welfare warfare state. The real American dream is freedom and independence, not financial success.

      1. I’ll dream about whatever the fuck I want to dream about.

        Like not having retarded fat orange cunts turning us into a hate-filled Fascism-lite shithole as a freaking political strategy.

        1. Precisely. You have the freedom and independence to dream whatever you want, even if it’s destructive, foul-mouthed, and ignorant.

          1. Hey I was just trying to make an orange man joke.

            1. No, you were being hateful and got called out for it so you resort to the last refuge of scoundrels, claiming to be “just joking”.

        2. Can we dream of a world where dipshit, hatefulled authoritarian asshats like you, who use false equivalency and demonization rather than logical arguments, do not exist? That would be near paradise.

          1. Does Trump cock really taste that good?

  31. FBI numbers 2016

    For gun-related homicides, the U.S. ranks 30th worldwide.

    Total U.S. firearms related deaths 37,200
    Suicides – 23,800
    Homicides 13,400

    Of the total about 60% are suicides, about 3% were accidental, criminals and the mentally ill account for about 17%. Four cities whose inner city citizens are subject to very strict “gun control” (Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and Washington D.C.) account for about 25 % of all criminal homicide.

    1. ” (Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and Washington D.C.) account for about 25 % of all criminal homicide.”

      All have had Democratic Mayors for the last half century.
      Detroit has had Democratic mayors since 1962.
      Baltimore has had Democratic mayors since 1968.
      Washington DC has had Democratic mayors sice 1961.
      Chicago has had Democratic mayors since 1932.

      One of these days I’ll tabulate the crime rates for
      “Ruled by Democratic Mayors for the Last Half Century”
      vs.
      “Not Ruled by Democratic Mayors for the Last Half Century”

      Anyone want to guess which one is higher?

  32. Trump’s not being a racist. “Send them back” is not racist. Stop being a snowflake.

    Rep. Omar said something a little off-color about Israel! I’m melting! Melting!

    1. Wow, totally lying there. It wasn’t something a little off color it is a history of very questionable at best distortions and misrepresentations directed at the state of Israel, paired with her failure to condemn ISIS, and posts that seem to support the most extreme forms of Islamic terrorism. But keep your head in the sand you tiresome progressive sycophant.

      1. “and posts that seem to support the most extreme forms of Islamic terrorism.”

        What posts are these? I’ve heard she was critical of Israel, but I don’t know of her seeming support for the most extreme forms of Islamic terrorism.

        What are the most extreme forms of Islamic terrorism? Al Qaeda is pretty extreme but they are pussies on the question of attacking Shia muslims. Bin Laden never approved of such tactics, for example. I think ISIS is more extreme, as they encourage such attacks. Did you have an even more extreme form of Islamic terrorism in mind?

        1. “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” Omar in March of 2019.
          She also tried to draw an equivalency between how Americans talk about Al Qaida and Al Shabab and the US Army. She implied that our supposed emphasis on how we use the previous two is because we subconsciously are emphasizing their Arabic roots. She also defended her failure to condemn a Al Shabab attack by stating that not all Somalis were involved and thus shouldn’t denounce it. But in the past she has condemned the NRA whenever a mass shooting has occurred for not denouncing it strong enough.

          1. But because you are just as disingenuous as Tony, you will attempt to take these examples and twist them to defend her. But any defense of Trump is proof of Republicans takeover by white supremacists in your opinion.

          2. That’s trueman; sophistry or bullshit. Nothing else.

          3. She’s a politician. They are slick people. Wily even. Not to be underestimated. Rest assured though, nothing you’ve said warrants the hysteria over her supporting ISIS. Besides she’s the perfect foil for Trump, who, believe me, is loving this. Reality TV at its finest.

            1. Other than her attempts at justifying ISIS and other Islamic terror groups actions.

              1. She never mentioned ISIS or any other Islamic terror outfit in the quote you provided. Is there really nothing more substantive out there showing her support for ISIS? I really think you can relax on this count. I’m sure there are plenty of Americans who support ISIS, but you’ve shown me Omar isn’t one of them.

                1. OPINION | CIVIL RIGHTS
                  February 21, 2019 – 12:20 AM EST
                  Why Omar’s views are dangerous
                  BY KATIE PAVLICH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 2,495
                  The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
                  TWEET SHARE MORE
                  Over the course of the past few months, newly minted Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) has come under fire for a number of anti-Semitic comments. She’s said everything from Israel “hypmotizing the world” to implying politicians are bought off by Jewish interests and “all about the Benjamins.”

                  For her most recent series of anti-Semitic slurs on Twitter, Omar was condemned by Democratic House leadership.

                  “We are and will always be strong supporters of Israel in Congress because we understand that our support is based on shared values and strategic interests. Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Caucus Vice Chair Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) released in a joint statement. “But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

                  “As Democrats and as Americans, the entire Congress must be fully engaged in denouncing and rejecting all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and discrimination wherever they are encountered,” they continued.

                  U.S. Ambassador to Israel under President Obama, Dan Shapiro, piled on and called on his party to roundly condemn her remarks.

                  “@IlhanMN’s outrageous comments equating politicians’ support for Israel with being bought off by American Jewish money are a vile anti-Semitic trope. They need to be condemned by all in our party,” Shapiro tweeted.

                  After wide spread condemnation, Omar apologized for her remarks, which marked the second major about-face on the issue since coming to Washington.

                  Interestingly, Omar still hasn’t explained why she told Minnesota voters she was against the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, only to embrace the cause once she was comfortably in office on Capitol Hill.

                  But while Omar’s views toward the Jewish people and Israel are alarming, so is her support for controversial people and organizations.

                  In March, Omar will participate in a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, better known as CAIR. She’s done a number of events with the group in the past, which celebrated her election in November.

                  CAIR was named, along with 250 other groups, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation investigation and the FBI found millions of dollars were sent to Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization based in Gaza and the West Bank.

                  Adding to the controversy, Omar was scheduled as a keynote speaker for an upcoming Islamic Relief USA dinner in Florida. Also on the agenda and appearing on a flyer with Omar was Yousef Abdullah. Abdullah believes and publicly states “martyrs” who provide weapons to kill Jews are “beautiful.” Omar’s press team denies they were scheduled to be at the same event, despite a published flyer from the organization stating they would both speak.

                  “Islamic Relief has been found to have connections to funding terrorism and Islamic extremists. A Swedish government report named the organization as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood,” The Jerusalem Post reports. “The Tunisian government has reportedly investigated allegations that the group funded jihadists on the Libyan border, and members of Congress have launched an inquiry into FBI and IRS investigations of Islamic Relief’s activities.”

                  In 2016, Omar asked a federal judge for leniency against a Minnesota man who had pledged allegiance to ISIS. In the letter to the judge, she called efforts to put the man in prison for life “punitive” and blamed Americans for breeding extremism.

                  “As you undoubtedly deliberate with great caution the sentencing of nine recently convicted Somali-American men, I bring to your attention the ramifications of sentencing young men who made a consequential mistake to decades in federal prison. Incarcerating 20-year-old men for 30 or 40 years is essentially a life sentence. Society will have no expectations of the to be 50 or 60-year-old released prisoners; it will view them with distrust and revulsion,” Omar wrote to a judge as a Minnesota state lawmaker. “Such punitive measures not only lack efficacy, they inevitably create an environment in which extremism can flourish, aligning with the presupposition of terrorist recruitment: ‘Americans do not accept you and continue to trivialize your value. Instead of being a nobody, be a martyr.’”
                  She also has agreed multiple times to participate in fundraisers for groups that the FBI, Sweden, Tunisia and Israel have accused of being fundraisers for terrorist, including Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas and others.

                  1. Giving money to charities does not mean support for ISIS, even though these charities may have connections with terrorists. Terrorists probably have many connections they don’t like to share with the public. With the judge, she’s doing her job, representing her constituents. But you’ve convinced me that she’s pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel. Hardly a surprise. Can you find even one black African Somalian Muslim lady who is anti-Palestinian pro-Israel?

                    Did you know that it’s not conceivable that a person would support both Hezbollah and al Qaeda. The two are enemies and have been killing each other off for several years now. If you are going to spin a yarn for propaganda, you got to get these details down. All you have is a pro-Palestinian who gives to charity, big deal.

                  2. Ever been in Michigan? That place is swarming with Muslims. Especially in Deerborn.

                    I gotta say though, just because someone is opposed to the state of Israel or its actions does not mean that they are necessarily anti-semetic. That is just plain stupid, a cheap shot at someone with a different perspective about the state of things in the Mid-east.

  33. This is quite a surprising development for me. Before elected, I though that the Republican party would split along roughly Trump/Amash lines. This has not happened as the defections are few and the Republican caucus is more docile than I imagined.

    Instead, Trump is transforming the party so that it represents America’s Whites, leaving the Democrats scrambling for the people of color. A fascinating development that should heat up America’s ever-simmering race tensions and help her along on the one-way journey to palookaville.

    1. This is trueman; sophistry or bullshit. Nothing else.

      1. I already got the party motto: If you’re white, go right!

        1. If your left hate whitey. See how stupid generalizations and demonization are?

    2. Trump is gaining NOT because he’s making The Republican Party “the White Party”, Where on earth does evidence of that come from? Have you ever heard the President make Racist statements? Ya know CNN is not a credible source of factual events or information. How many times we’ve heard them say Trump is Racist? How many times has CNN been caught actually publishing fabricated claims as such? Dozens, yet none are true. In fact despite the lying media, Black voter support for Trump has nearly doubled.

      Are President is gaining popularity despite the onslought of establishment press corp for 3 reasons.
      1. His Economic Policy Sucess. The US is out performing every major economy in the World and has helped working class America by restoring jobs and with net income gains, this President has helped more Americans financially in 2 years than Obama did in 8 years.
      2. Honest transparent Governance by Trump is now evident. As the media “Trump Hoax” exposed just how deliberate the American News Media was in manipulating its coverage to match the Democrat Agenda with its tainted illegal conspiracy attempt, we now know that we were lied to. That these media execs could knowingly attack Americans freedom by disenfranchising the voters through their support of Corrupt Obama Spying and Misusing FBI CIA and Justice Departments to perpetrate a fraud has left them completely irrelevant and untrusted. CNN, lost 50% of its viewers because of their credibility collapse.
      3. The changing ideology of the Democrat Party. On issue after issue, Democrats are seen as Representing foreigners and non-citizens at the expense of working tax-payers. Open border policy is non-sense and giving rights of citizenship without vetting is indefensible. False accusations against opponents has made the Democrat Party looking like cheaters. And Democrat shift to Socialist agenda is fervently opposed by Freedom Loving People, America has heard this kind of Totalitarian Social Justice crap before …from other Socialists in Germany, Venezuela etc.

      1. Believing lies doesn’t win elections. Unless you cheat again, of course.

        1. Cheat? What cheating?

          1. I hope you did an exaggerated shrug with that.

            1. So in other words you have nothing?

      2. “Trump is gaining NOT because he’s making The Republican Party “the White Party””

        I think it’s Trump’s audience that is doing this. Trump is just feeding them what they like. There’s a lot of resentment towards people of color, and the Republican party will try to exploit it if they want to win elections.

        1. Again all you can do is demonize others, how is this any better than what you accuse his supporters of?

          1. There is nothing demonic about white people supporting the Republicans. Get a grip.

            1. The sad thing is that I actually believe you think that was clever.
              “There’s a lot of resentment towards people of color, and the Republican party will try to exploit it if they want to win elections.” This is basically demonization of those who you disagree with. You made an accusation, without any supporting assumption, then proceeded to use this unsupported accusation to besmirch your political opponents motives. It is pretty peurile, but par for the course for you.

              1. “This is basically demonization of those who you disagree with. ”

                Time will tell. Some like Amash have left the party rather than stay in a party beholden to white nationalists. His move has been welcomed by staff writers here, but derided by the commenters.

                Political motives come in two flavors. First is those you speak of publicly. The second, only privately. It’s these second motives I am addressing. Tell will time how sharp my mind reading skills are.

                1. “… rather than stay in a party beholden to white nationalists.”

                  Not all nationalists are white nationalists. I think the Republican party is becoming increasingly nationalistic and populist, but it is not at all centered around being white. Since 1996 no republican presidential candidate had exceeded 12% approval rating among blacks. In 2016, trump was polling at 19% with blacks, and his approval rating has only increased since then, and dramatically so. Some polls had him as high as 41% with black voters. Rasmussen had him at a solid 36%.

                  I think the Republican party is totally onboard with the racially sensitive social justice warrior propaganda that the democrats have been pushing for decades. Trump may not be friendly with immigrants, but he is doing well with black voters, and whenever politicians can get more votes they won’t do anything to reduce that advantage.

                  1. “In 2016, trump was polling at 19% with blacks, and his approval rating has only increased since then, and dramatically so. Some polls had him as high as 41% with black voters.”

                    Have you not considered the possibility that a black person may tell a pollster that he supports Trump but on election day, the same black person votes for someone else? Maybe Trump can find something good here, but it’s elections that matter in the end.

                    1. Trump actually out-performed the polls rather than, as your comment would lead some to believe, under-perform them. That’s why his election was a surprise.

    3. “leaving the Democrats scrambling for the people of color”

      The Left always projects their hatreds and crimes on the Right.
      Every accusation from a Leftist is an unwitting confession.

      The Left has been spreading the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics for decades. Their fundamental organizing principle has been hatred of white men.

      Now that white men are starting to notice, they increasingly vote Republican.

      Trump appeals to all Americans. That Democratic hatred is increasingly pushing white men to the Republican Party is not some jedi mind trick Trump is playing on white men.

      1. “Now that white men are starting to notice, they increasingly vote Republican.”

        They’re also aging, dying and becoming more irrelevant. Attracting the Hispanic/illegal vote is the path forward. Whites may well see Trump to re-election, but I don’t think a ‘white party’ is viable in the long term.

        “The Left has been spreading the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics for decades. Their fundamental organizing principle has been hatred of white men.”

        As time passes, this is looking more and more like a winning strategy. What’s your counter-proposal?

  34. During the 2016 campaign, it became widely understood that Trump supporters took him seriously but not literally, while Trump critics took him literally but not seriously. Nowhere is that more evident than in the “go back where you came from flap.” No one is introducing legislation to deport Ilhan Omar–Jew-baiting, terrorist-excusing, extremist that she is–but Trump is spotlighting her absolute disdain for the West and its values. He is also, rather brilliantly, putting Pelosi and the Democratic Presidential hopefuls in the rather awkward position of defending a group of freshmen House members widely disliked by much of the country, especially the undecideds and moderates. Trump is a demagogue, certainly, but his demagoguery, like so many things with Trump, is theater designed to coral his critics and opponents, not as a precursor to
    authoritarian government.

    1. By casting itself as the white party, Republicans finally get a shot at winning the Jewish vote, provided we can accept Jews as at least honorary whites.

      1. Mtrueman

        I have consulted with my fellow Jews at the schvitz. There is no higher power.

        After much discussion and thinking upon it. We decided that something needs to be done and it was time to pay the proprietor and go home.

      2. The number of Asians who are turning to the GOP is growing. There is also indications that Trump is more popular with Hispanics and African Americans than in 2016. The GOP is not the party of white people solely. But in your mind unless you are pandering (yes pandering because that is what it is) to each non-Caucasian group, you must be only rooting for team white, correct?

        1. “There is also indications that Trump is more popular with Hispanics and African Americans than in 2016.”

          These indications must have popped up some time after the mid terms, I assume.

          “you must be only rooting for team white, correct?”

          I think team white may have one more for the gipper, but demographics are against such a move. No doubt why a few young Republican politicians are jumping ship. Their future goes beyond the next 4 years and they don’t want the stain of their association with the party today to weaken them.

      3. It’s the Democrats who cast Republicans as the white party.
        Republicans cast themselves as the American party.

        It is a puzzle how jews continue to support the increasingly anti-semitic Democrats.

        1. “It’s the Democrats who cast Republicans as the white party.”

          Because they are not stupid. Trump is though, and he has a chance to capitalize on resentment and win the presidency by capturing the white vote. In the long run it would spell the end of the party, I believe.

          1. Literally, Trump’s approval rating among blacks is higher than any in the recorded history of the Republican party. Look it up.

            1. How many black Republicans were elected during the recent midterms? How many black Democrats? These are the figures that count. Polling results are notoriously fickle.

              1. Many white people vote for blacks, and many black people vote for whites. Maybe you should stop categorizing people into voting blocks assuming that people will only vote for politicians of their own race.

                1. It’s not just me who categorizes people into voting blocks. There are strategists on both sides of the aisles who make a very good living analyzing voting blocks. But I take it from your reply that not a single black Republican was voted into office during the last midterm. These are the results that count. Your polls can always be interpreted in many ways, and they are all equally irrelevant.

                  1. Polls may be unreliable, but what is far more relevant than the political inclinations of black representatives is the information that polls attempt to find: the political inclinations of black VOTERS.

                    1. Were these polls taken in the last few days? I think Trump has recently damaged his personal reputation with these tweets, even though many black voters may be on board with his economic policies which aren’t so different from what Sanders was offering. And if Trump can drive a wedge between blacks and hispanics on immigration, sure whatever’s bad for the enemy is good for him.

  35. A president should be taken both literally and seriously.

    False dichotomy.

    The words tweeted or spoken have meaning in the literal sense. They also have consequences in the serious sense.

  36. Nobody misses the Calico Cat and the Gingham Dog, so why should I get worked up about the Republicans and Democrats? The average age of those parties is 196. They’ve been living on the dole for how long?

  37. So this author thinks that the President is saying “if you don’t agree with me, you are un-American” Well he is not. What he is saying is the agenda of these Congresswomen is Anti-American. And he is right.

    Sure it’s true, unbelievably, that they were elected by voters. But you can’t simply ignore the words and actions of these ultra-liberal outspoken Democrats. Between them they espouse Socialist ideology while verbally assaulting our system of governance. They intentionally lie about events.

    They have NO respect for the Constitution. To this author: How bout you defend the insane statements made by these immature, opinionated and poorly educated women. I submit even a Leftist yellow journalist like you couldn’t make a case for the policies they push.

    By the way: A professional journalist does not call elected officials “psychotic” without cause. Your credibility is shot, clearly your story was written with a pre-meditated bias.

    Trump Is the freedom candidate. The Democrat Party has been exposed as unabashedly attacking truth. After three years of Trump Hoax non-sense, and the overwhelming evidence of Democrat Party criminality in an attempted coup wrought with deceit and deception: There are few Americans that aren’t sick and tired of hearing the intentional trashing of a President who’s track record of successful policy outcomes is almost unprecidented.

    What’s is wrong with the people who work for this slandering and misinforming garbage call “Reason”?

    1. I think it’s Jacob Sullum and a few others who are the ones to blame. But there are several decent writers here.

  38. But they began to have qualms when the self-deportation of U.S. citizens whose views offend Trump became mandatory.

    Omar is an anti-American socialist from a socialist family that used to be part of the oppressive Somali regime, and she is attempting to impose socialism on the US. It’s questionable whether the family should ever have been permitted to immigrate to the US in the first place. Yes, we do have ideological tests for immigration in the US, and people wanting to destroy liberal, constitutional democracy don’t pass it, and that includes socialists/fascists.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.