Reason Roundup

Did Apple CEO Tim Cook Get Trump To Realize Tariffs Are Harmful?

Plus: Marvel Comics cancels Art Spiegelman, prohibition still doesn't work, and more

|

President Donald Trump had dinner on Friday night with Apple CEO Tim Cook, who may have imparted a critical lesson in international economics on the "Tariff Man" president. While some of his top advisors spent the weekend defending Trump's increasingly nonsensical tariff and trade policy, the president himself appears to have achieved a new level of understanding about how those policies are affecting American businesses.

As he was heading back to Washington, D.C., from a vacation at his hotel in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Sunday, Trump told reporters that Cook "made a very compelling argument" about how tariffs were making it more difficult for Apple to compete with companies like Samsung. Like many American-based tech firms, Apple relies on China to manufacture much of its products, even though high-level jobs in design and software engineering is done in America. As I wrote last year:

Cheap Chinese labor, contrary to popular opinion, is not the source of most of the savings achieved by building iPhones in China. Apple pays about $5 per iPhone in labor costs, but building phones in the U.S. would add only about $10 to that total. The real problem with trying to make an all-American iPhone is that cell phone components and parts are sourced all around the world. The pieces that go into an iPhone cost Apple about $190 to puchase, but would easily cost three times as much to produce in the U.S.

In the past, Trump has argued that Apple should simply do all it's manufacturing in America—despite the fact that doing so would likely make the retail price for an iPhone double or triple. But while Trump never appeared to be swayed by fears that iPhones would suddenly be too expensive for many Americans to afford, it looks like Cook might have appealed to Trump's competitive nature during their dinner.

As Bloomberg points out, Samsung assembles its products in Vietnam and South Korea, which means it can import all those globally sourced component parts without having to pay Trump's tariffs. Apple can't.

"It's tough for Apple to pay tariffs if it's competing with a very good company that's not," Trump said—apparently realizing something that economists have been trying to tell him for months.

It's possible that Trump has taken that lesson home with him to the White House. On Monday night, The New York Times reported that Trump administration officials are considering a series of maneuvers to ward off the threat of a recession—including a payroll tax cut and "a possible reversal" of some tariffs.

But the change in trade policy—if one is in the offing, and it's always difficult to be certain with this administration—may have come too late for some U.S. steelworkers. Despite the fact that Trump's tariffs on imported steel were intended to prop up domestic steelmakers, the opposite has (predictably) happened, as demand has fallen (and exports have too). On Tuesday morning, U.S. Steel announced that it would lay off about 200 workers at a plant in Michigan. That comes on the heels of the company's decision to shut down a blast furnace in Indiana last month.

It's too soon to say that Cook might have ended the Trump administration's misguided experiment with tariffs—but he might have at least made the president notice the mounting the economic evidence that tariffs are taxes paid by American businesses and consumers, not by China.


FREE MINDS

Marvel Comics won't publish an Art Spiegelman essay in which the Pulitzer Prize winner compared President Donald Trump to Captain America villain Red Skull. 

The comics giant had hired Spiegelman, who wrote the first graphic novel to win the Pulitzer Prize, to author an introductory essay for a forthcoming book about Marvel's "Golden Era" of comics that ran from 1939 through 1949. Those comics were highly political in nature—think Captain America literally punching Nazis—and Spiegelman's essay was the same. After being rejected by Marvel, the essay was published this week by The Guardian—you can read the full text here, but this seems to have been the offending paragraph:

"Auschwitz and Hiroshima make more sense as dark comic book cataclysms than as events in our real world. In today's all too real world, Captain America's most nefarious villain, the Red Skull, is alive on screen and an Orange Skull haunts America. International fascism again looms large (how quickly we humans forget—study these golden age comics hard, boys and girls!) and the dislocations that have followed the global economic meltdown of 2008 helped bring us to a point where the planet itself seems likely to melt down. Armageddon seems somehow plausible and we're all turned into helpless children scared of forces grander than we can imagine, looking for respite and answers in superheroes flying across screens in our chapel of dreams."

Is that across the line? Maybe, and Marvel certainly has the right to do as it pleases with its own publications. But if you're going to hire the guy who wrote Maus, don't act surprised when he gets political.


FREE MARKETS

Prohibition still doesn't work. Americans spent an estimated $150 billion on marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and meth in 2016—nearly as much as they spent on alcohol.

Here is Reason's Jacob Sullum on the details of a new report from the RAND Corporation:

The fact that the illegal drug market and the alcohol market are in the same ballpark is pretty remarkable, given that drinkers outnumber illegal drug users by more than 3 to 1 if you look at consumption in the last year and nearly 5 to 1 among past-month consumers. The "risk premium" associated with prohibition helps explain why illegal drug users nevertheless manage to spend almost as much money as drinkers do. The near-parity in spending reflects the profits traffickers can earn thanks to prohibition and the welfare loss caused by artificially high prices. Prohibition enriches criminals and rips off consumers.


QUICK HITS

  • President Donald Trump accused Google of stealing votes from him during the 2016 election—which, of course, he won.

Advertisement

NEXT: "Right to Be Forgotten" as to Court Opinions Rejected ...

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. President Donald Trump accused Google of stealing votes from him during the 2016 election—which, of course, he won.

    Did he?

    1. If your side loses, I guess all fraud is forgiven or something.

    2. Hello.

      Fuck Spiegelman.

      Marvel absolutely did the right thing. If I’m the average consumer I would have read that sentence and quietly put it down.

      You have to be a special kind of ignoramus to continue believing Trump is a literal Nazi. Whenever I hear or read someone utter it, it’s proof they know absolutely jack shit about the history of Nazism and Hitler.

      They take a mild correlation, form an analogy laced with sophistry and expand into fact.

      1. When everyone’s a Nazi, no one is, which means the real Nazis can hide in plain sight.

      2. But is he a figurative Nazi?

        1. No. Next dumb question?

        2. Sure. You can make believe all you want.

          Just don’t call it truth at that point.

        3. What’s the value of calling someone a figurative Nazi when real, non-figurative, Nazis actually still exist?

          1. >>>Nazis actually still exist?

            like the eleven real ones or all the lady-boys playing dress-up?

      3. You have to be a special kind of ignoramus to continue believing Trump is a literal Nazi.

        Not a literal one … but ONLY a fascist SCUM would LIE to defend fascists (and racists)

        The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
        “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
        Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
        Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

        Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry, on the left OR right.

        Left – Right = Zero
        Libertarians have known that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
        As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction.
        While authoritarians, Left and Right, are braying like jackasses, whining like pussies and chirping like dodo birds.

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s back with his copypasta.

        2. This shit don’t make no sense.

        3. I have no idea what happened there. But how about some video that hasn’t been edited. It’s hard to tell exactly what the sequence of events is there.

        4. Not a literal one … but ONLY a fascist SCUM would LIE to defend fascists (and racists)

          So true! Just look at this guy Hihn and his sockpuppets for an illustration of what you just said!

      4. I wonder if Spiegelman similarly wrote about the threat of incipient Fascism when President Barack H. Obama claimed the right to liquidate any American citizen he secretly decided was an “imminent threat.” After all, what is more indicative of fascism: Extrajudicial killings, or nasty, obnoxious tweets?

        1. Obama carefully vetted those himself.

        2. To paraphrase the justification another statesman gave for giving a powerful leader free rein in the exercise of executive power:

          In the face of the burning misery in which the people and the state find themselves, in the face of the gigantic tasks that the economic recovery is placing on us, in the face of all the storm clouds that are beginning to rise in the US and the world, the Obama administration should not be restrained in its exercise of executive power.

      5. “They take a mild correlation, form an analogy laced with sophistry and expand into fact.”

        You just described everything Chemjeff has ever posted here.

    3. I’m not entirely clear on what Google is supposed to have done. But from what I can tell so far, “Google stole [or tried to steal] the election” is about as ridiculous as “Russia stole the election”. Neither was in a position to manipulate any votes. Manipulate voters, sure. But that’s pretty much what election campaigns are for.
      Which isn’t to say that I am not troubled by Google using its services to influence politics, while pretending to be neutral. But a big lesson of Trump is that media companies’ influence only goes so far and voters won’t always buy the bullshit.

      1. I’m not entirely clear on what Google is supposed to have done.

        Not changed their search algorithms for the specific purpose of burying things that reflected poorly on Democrats and enhancing anything, true or false, that reflected poorly on Trump and Republicans.

        And no one is claiming Google stole the election. The claim is that Google is a biased company who is using its formidable power for political purposes. Project Veritas has Google employees on tape saying this. There is a Google employee who has leaked documents to Judicial Watch that say as much.

        I don’t think the answer to this is some government action against Google. The answer is to do exactly what is happening, expose the hell out of what Google is doing. It only works if people don’t know Google is doing it and trust the search results Google gives. Once the public knows what Google is doing, they don’t trust the search results to be true anymore and the manipulation fails.

        1. Do you realize you sound as ridiculous as Democrats beset by Russia fever dreams?

          1. What is ridiculous about it? Google did what it did. We can debate about the effect it had. I doubt there is any way to know exactly what effect it had. Clearly, Google thought it would have some effect or they wouldn’t have been doing it.

            Do you have anything intelligent to say or are you going to continue to show yourself to be a complete moron? Do you not understand what is going on in the conversation? Do I need to explain it using smaller words? I am not sure what to do to help you because your response makes no sense and shows that you have no idea what I was saying. So, let me know how I can help you better comprehend what is going on. I make no promises, but sometimes I can be pretty good at dumbing things down so people can understand it. And I do have a bad habit of assuming people like you are able to comprehend things at a higher level than you can. And for that I apologize.

          2. Chipper denies the multiple studies showing an effect based on ranking of sites. Chipper embraces ignorance.

            1. Jesse is in the grips of Google fever dreams.

              1. You’re literally doing exactly what he said.

            2. JesseAz LIES about multiple studies, THIS study was of …. fewer than 100 people … so …. suckered again!.

              1. What’s the confidence interval/level? 100 people may be fine.

                You… Don’t understand statistics Hihn.

                1. No, he doesn’t. His sanity is also gone. He needs to be committed to an asylum against his will and forcibly medicated with massive doses of Thorazine.

          3. Dude, have you listened to the CEO of Google?

            They all but admit they want to influence the election. Hello.

            Be ‘furbo’.

          4. Basically the arrogant belief that “my tribe is so indisputably right, that anyone who votes for the other tribe must have been manipulated or brainwashed, because otherwise they would vote for my tribe!”

            And yes that goes equally well for Democrats and Republicans.

            1. No its not you fucking moron. What part of this do you not understand?

              And no one is claiming Google stole the election. The claim is that Google is a biased company who is using its formidable power for political purposes. Project Veritas has Google employees on tape saying this. There is a Google employee who has leaked documents to Judicial Watch that say as much.

              Can you just not read? What is wrong with you?

            2. I fear some of these people are hopeless, Jeff. Some brains are not able to grasp that criticizing Trump does not mean you are defending progressives. It’s like trying to teach a dog calculus.

              1. No Chipper, the fact that you can neither understand nor intelligently respond to the points made here means you are likely hopeless not that everyone else is hopeless.

                And don’t be so hard on yourself. I hold out a little hope that some day you might get smarter. Granted, it is a small hope but it is better than no hope.

              2. I think fundamentally they don’t believe in free will as a universal concept. They believe that THEY are making free choices, but OTHERS who make different choices aren’t making them of their own free will, but instead are being ‘brainwashed’ or ‘manipulated’.

                It’s a fundamental arrogance which IMO is incompatible with libertarian thought. I don’t see how anyone can call themselves a libertarian while believing that there is only one ‘correct’ way, or even a limited number of ‘correct’ ways, to make a particular decision.

                1. To be fair, John has never called himself a libertarian.

                  1. To be fair Chipper, no one has ever said you had a functioning brain cell. You don’t even try anymore. Jeff is as thick as a brick but he does try. You don’t even do that.

                    1. How can Pedo Jeffy and Chipper be this stupid?

                2. I think fundamentally they don’t believe in free will as a universal concept. They believe that THEY are making free choices, but OTHERS who make different choices aren’t making them of their own free will, but instead are being ‘brainwashed’ or ‘manipulated’.

                  Fundamentally you have no idea what is being said or what is going on. According to that logic, advertising or any sort of rhetoric must not work or else free will must be denied.

                  It is a little more complex than that. The undeniable fact that people are susceptible to manipulation does not deny free will. it is not a one or the other choice.

                  More than anything you are just a block head incapable of understanding anything except for crude reasoning.

                3. “They believe that THEY are making free choices, but OTHERS who make different choices aren’t making them of their own free will, but instead are being ‘brainwashed’ or ‘manipulated’.”

                  100+; Holy crap chemjeff – that was surprisingly enlightening in contrast to many of your other posts I’ve read. Totally agree with that.

                  I’ve never been under the assumption that parroting parrots, that may have been or may-not have been brainwashed or manipulated, are excused from their own Anti-American (Treasonous) dictative choices just because theirs more than one parrot in the bird cage.

                  Key-word there is being ‘dictative’.. The choice to try and force by law the personal choices of others isn’t, “making them of their own free will”.

                4. Pointing out that Google is partisan and that effects search results means that people have no free will? Or that pointing this out means that any criticism of Trump is invalid?

                  WTF Little Jeffy, that’s quite the leap.

              3. I think you stupidly think you’re getting dinged for being a Prog because of your criticism of Trump instead of your stupid political opinions.

                More TDS from you.

            3. “And yes that goes equally well for Democrats and Republicans”

              No Pedo Jeffy it doesn’t. You stupid weak pederast Canadian.

          5. The difference is that you can see the evidence for Google’s actions and bias yourself; it’s not innuendo, it’s fact.

          6. Chipper, what John said is a proven fact. Did you not read what he said.

            You just don’t like it.

        2. I’m looking at the “Google manipulated votes” part of it. I don’t think that’s any more true than “Russia manipulated votes”.
          I have no objection to calling out Google for any shady and dishonest things they do. Information is good and I’d love to see more people start moving away from Google products.

        3. The answer is to do exactly what is happening

          Thank you! Free markets are what we believe in, and that is as free market a statement as you can make…

      2. Watch The Creepy Line documentary. It discusses the psychological effects of the google ranking system, how people are conditioned to believe the rankings give the correct order of listing and nobody goes past the first page. So listing only negative articles when googling trump compared to only listing positive articles for Hillary, a cognitive effect can take place.

        The fact that boehm chose a tweet that was ad hominem about the study listed is hilarious. There are many college studies that show the search filters can effect views. The study listed merely tried quantifying it. It didnt do a great job. But doesnt mean there is no effect from google.

        1. Watch The Creepy Line documentary.

          “The Creepy Line is written and directed by the filmmakers behind conservative documentary Clinton Cash.”

          Hmm.

          https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/19/17878332/creepy-line-anti-google-facebook-conservative-censorship-documentary-review-right-wing

          1. Noone is suggesting that the effect might have been anything more than minimal they are just saying there may have been an impact. The 2 million thing is dumb, but there is more evidence to suggest that than anything to suggest russia had any impact. And the difference in coverage between those is stark. We heard hyperventilating about russia’s impact on the election for three years wonder why we won’t here anything about this?

            1. Noone is suggesting that the effect might have been anything more than minimal

              Umm that’s not true. Epstein himself, for example.

              This is just the right-wing version of “Big Scary Bogeyman meddled with the election!” but their version of Big Scary Bogeyman isn’t Russia, it is Google.

              Again it comes from a fundamental arrogant belief that “my tribe” is obviously correct, and people who choose otherwise are obviously ‘brainwashed’ or ‘manipulated’ or ‘indoctrinated’, otherwise they would choose “my tribe”. It’s an arrogant refusal to see the merits of alternative points of view.

              1. I was talking specifically about everyone(or most) on this thread of course its my tribe bullshit but if you can’t see the difference between the coverage this gets and the russian influence got I don’t know what to tell you.

          2. Straight to the ad hominem, and not even man enough to actually pull it, just passive aggressively imply it.

            You’re such a fucking bitch.

      3. Just as ridiculous, sure, but we’ve suffered three (3) years of people screeching “Russians stole the election herpa derp!!!” I think a few days of “Google stole the election herpa derp!!!” isn’t completely out of bounds.

        1. pretty much my point. This is dumb it’s good to know that google is probably ranking favorables for dems going forward but I doubt it had much impact on anyone and it’s their right to manage their algorithm any way they feel. The difference I’m interested in is the level of coverage. The google thing can be at least quantifiable because there are at least some studies about the impact of ranking choices, the russia conspiracy was supported by almost no facts and was ran with for three years at a hyperbolic level. Both were dumb only one was taken seriously by serious people.

      4. There is propaganda and counter propaganda. The key is to reduce a lie or half truth to a simple phrase and keep repeating it.

        Twitter is the perfect media for this.

  2. Mostly that they have really bad taste in music.

    Or their poor staffers in charge of it does.

  3. …Trump told reporters that Cook “made a very compelling argument” about how tariffs were making it more difficult for Apple to compete with companies like Samsung.

    So long as no one else talks to the president on the topic, we might see an end to the trade war.

    1. Exactly. Keep him away from Instagram influencers until the trade war is over!

  4. http://www.amgreatness.com/2019/08/16/ben-shapiro-is-wrong-again/

    Ben Shapiro continues to be a putz.

    Ben Shapiro, the man-child most establishment Republicans yearn to see become the new, android-like, baby-face of the GOP, has an awesome answer to these woes that will surely bring more voters to the Republicans’ cause. He contends, “If you had to work more than one job to have a roof over your head or food on the table, you probably shouldn’t have taken the job that’s not paying you enough. That’d be a ‘you’ problem.”

    How could anyone be that stupid and out of touch with reality?

    1. I don’t know his background, but I’m guessing he had everything bought for him until the age of 30.

      1. Yes. He is a little rich Jewish kid whose main accomplishment seems to be his parents buying his way into Harvard Law. While his classmates when onto work in corporate America or be judges or take important positions in government, he went on to make a career out of bear baiting retarded leftist college kids. Nice to see that he didn’t let his opportunities go to waste and is doing something important.

        1. Why do you mention that he’s Jewish?

          1. I like Shapiro. I would also like to point out that Shapiro himself puts his Jewishness front and center. So stating that he is Jewish is not exactly an act of bigotry.

            1. >>>So stating that he is Jewish is not exactly an act of bigotry.

              also not relevant to much other than whether he’s on his way to temple

              1. It isn’t. No doubt he just uses that as part of his persona. It gives him a sort of credibility because Jewish people are mostly liberal and here he is on the right. Jewish Israel haters do the same thing.

        2. Shapiro’s history is online. You can read it instead of offering anti semetic tropes. He didnt grow up rich.

        3. >>>Jewish

          yo that part doesn’t matter.

          1. Shapiro seems to think it does.

            1. still his business not ours

        4. Shapiro has built quite a successful operation that has made him, for better or worse, one of the most famous conservative figures in the country. I’ve never heard of his friends and don’t think that they are famous or having nearly as much of an impact as Shapiro is having, so I’m going to say that Shapiro came out ahead. This probably speaks to the fact that he’s a pretty smart guy.

          That being said, I think he lives in a relatively sheltered world and has very little in common with someone that is struggling just to get by. He’s absolutely atrocious on criminal justice issues as well – its not that he disagrees with my preferred policies, its that his understanding of the way our criminal justice system works is grade school level. I don’t think he’s looked into it very much beyond some surface level data reported by the Justice Department, but he talks about it like he talks about everything – as if he has a total command of the subject. Its so irritating I stopped listening to him.

          1. I don’t think he’s looked into it very much beyond some surface level data reported by the Justice Department, but he talks about it like he talks about everything – as if he has a total command of the subject. Its so irritating I stopped listening to him.

            That is a perfect description of Shapiro.

          2. >>>Its so irritating I stopped listening to him.

            i gave him 5 minutes. he does not have a voice for radio. neither do I, so …

      2. His parents are from a lower middle class background dumbfuck. Hes Jewish so he has rich parents?

        1. That’s the stereotype, so it must be true.

          1. No. He went to private school and his parents worked in Hollywood.

          2. Yup and John bought into it. Bigotry at least.

        2. You are such a liar. He grew up rich. His mom was a TV executive in Hollywood and his dad a film composer.

    2. Oh look, it’s the Right eating its own.

      1. Oh look, Jeff is telling everyone he’s a prog again.

      2. Yes, Jeff some people are not mendacious, tribal, retards like you. Some people actually criticize anyone deserving of it regardless of team. That must really puzzle you.

        You really are incapable of saying anything intelligent or interesting.

        1. I’m totally okay with fair criticism of anyone regardless of team.

          What I’m mocking, is when the exact same thing happens with one leftie criticizing another leftie, your and others’ kneejerk response is THE LEFT EATING ITS OWN. That’s all, John.

          Carry on with the Team Red water-carrying.

          1. Calling Shapiro out for saying something completely stupid and out of touch with reality is totally just like some lefty like Sarah Silverman being eaten by her own rules that she applied to everyone else.

            Jesus fucking Christ Jeff, do you have a functioning brain cell? Were you in some kind of an accident or something. I would call you dishonest but I think you actually are so stupid you can’t see the difference between the two situations. It is amazing how simple minded you are.

            1. Meh, he’s probably pretty tired of seeing his fellow travelers eating themselves, and doesn’t care how desperate and sad his post made him look.

              I mean, he literally admitted he posted because he hates people saying the left are eating themselves. That’s an empty, pathetic existence.

              1. He is just a hack. Defend someone on the right and you are a tribalist. Attack someone on the right and you are just eating your own. It is pathetic.

                1. John has a sadz. Oh noes.

                  1. Lol he got you dead to rights so you had to troll him lololl

                    “John has a sadz. Oh noes.”

                    Ahahah I love when you post shit like this because then I an thorw it in your idiot face the next time you pretend to be a “serious” poster lololol

                  2. No one is sad Jeff. They are laughing at you too hard to be sad.

                  3. I don’t think I’ve ever seen chemjeff rendered speechless before. Wow, nice going, John.

              2. Pedo Jeffy is also pretty frightened of me anymore. He’s too scared to even address me. Bitch as little punk that he is. He’s also mad that I calle chime out for being Canadian.

            2. What did he say that was wrong. Shorter version of what he said is fast food is not a career path. Less than 2% of workers are min wage workers with average time on min wage being 6 months. A worker should always be looking for better paying jobs. Settling for 2 low wage jobs is a mistake, as shapiro said.

              Not sure why you’re pissed off by rational advice.

              1. What pisses me off about it is the assumption that anyone working a low wage job is somehow “at fault” for being there or that someone working two jobs to get by has made a mistake or is anything but laudable for doing so.

                Shapiro is committing a couple of fallacies here. The first fallacy is that every fate dictated by the market is fair and just and the person deserves whatever it is. That is just bullshit. Lots of people working low wage jobs really are the victim of circumstance and are doing the best with the hand that has been dealt them. Fuck Shapiro for assuming the problem is automatically them and anyone who isn’t working what he sees as a proper job is somehow at fault.

                The second fallacy Shapiro is engaging in is the leftist idea that the moral value of labor and supporting oneself is judged by the pay of the job. One of the worst lies that leftists tell is the idea that people who work low paying jobs are suckers. And that is what Shapiro is doing here. If you are out there working two low paying jobs to get buy, you have fucked up and clearly are unworthy of any praise or sympathy. Well fuck him. He is an elitist bastard who couldn’t run a welk stand or do anything other than talk out of his ass about subjects he knows nothing about.

                1. The second fallacy Shapiro is engaging in is the leftist idea that the moral value of labor and supporting oneself is judged by the pay of the job.

                  I wouldn’t call that a particularly leftist shibboleth. The Puritans were notable in their belief that someone who was materially successful was more likely to be one of the elect because God was blessing them in this life.

                  The concept of “accounting,” from what I’ve read, came about because they’d do a monthly survey of their finances as part of the overall means of determining how their walk with God was going.

                  1. That is interesting. I had never heard that. My exposure to it comes out of the left. The left has worked very hard to convince people that anyone who makes an honest living but is not rich is a sucker and being exploited.

                2. The market is neither ‘fair’ nor ‘just’. These are subjective opinions.

                  Labor has no moral value. Labor has no ‘value’ at all.

                  The product of labor is what has value.

                  If people didn’t have such fucked up ideas about labor, and value, and morality, we wouldn’t be having these idiot arguments over whether of not Shapiro is empathic enough.

          2. Yes Jeff we’re aware that you get butt hurt when people mock you

        2. John, no offense but you’re wrong in this case. Shapiro’s background is well documented online. Take a read and you’ll see yourself coming across as anti semetic.

          1. His mom is a TV executive, according to all, the sources I found. I’m not saying that proves John correct at all, but I am saying it makes “lower middle class” seem unlikely.

            1. Keep reading. They lived in a small house, multiple kids to a room. A lot of moneyb spent on their schooling. Heres the trick about California. T.v. executives are all over the place, few are rich.

              And the buying into Harvard? He was in college at 15. He kind if earned his way.

              1. I think I’m gonna pass on the reading, but thanks. I don’t see anything that let’s me easily find out how much his parents made, but if you can clarify that for me I’d read your link.

                “They lived in a small house, multiple kids to a room. A lot of moneyb spent on their schooling”

                That doesn’t say “lower middle class” as much as “prioritize education” to me.

                Tha they spent their money differently doesn’t mean they had no money.

              2. “T.v. executives are all over the place, few are rich.”

                Mmmmm nah. People who work in the TV industry are all over the place. Executives less so. And I didn’t say rich, I said “not lower middle class”

          2. I can’t stand Shapiro. And there is not an anti semetic bone in my body. It is my understanding that both his wife and his parents are connected in Hollywood. Regardless, if he grew up on the hard scrabble streets of Recida or Pasadena, well good for him. The fact that he seems to have made a career out of picking on dumb college kids and is a total putz remains true.

            1. Everyone in southern California is connected to hollywood. But shapiro earned his way for the most part. Full scholarships at 16 to USC and such. Nothing was bought for him.

              Can hate the guy as much as you want, no reason to blindly attack him. That’s the left’s schtick.

              1. It is not blind at all. He is a credential dropper. I am sorry, I have no respect for anyone over the age of 30 who still lists their college as their greatest achievement.

                Beyond that, I can’t stand what people like Shapiro have done to the conservative movement. They have made it into an elitist movement that is totally out of touch with what conservatism should be about; you know conserving things like the culture and morality and the lessons of the past.

                1. They have made it into an elitist movement that is totally out of touch with what conservatism should be about; you know conserving things like the culture and morality and the lessons of the past.

                  When I listened to Shapiro, I heard him defending moral foundations, historical lessons and American cultural institutions on a regular basis.

              2. Well, his point is silly. If you have no job, money is better than no money. And a roof over your head while working two jobs is better than being homeless.

                1. I’d say its commendable. People who would rather earn what little than they have are way more likely to pull themselves out of poverty. We should applaud those who work hard to improve their own lives rather than sitting idle.

    3. Yes, this was a stupid thing to say, unless there’s a context we’re not seeing. If you simply must scold moonlighters on something, at best it would be to make different spending choices.

      1. I haven’t seen any redeeming context. Shapiro is just a putz.

      2. Click through and read the actual piece. It is about not settling for a job just because you have it nothing wrong about it.

      3. How was it stupid? The counter to his statement is the leftist living wage tropes.

        1. The counter to his statement is the leftist living wage tropes

          And the problem is that too many, left, right and other, tacitly accept the idea that the purpose of business is for an employer to pay a living wage.

      4. “Yes, this was a stupid thing to say” — People ACTUALLY taking responsibility for the life they have chosen to create. HEAVEN FORBID… What a disgrace?!?!

        I’m really not seeing anything stupid in what Shapiro has said. Maybe it just upsets that “victim-hood” mentality that grew out of the Obama/Leftist plague spreading across the nation due to all those promises of other peoples stuff being “free-stuff” by all those under-cover slaves called “fat-cats”..

  5. Balko and Boaz have declared this comments section a full-on basket of deplorables. That should be a gut check moment for you people. Class it up.

    NO JOKE.

    1. Maybe Reason should unban longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn. His presence would immediately give this place more credibility.

      #UnbanMichaelHihn

      1. Because there isn’t any problem that can’t be solved by more crazy.

        1. “Crazy”? Are we talking about the same person?

          I’ve found Michael Hihn’s posts were consistently calm, restrained, but always thought-provoking. For instance, did you know the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians?

          1. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln proved that 72.2649829522462436536% of Internet statistics are invented on the spur of the moment?

          2. “Crazy”? Are we talking about the same person?

            I’ve found Michael Hihn’s posts were consistently calm, restrained, but always thought-provoking.

            Thanks for the chuckle.

      2. don’t even joke about that shit man. If you really need your Hihn fix, just go on Xbox Live and listen to some tween reeing.

    2. Do you have a link? Laughing at what a clown Balko is makes for an entertaining reading. I guess to paraphrase ‎Bertolt Brecht, it appears Reason needs to dissolve its readership and elect another.

      1. If true, good.

        Judging from his Tweets, he’s an example of someone who shouldn’t over rate himself.

      2. I like Balko’s work on policing and find it essential. In my opinion he’s gone a little out-of-proportion crazy on Trump, like so many have.

        I do this reluctantly.

        1. That means two things; he reads the comments and it has gotten under his skin. That is quite funny. Thanks.

          1. This was one of the best responses:

            Reason’s comments have always been so bad that there was a splinter group that went and founded its own comment section back in the day to avoid the garbage.

            The irony is that the Glibs have even less use for the political left than some of our regular commenters.

            1. Speaking of people no one cares about…

            2. And consists of some of the worst misanthropes on the board.

              1. It’s not even an accurate statement of why it was founded. They were pissed that Reason made an editorial decision to not cover an instance of policy brutality on sloopy’s mother. It was a big kerfuffle because sloopy and banjos had gotten some national media attention for naming their daughter after the magazine, and sloopy had been a regular donor for several years.

                The Glibs starting up their own site had absolutely nothing to do with the subjective quality of the comment section.

                1. I have looked through their website. It seems mostly a social club and some online drinking buddies. One thing about them is they do not bicker and troll each other like here. Mostly they just snark around about wacky news stories and talk about whatever they want.

                  I don’t post there but interesting place to visit every now and then.

                  Some of the writers there are very creative and people get along.

        2. And the tears and the butt hurt of his leftist Twitter followers is delicious. All of them seem to have lost an argument badly on here at some point and haven’t learned much from the experience.

          1. Granted, leftists who lose arguments badly and do learn from the experience often don’t stay leftist.

            1. Sometimes they remain leftists and become really, really dangerous.

        3. Ouch!

          “LlamaExplodingComputer
          ‏@Hal_RTFLC
          11h11 hours ago
          More
          Replying to @radleybalko
          Reason has some of the best writers and some of the worst commenters on the planet.”

          To be fair, it used to be better….but if a person infected with TDS thinks we suck, I’m good.

          1. Well, also to be fair, Hihn and PB would have to technically be considered commenters

        4. There is some quality intellectual dishonesty by Balko there. The 1619 project thesis is not merely “racism exists” but that American political philosophy is irredeemably tainted by racism from the source.

          1. It’s much broader than that–it’s the assertion that America as a whole is tainted by the fact that slavery was practiced here.

            Like I’ve mentioned before, the purpose here is two-fold: increase support for things like reparations, and find something else to bitch about “TRUMP’S AMERIKKKA!” now that their “Russian collusion” narrative bit the dust. The last one was fully admitted by the NYT editor.

      3. Balko never quite got the comment section here. It’s funny that he still reads it when he gets mentioned.
        Though it is true that it has become pretty full of right wingers fantasizing about murdering their political opponents.

        1. Who is fantasizing about murder Zeb? Seriously, I don’t think that happens. Maybe I have forgotten but I don’t see people talking about murdering opponents very often. Am I missing something?

          1. Yeah, I don’t recall that either, unless we’re talking about that rather famous one where people riffed off a Fargo scene. But that wasn’t so much political.

            Despite the flight of most of the commenters upset with many Reason contributors’ seemingly bananas-going over the Trump administration, the remaining people here are heavily weighted toward pushing back on the publication’s pushback against the president’s policies (and sometimes decorum).

            1. The problem is that the Republicans came up with a President who isn’t getting us into any new wars and is actually reducing the power of government and the Democrats have gone full leftist retard. For people who have based their entire political identity around the idea that both parties are equally evil and a pox on both houses, that is a very hard reality to face.

              It is not that Trump is a Libertarian or that there are not valid libertarian criticisms of him. He is not and there are. The problem is that whatever Trump is, he is so vastly superior to the alternative from any reasonable libertarian perspective that it is impossible to maintain the above it all pox on both houses stance anymore. But, these people can’t give it up. That combined with a large dose of classism and desire to fit in with the Progressive gentry elite has caused them to lose their minds.

              1. Immigration and trade policy has touched an apparently very raw nerve. That’s overridden many other libertarian concerns.

                But I don’t know if opinion magazines like this would do well being complacent. And libertarians aren’t known to be measured in their messaging, so driving away potential converts with outlandish rhetoric is actually about right for the publication.

                1. Immigration and trade policy is a valid criticism of Trump. The problem is that even those are overplayed. Trump is not anti-immigrant. He is anti illegal immigration and wants a system of skills based immigration rather than take all comers. You can reasonably disagree with that but you can’t reasonably call Trump a racist or anti immigrant consistent with his actual positions.

                  It is the same thing with trade. Trump isn’t anti free trade. Trump sees trade as a means to an end and just another tool of international policy. This by the way is the way every other country in the world but the US before Trump views it. Again, you can reasonably argue that international trade with anyone under any conditions is an unmitigated good. But you can’t reasonably argue Trump is anti international trade. Yet, that is exactly what they do.

                  Beyond that, reason refuses to admit there could be any dissent on these issues among Libertarians. Reason acts like anything other than total borderless internationalism is inconsistent with Libertarianism. That is a complete fallacy. Reason would be better off and more persuasive if it actually debated these issues and hired staff who took a contrary position to the majority of the staff rather than have Dalmia or Suderman shreeking about the evils of “nationalism”.

                  1. reason refuses to admit there could be any dissent on these issues among Libertarians

                    That, I think, is the most legitimate criticism of Reason. And I largely agree with the positions they take. But it would be nice to see the occasional piece discussing the practical reasons immigration restrictions might be good for liberty, or something addressing libertarian disagreements about abortion. How about a weekly piece on things Trump does that aren’t terrible that libertarians might like?

                    1. I’ve been asking for this on and off now for some time. In Dalmia pieces in particular.

                      Enough with the screeds and gives us some practical ideas or solutions.

                      Trump is right. Illegal immigration is a problem. It’s an open secret everyone has talked about since fricken Clinton. He chose to make it an issue. He did the hard work, now grow up and come to the table and work with him on it.

                      Spare me all this he ‘hates immigrants’ garbage.

                    2. They won’t do it and the upsetting is they disregard any critiques and basically the entire mises side/tom woods type guys as nonredeemable racists who have no place in the movement. It’s fucking school yard level bullshit.

                    3. They won’t do it and the upsetting is they disregard any critiques and basically the entire mises side/tom woods type guys as nonredeemable racists who have no place in the movement. It’s fucking school yard level bullshit.

                      This times a hundred. They are all leftist journos with huge insecurity complexes angling for a gig at a more established publication. The irony is that if they do succeed in making Libertarianism a leftist movement, it will wind up hurting the left by siphoning voters from the Democratic Party rather than the Republican party where Libertarian voters have traditionally come from. If they were not so shallow and obvious, you would think they were some kind of Roger Stone sponsored deep fake.

                    4. …or something addressing libertarian disagreements about abortion.

                      See Stephanie Slade. She may be outnumbered but she does represent the pro-life side.

                    5. Illegal immigration is a problem.

                      The only problem about it is that it’s illegal.

                    6. ITT thread, Jeff asserts there are no problems with immigration of any kind apart from its illegality.

                      No seriously. He does that. ITT.

                    7. chemjeff,

                      And?

                      THAT’S THE POINT.

                    8. And?

                      THAT’S THE POINT.

                      What’s the reason for keeping free migration illegal unless the migrants have the correct papers from the state?

                      IMO, THAT should be the way that libertarians ought to frame the debate around immigration. Not, instead, trying to justify ways to keep it illegal.

                      It goes back to questioning the very premise on why there ought to be rules and laws surrounding free migration.

                      I see a lot of people simply assuming the validity of these rules and laws, and then complaining why Reason, or others, don’t also accept their premise and try to deal with illegal immigration within the framework of that premise.

                      But what if the premise itself is bullshit?

                    9. PEDO JEFFY!!!!!

                      Your stupid question has been asked and answered dozens of times. But you keep asking over and over? Is it that you are a fucking retard, or you just endeavor to be an annoyance?

            2. Do you all purposefully not read the comments from posters who literally advocate violence and murder against leftists?

              How about the ones who literally advocate for shooting unarmed undocumented immigrants at the border? Because that happens too.

              1. “Do you all purposefully not read the comments from posters who literally advocate violence and murder against leftists?”

                Why the fuck would any sane person read those? What the fuck is wrong with you?

              2. I’m saying I don’t recall seeing it. Admittedly I don’t usually stay around this deep into a thread.

              3. that doesn’t happen.

                1. Yes it has, though not be any frequent commenters. Someone named BambiB used to say shit about shooting illegals on sight. Nemo Aequelis or whatever his name is has said similar things, I believe.

                  1. How can people not see these things. They are posted right here in these comment forums and they happen often enough that even if you miss the occasional article, there they are again posting the same murderous shit in some other article.

                    John and others give me endless amounts of shit for not being obesiant enough to Trump, while they say nothing and completely overlook commenters advocating for literal mass murder. It boggles the mind.

                    1. i mean … i read the threads during the daylight hours so i’m getting paid while doing it … maybe some of the overnight-type posters get rowdy? i haven’t seen calls for mass murder but obviously they exist bc bignose found them

              4. Do you all purposefully not read the comments from posters who literally advocate violence and murder against leftists?

                Do you purposely not link to any of these comments? There is a search function on reason and any comment can be linked to. I have not seen these comments. If they exist, then show them to us. Otherwise shut up and stop making assertions you can’t back up.

                1. There is a search function on reason and any comment can be linked to. I have not seen these comments.

                  No, LotS does it a lot. He tends to pop in several hours after an article is put up to drop those comments. To be fair, Arthur L. Hicklib also likes to brag about how is political opponents will be eliminated, he just does it in less explicit terms.

                  Most people just ignore him, because if he ever did go full exceptional, it’s not like there wouldn’t be a comment trail on how long he was doing it.

                2. I have not seen these comments.

                  Good Lord, John. Just go to virtually any comment section where Shitlord posts anything. He is the biggest one around here advocating for literal violence and murder.

                  That is his whole schtick. He has done it so often and so consistently that I have a hard time believing that you HAVEN’T seen it.

                  1. Again link to it. If you cannot provide a link, you are just lying. Show a link and I will concede the point. Otherwise, your point should be dismissed

              5. Pedo Jeffy, exactly one commenter here ever advocated shooting illegals. It was some troll who was not a regular commenter. The rest of us are all on record as saying we just want them sent back where they came from.

                But keep on with your lies. Why should we expect an advocate for child rapists to be honest?

          2. Oh, there are a few who will often go on about a violent purge of leftists from the country. Maybe they see it more as civil war than murder.
            That doesn’t actually bother me that much. But it’s going to look pretty ugly to people not familiar with the culture of this comment section.

            1. “Though it is true that it has become pretty full of right wingers fantasizing about murdering their political opponents

              “Zeb
              August.20.2019 at 10:39 am
              Oh, there are a few”

              And the walk back begins.

              1. Maybe he misspoke but Zeb is one of the best and most measured commenters here.

                1. And I have said that in the past. He knows I think that.

                  And.. He probably knows I’m right with my criticism here.

                  1. Yes, “full” was a bit hyperbolic.

              2. I also feel the need to defend Zeb. The dude is pretty level headed and calm. Sometimes he says things that are off the mark, just like all of us. At least he contributes to the discussion rather than just trolling the board looking to take shots at people without actually participating in the discussions.

                1. I wish people would write nice things about me.

                  /Sighs. Tries to lick own balls.

                2. I’m sure he appreciates that, but Zeb an defend himself.

                  He’s level headed enough to understand that he overstated his point here, and he is the kind of person who won’t hesitate to admit it if it’s true.

                  Which is why I brought it I the way I did, instead of flaming him. He has a sense of humor. He got it.

                  “At least he contributes to the discussion rather than just trolling the board looking to take shots at people without actually participating in the discussions.”

                  There’s no reason to take a gratuitous shot at Jeff here, that was uncalled for.

                  1. I’m sure he appreciates that, but Zeb an defend himself.

                    And I can defend him too.

                    There’s no reason to take a gratuitous shot at Jeff here, that was uncalled for.

                    I admit this was funny, but I think you got what I was saying here.

                    1. Poor Jeff.

                  2. Pedo Jeffy doesn’t participate in discussions. He reposts the same talking points dozens of times over phrased as questions. He is obtuse and intellectually dishonest. I don’t dignify his bullshit. I just beat him up over it. That, and his professed support for importing pedophiles.

                    And he isn’t even an American. I’m informed that he is Cytotoxic, who is a Toronto college student.

                    So fuck him.

          3. Who is fantasizing about murder Zeb?

            Shitlord, Nardz, etc…

            1. Ah two people, one of whom you’re lying about.

              Sounds about right for you.

            2. I’ve also seen loveconstitution1789 participate in some of this kind of stuff. Also, one guy named Jack Johnson made a post here a month or two ago that prompted several commenters here to something along the lines of “eh, maybe you should take a break from politics.”

              Only a handful of commenters here say things that are frothing at the mouth scary shit, but I honestly think that is just a cathartic exercise for them (although it shows they should probably take a break and do some travel). The comments that are actually scary, like the one from Jack Johnson, tend to be from people that I don’t recognize. They could either be socks or people that think this is an alt-right board before realizing that they misjudged this place.

            3. Shitlord, Nardz, etc…

              Where? Give a link or shut up.

              1. I’m not going to spend hours digging for this, but here’s a few examples from recent articles. He’s toned down his rhetoric recently, but he has talked several times in the past about a future in which all progressives are “lying face-down in landfills”:

                https://reason.com/2019/08/19/thinkprogress-panics-over-unlicensed-cosmetologists/#comment-7900297

                    1. Last:
                      https://reason.com/2019/08/14/sarah-silverman-has-been-canceled/#comment-7895351

                      Again, I’m not going to dig far enough back to find his comments about landfills or piling bodies up to be burned, but he has made them in the past.

                    2. Fair enough for one guy.

                1. Are you fucking kidding me?

                  The way we finally stamp out the last vestiges of slavery is to exterminate progressivism.

                  Whose murder is that calling for?

                  Or this–

                  Not hard enough. Marxism must be criminalized.

                  And saying that he doesn’t care that Silverman may have ruined her career by getting caught by the weapons she uses on others? Did you think he really meant ‘weapons’? When the piece is about her getting called out for blacking up?

                  Even saying things like “most of you should be executed en masse.” and this masterpiece–

                  No Marxist has a right to exist, ever. You should all be deposited into land fills. Your collective lives aren’t worth a single one of my freedoms. Don’t ever forget that.

                  None of this sounds like frothing or fantasizing.

                  And your collective lives AREN’T worth a single one of ANYONE’S freedoms.

                  None of this is threats. It’s all rhetoric.

                  And nothing more.

                  Sticks and stones, gentlemen, sticks and stones.

                  1. I don’t think he’s actually making threats or planning to murder anyone. But it’s still stupid and shitty rhetoric.
                    And why do you think that everyone who doesn’t like Shithead’s violent and anti-liberty rhetoric is a Marxist? Get a grip, man. The whole basis of western civilization is that everyone has a right to exist and everyone’s life is valuable.

                    1. The whole basis of western civilization is that everyone has a right to exist and everyone’s life is valuable.

                      No.

                      The basis of the western philosophies that undergird the US and much of the anti-collectivist right is that everyone has a right to exist and everyone’s life is valuable..

                      This is not universal and is, in fact, being fought against.

                      There are people and philosophies in and of the West that do not believe this.

                      People who want to destroy this.

                      Expressing disapproval, disgust and disdain for these is NOT ‘anti-liberty’. It cannot be anti-liberty to defend liberty from people who are seeking to destroy it.

                      It is not libertarian to aid and abet those seeking to destroy liberty.

              2. Here is just one of many, many, many examples.

                Last of the Shitlords
                June.27.2019 at 1:43 am
                No Tony, it’s right on. The problem is you pukes don’t ever take responsibility for your poor decisions. And really, at this point, most of you should be executed en masse. And I amsot hope that we get a democrat president. Then the people might get uncomfortable Doug to do something abut it and put an end to all of you in the kind of purge this country so desperately needs.

                No Marxist has a right to exist, ever. You should all be deposited into land fills. Your collective lives aren’t worth a single one of my freedoms. Don’t ever forget that.

                https://reason.com/2019/06/26/tulsi-gabbard-wrecks-dems-with-powerful-anti-war/#comment-7832142

                1. Ah, thanks. Much better example than the ones I provided.

                  1. So, again, one guy. And maybe an occasional thing possibly from another. Maybe.

                    Well you sure proved something….

                    1. John asked for evidence, I provided it. No need to get defensive.

            4. Another Pedo Jeffy lie. This has been discussed before. I believe in militant self defense of my rights and the US constitution. Up to and including the employment of lethal force as necessary.

              Our little pederast pal translates that as ‘wanting to kill political opponents’. As he is a dirty lying piece of shit.

              As far as Nardz is concerned, I’ve never heard of him supporting any violent acts outside of self defense either. I’ve never heard of him supporting any vio,ent acts outside of self defense either.

        2. But woodchipper memes are fun.

          1. It’s weird how you don’t complain about the avowed leftists who post here…

        3. Notice the gaslighting going on in that tweet–“The commenters don’t want to acknowledge that racism exists!”

          Oh, we know it exists. A lot of it doesn’t come from white right-wingers, either.

          The irony of the responses to that tweet is that the comment section here isn’t exactly an ideological bubble. People argue and disagree with each other all the time. We actually have commenters from across the political spectrum making posts here, precisely because Reason, to their credit, doesn’t heavily moderate the comment sections.

          Contrast that with most other political blogs where the comment sections are either non-existent (because God forbid that anyone criticize your work) or are heavily curated echo chambers. In that sense, the criticism of the one here is quite telling.

          1. Contrast that with most other political blogs where the comment sections are either non-existent (because God forbid that anyone criticize your work) or are heavily curated echo chambers. In that sense, the criticism of the one here is quite telling.

            Bingo. It is people living in a bubble criticizing those who don’t.

          2. To people that live in a bubble, it must be absolutely terrifying to observe those who don’t.

          3. Yeah, of course racism exists. The problem is people that think it’s the only problem and the only thing that keeps certain racial minorities from getting ahead. Looking at complex problems in a one dimensional way like that is not going to help and is often counterproductive.
            For example, does racism have something to do with black people being disproportionately subject to police violence? Probably to some extent. But it’s only one factor among many and even if you could wipe out all racist attitudes tomorrow, the problem would still exist for people of all races.

            1. The other issue is that the NYT editor blatantly admitted that this series was done because their “Russia collusion” coverage fizzled out. They’ve fully adopted their Squealer status as the DNC’s de facto mouthpiece, and this is just part of the pro bono services they’re providing.

              1. Well, also, Balko got called out for making fucking stupid comments. Like that slavery existed for 250 years and other such bullshit.

    3. They’re not wrong. Some days I cannot tell the difference between the comment section here, and the comment section at a place like Breitbart.

      1. Since you are an idiot, that doesn’t surprise anyone. You should work on that.

      2. That’s because it’s many of the same people. How many of the right wingers on here even self-identify as libertarians? Most don’t. We have a libertarian magazine infiltrated by natcons.

        1. That is right. Anyone who isn’t an open borders socialist isn’t a Libertarian. Libertarian means open borders and welfare for immigrants.

          You called it dude.

          1. It is true that a good number of the newer, more right-wing commenters don’t call themselves libertarian. Which is fine. I want to see different ways of thinking about things. But it is obnoxious to come to a libertarian site and call libertarians idiots for being libertarians. I don’t think you fail a libertarian litmus test automatically if you aren’t for open borders. But it is a common position among principled libertarians.

            1. Chipper is applying a litmus test here. Since when is a fanatical commitment to open borders and a complete rejection of the nation state the only acceptable form of libertarianism?

              1. Well, he’s a purist and close to an anarchist. Which I sort of am too. But I like to think about the arguments against the pure application of principle too. We’re pretty well stuck with nation states and borders, so you have to think about how that’s going to work.

                1. Zeb, I have listened to all the arguments, from Hoppe to Tucker Carlson. I have to say the Tucker types are more honest, and their arguments more consistent. Arguments for restrictions on immigration from a libertarian perspective are terrible and downright silly. They rely on the voters owning the nation’s land, as if that didn’t also justify removing free speech and gun rights, if the voters want that.

                  1. Arguments for restrictions on immigration from a libertarian perspective are terrible and downright silly. They rely on the voters owning the nation’s land, as if that didn’t also justify removing free speech and gun rights, if the voters want that.

                    Which means you are applying a litmus test and ruling anyone who disagrees with you as “not libertarian”, whatever that means. That is your right, but don’t bitch and moan about other people doing the same to you and calling you a progressive.

                    1. Of course there has to be a litmus test, dumbass. Otherwise the label is meaningless. My litmus test is not open borders, but consistent application of the NAP principle.

                    2. Otherwise the label is meaningless. My litmus test is not open borders, but consistent application of the NAP principle.

                      Good for you. Other people have different ones. There is nothing that says yours are compelling.

                  2. ?Arguments for restrictions on immigration from a libertarian perspective are terrible and downright silly. They rely on the voters owning the nation’s land, as if that didn’t also justify removing free speech and gun rights, if the voters want that.

                    How exactly does property ownership allow for voters to remove free speech and gun ownership?

                    1. If land is not owned privately, but collectively, then you don’t really own the right to decide what happens on your property – the collective does. So if the collective decides that you no longer have the right to store guns on the collective’s property (that you happen to be standing on), then tough shit. Same goes for speech.

                      There are real downsides to trying to compare the USA to some giant commune.

                    2. If land is not owned privately, but collectively, then you don’t really own the right to decide what happens on your property – the collective does. So if the collective decides that you no longer have the right to store guns on the collective’s property (that you happen to be standing on), then tough shit. Same goes for speech.

                      Right now, the structure of the Constitution allows for amendments that get rid of both the first and second amendment. Or didn’t you notice that?

                      The nightmare scenario that would come from accepting that we each actually own 1/333,000,000th of the country is where we already are.

                      It’s why there are safeguards built into the Constitution.

                      Because, while they meant it when they said ‘We The People’, they understood that the people can get stupid.

                      But it DOES show that “the voters owning the nation’s land” appears to be where the founders were coming from.

                      And not from the ‘let’s just let everyone do whatever the fuck they like with our border–hell, let’s not have a border at all, let’s all gambol!!’ side of the equation.

                    3. Congratulations, then – you’re a communist. Not like Stalin, but, according to the actual dictionary definition of the word, i.e., “communal ownership”. You’ve given everyone else the right to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your own property, heck, even with your own body. Do you even realize how enslaved you are by your own point of view?

                      Because evidently “letting people do whatever the fuck they want” is too scary a concept for you.

                      Some of us would like to retain our rights to our property, thankyouverymuch.

                    4. Pedo Jeffy, you are a Canadian and have no place in this discussion.

                      Now fuck off.

                    5. Congratulations, then – you’re a communist. Not like Stalin, but, according to the actual dictionary definition of the word, i.e., “communal ownership”. You’ve given everyone else the right to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your own property, heck, even with your own body. Do you even realize how enslaved you are by your own point of view?

                      Again, Jeff, I said nothing about ‘communal ownership’ or ‘collective ownership’–that’s your thing.

                      I said that every individual citizen privately owns 1/330,000,000th of the country. And they can do whatever they want with it.

                      Pretty simple.

                      What? then why can’t you open the border on your 1/330,000,000th? You can. No one will stop you. But the people who have 330,000,000ths near the one you want to open might not want to open theirs. So you’ve gotta convince them it’s in their best interests.

                      Now, understand–you can use YOUR 1/330,000,000th however you want, including squeezing as much of an immigrant onto it as you can. You just can’t violate anyone else’s rights when you do.

                      None of that communal garbage you always run to needed.

                      Because evidently “letting people do whatever the fuck they want” is too scary a concept for you.

                      Because evidently citing things exactly as written is too scary a concept for you.

                      Why is that Jeff? Why is your first recourse always the lie?

                      I said–“‘let’s just let everyone do whatever the fuck they like with our border–hell, let’s not have a border at all, let’s all gambol!!’

                      Some of us would like to retain our rights to our property, thankyouverymuch.

                      Thank you for accepting the idea that I will not relinquish my rights–any of them, including all property rights– to the wave after wave of invaders that you are hell bent on letting in.

                      Most of us are not like you, Jeff. We will not have our individuality subsumed within a collective of any sort (truly, most of us have problems simply cooperating beyond very specific limitations–we are individualistic to a fault, unlike you).

                      You know, Jeff, you remind me of Charles Wallace, after he was taken by IT. You are still making noises as if you’re an individual, even as if you prefer individuality, but there’s nothing there.

                      And we can’t tackle you to try to free you from IT’s control.

              2. God damn do you ever stop lying?

                You are a Republican. Everything that ever escapes your crackly old piehole is in service of Republican politicians.

                Sucking politician cock is the opposite of anarchism.

            2. But it is obnoxious to come to a libertarian site and call libertarians idiots for being libertarians.

              It is indeed.

              But that’s not what’s happening.

              I call ‘Libertarians’ idiots.

              I call ‘liberaltarians’ idiots.

              I call ‘left-libertarians’ idiots.

              Because they ARE idiots. There is no aspect of leftism that is compatible with the individual liberty that libertarianism is based on. NONE. Leftism is, first and foremost, collectivist.

              Open borders is a LEFTIST position that is rooted in an internationalist view. It is utterly incompatible with a worldview that values private property.

              There are libertarian arguments for a ‘high wall, wide gates’ approach–but there are none that allow the notion that there is no border

              The left destroys competition by infiltration and internal destruction–Gramsci.

              The ‘open borders’ stance held by ‘Libertarians’ is an example of this. The adoption of so many identitarian stances is another.

              The mask has been ripped off.

              How does giving Americans’ tax dollars to people illegally crossing our border increase or sustain our liberty?

              How does equating people attempting to utilize their first amendment rights with the gang of thugs gathered for the sole purpose of intimidating or beating them into silence increase or sustain our liberty?

              1. Open borders is a LEFTIST position that is rooted in an internationalist view. It is utterly incompatible with a worldview that values private property.

                Huh, is that so?

                Let’s consider a thought experiment: Alice and Bob own two adjoining parcels of land, and Alice invites Bob from his property onto her property. Every libertarian worth his/her salt would correctly decide that neither the state nor any third party should have any say whatsoever in this decision by Alice to invite Bob onto her property.

                But, suddenly, put an international boundary between their parcels of land, and there are “libertarians” crawling out of the woodwork to try to come up with rationalizations for why Alice should first have to seek permission from the state before having the proper authority to invite Bob onto her property. It is nuts.

                Open borders is the only position which correctly protects private property rights. Anything short of that violates at least to some degree the right of private property owners to decide who they may or may not invite onto their own property.

                1. Because Bob lives in a different country.

                  But I’ll let you in on a little secret, Jeff. People who actually DO live on the border in the few places where such a scenario actually applies often cross back and forth without any need to talk to the government. They do it all the time. It’s not a problem at all.

                  It only becomes a problem when Bob uses Alice’s property as a conduit for him, all his friends and various and sundry other countrymen to move into Alice’s country.

                  We used to have a relationship with Canada that extended a crossing almost that simple to nearly everyone.

                  But it changed.

                  Why?

                  Because not everyone respects the rules the people enact. Some people decide they can do whatever they damned well please and screw it up for everyone.

                  And if they won’t respect those simple rules, what others will they ignore? They’ve already shown they have a unique concept of ‘property’–one that includes the idea that, if they want it, they can just take it.

                  1. Because Bob lives in a different country.

                    So fucking what?

                    But I’ll let you in on a little secret, Jeff. People who actually DO live on the border in the few places where such a scenario actually applies often cross back and forth without any need to talk to the government. They do it all the time. It’s not a problem at all.

                    Fine, then there’s no issue with decriminalizing this type of border crossing. Agreed?

                    It only becomes a problem when Bob uses Alice’s property as a conduit for him, all his friends and various and sundry other countrymen to move into Alice’s country.

                    So what if Alice invites Bob, and his whole family, onto Alice’s property? “No big deal” right?

                    1. No one agrees with you bitch.

                    2. Fine, then there’s no issue with decriminalizing this type of border crossing. Agreed?

                      It only becomes a problem when Bob uses Alice’s property as a conduit for him, all his friends and various and sundry other countrymen to move into Alice’s country.

                      So what if Alice invites Bob, and his whole family, onto Alice’s property? “No big deal” right?

                      It’s already ‘decrinimalized’, Jeff. People who live in this situation AREN’T the problem. Bob and Alice, and Bob and Alice’s families cross back and forth. None of them overstay, and none of them do anything illegal.

                      Bob and Alice aren’t the problem.

                      Dave is the problem. Dave doesn’t live by the border, but Dave wants to cross it.

                      Bob and Alice don’t know Dave, and Dave hasn’t asked anyone if what he’s about to do is okay.

                      He waits until no one’s looking and then goes through Alice’s property and into her neighbor’s house.

                      And then Dave shows Louis how to do it. And Louis is paid by Carlos and Sayid to get them through Alice’s property.

                      And all of this is being done without so much as a ‘excuse us, m’am, we’re coming through.’ to Alice.

                      Alice didn’t invite ANY of this.

        2. “Promote globalist welfare schemes or you’re not allowed in my libertarian club”
          -CMW

        3. It’s weird how you don’t complain about the avowed leftists who post here…

        4. CMW, given that Reason self-defines Libertarianism as pro-enforcement of public accomodations law (they did with gay marriage for a long time), pro open borders, and anti-tariffs, I can agree with a whopping 1/3 of the “true libertarian” agenda.

          And pro open borders is, by far, their biggest concern.

          I used to lean libertarian. Then I met libertarians and figured out why nobody took them seriously.

          1. Reason self-defines Libertarianism as pro-enforcement of public accomodations law

            That’s not what they have ever said. Do you know what definitions even are?
            I wish they would take a stronger stand against such laws too, but they have not said that the laws are libertarian, just that it’s not a fight they think is worth engaging in. And I don’t entirely disagree, assuming the point is to convince people that aren’t already true believers.

            1. That’s not what they have ever said. Do you know what definitions even are? I wish they would take a stronger stand against such laws too, but they have not said that the laws are libertarian, just that it’s not a fight they think is worth engaging in.

              They ‘self-define’ that way because none of these laws are ever worth fighting leftist expansions of government power over. Not one. Not even those that expressly limit liberty.

              And ALL public accommodation laws limit liberty.

              If you constantly refuse to fight for liberty, why not just join the DSA and get it over with?

              1. You pick your battles. Do you think there is any real chance of getting rid of all public accommodation laws? I could see some gay and trans related ones being rolled back on religious grounds. But no way are the race ones going away. No one is ever going to run on repealing the Civil Rights Act (or part of it) and the courts aren’t going to touch it.

                1. Yes, and if you’re claiming to fight for liberty then THIS is your battle.

                  You can’t ignore it. It is at the very center of who you are.

                  But Reason didn’t just ignore it, they accepted it and talked it up.

      3. Agreed. The commentariat seems to be dominated lately with a bunch of conservative-leaning libertarians with pro-Trump and anti-immigration sentiments. And, apparently, tons of free time to spend here.

        1. Then show those people why they are wrong. Fight back and win an argument.

          1. We do, John, on a daily basis.

            But it requires a commitment from you to step outside of your own premises at least momentarily so as to view an issue from a different perspective.

            For example, you and others consistently argue from the premise that the state may justly and legitimately exercise its power to enact laws restricting the free migration of people for arbitrary reasons. But why should we accept this premise as valid?

            It isn’t “because sovereignty” because it is absolutely possible for an authority to exercise sovereignty over a piece of property without keeping track of who comes and who goes from that property. See for example, most municipal parks. Also see, the entire history of the US before the 1880’s.

            It can’t be “because the people demand it” because that same rationale justifies all sorts of abuses by the mob to restrict people’s liberty. If “the people demand” strict border security, their wishes should be granted, but if “the people demand” banning scary looking guns, their wishes should be rebuffed? On what basis? If the popular will is sufficient to demand one thing, why should it not be sufficient to demand some other thing?

            It can’t be “because the economy doesn’t NEED all of those immigrants” because that same rationale justifies all sorts of economic central planning that libertarians and even most conservatives reject. If the state should have the just power to regulate immigration in some effort to create an optimal mix of labor in the domestic economy, then why should it not also have the just power to regulate, in the same manner, food, or housing, or clothing, or any other economic good, in order to create some optimal mix? Why is central planning good for immigration but bad for everything else?

            These arguments are presented on a nearly daily basis and it would be nice to actually get a reasoned response from you all on these topics.

            1. You can’t possibly think anyone thinks you’re interesting enough to read that steaming pile of screed?

            2. Wasn’t your answer to all of this; the word – Invaded?!

              Or – was the answer to all of this; illegal is illegal whether you like it or not?!

              Seems to me – there was a lot of answers about, “Import Non-American get No America.” or something like that.

              Would it be the U.S. for you still if the U.S. was full of Nazi’s and concentration camps? Perhaps —

              “But it requires a commitment from you to step outside of your own premises at least momentarily so as to view an issue from a different perspective.”

              Different perspective in that when some of us refer to the U.S. they don’t refer to a landmass of any given culture/rule but SPECIFICALLY to what defines the U.S. and the people that support it; The U.S. Constitution.

              1. Wasn’t your answer to all of this; the word – Invaded?!

                So what are you saying here? That unauthorized migration of peaceful people is the same as a military invasion?

                Using INVASION!!! here is typically just an example of a type of equivocation fallacy. Trying to get away with using multiple definitions of the term ‘invasion’ in the same argument.

                If you mean “invasion” in a military sense, then no, that is incorrect. There is no conquest of land by migrants to put it under the control of a foreign sovereign.

                If you mean “invasion” in some other sense, like in a nomadic sense, then sure, that’s what it is. But who cares? It’s not a military invasion, so why should this type of ‘invasion’ be prohibited?

                Or – was the answer to all of this; illegal is illegal whether you like it or not?!

                Fallacy of appeal to authority. Charming.

                Seems to me – there was a lot of answers about, “Import Non-American get No America.” or something like that.

                Migration will change the character of America. That is correct. No one seriously disputes this.

                HOWEVER, this outcome should be compared – NOT to some hypothetical case where there is no change to the character of America, because that cannot happen – but to more likely alternative outcomes, with strict border enforcement, where the character of America changes in *other ways*.

                The implicit assumption in this type of argument is that migration through borders will change America for the worse, but migration through vaginas, via child birth of new native-born citizens, will not change America for the worse, or will make things better. Why is this necessarily the case? If these new migrants grow up in a prevailing climate of paranoid xenophobia, I don’t think that would be an improvement, do you?

                So these meme-level type slogans of “import not-Americans, become not-America!” don’t really capture the real argument going on here, do they?

                So I ask again, why is the authority of the state to restrict peaceful migration considered a just exercise of that authority?

                1. “So I ask again, why is the authority of the state to restrict peaceful migration considered a just exercise of that authority?”

                  I think you did a fine job at answering your own question.

                  because, “Migration will change the character of America. That is correct. No one seriously disputes this.”

                  The very fact that most migration to America is done in search of a “better” life/gov/wealth rather abruptly defeats any idea what they bring with them will make things in America “better”.

                  It kind of goes along with trying to teach old dogs new tricks. And goes right along with another comment (I think from you) about how most Nazi refugees supported National Socialism (i.e. Nazi) policy before running from the very monster they had created.

                  1. The very fact that most migration to America is done in search of a “better” life/gov/wealth rather abruptly defeats any idea what they bring with them will make things in America “better”.

                    Only if you think of “America” as a zero-sum game. That if someone comes here and improves their standard of living, that improvement must have come at someone else’s expense, whose standard of living suffered. Since when is that the case?

                    And, yes, migration will change the character of America, but it should be pointed out, EVERYTHING will change the character of America. Time will change the character of America. Births and deaths will change the character of America. Natural disasters will change the character of America. So if you are going to argue that migration will change the character of America in a bad way, then the proper means of assessing whether this change is “bad” is not to compare America with and without migration, but to compare America changed as a result of migration, vs. America changed in some other way in the absence of migration. Because America just doesn’t stand still and not change. There is going to be change via migration, or there is going to be change in some other manner.

                    I argue that while America will change via migration, the negative effects will be not nearly as bad as the demagogues on the right presume them to be; the history of past waves of migration bears this out; and that the other likely alternative, to return to a paranoid xenophobic isolation, would ALSO change America in a way that would be profoundly detrimental, worse than whatever change you imagine America would be in the presence of migration.

                    how most Nazi refugees supported National Socialism (i.e. Nazi) policy before running from the very monster they had created.

                    I was mocking this idea that people fleeing Nazi persecution were supposedly Nazis themselves. That is ridiculous.

                    1. You are a foreigner who has no business criticizing America, or its policies. And every country on earth, including your native Canada, has sovereign borders.

                      Your arguments are laughable, and you are not worthy of rational discussion, as you are both incapable’
                      Of honest rational arguments, and you are a supporter of the importation of pedophiles.

            3. I like this comment a lot.

              1. A cogent and well thought out post. Well done.

          2. Ugh. Was trying to write a reply when the page reloaded in my browser and lost everything I had entered, due to Reason’s crappy web programming — which is one of the obstacles to what you ask me to do, by the way.

          3. I try sometimes, but:
            – I don’t have that much free time to hang out here in the comments section every day. It’s hard to have a balanced conversation when some people seem to have nothing else to do with their day but write comments.
            – It shouldn’t be a matter of winning arguments. It should be a matter of mutual learning through conversation. If I find myself chatting with someone who just wants to win an argument, it’s unlikely to go well.
            – I can’t agree on basic premises if I’m talking with someone who thinks the solution to all political problems lies in logical decision from the non-aggression principle or lacks empathy or concern for their fellow man. I’m not a teenager anymore, and I can’t agree on premises with someone who hasn’t experienced life to the point they give up youthful arrogance.

    4. I feel terrible that people on Twitter don’t like us.

      1. It is a sad, sad day.

    5. Never heard of this chump. But if I want to get preached at by race baiting propagandists I’ll sit tight and wait for Shikha to pump out more drivel.

      It’s quite amazing how “libertarians” cannot find a single solution to perceived racial inequities that don’t involve stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, while shaming along the way.

      White progressives really are a sad sack of suckers

    6. “Class it up.”

      So I was at a cocktail party the other day and guess who ate all the fruit sushi?

    7. There’s a difference between acknowledging that racism exists, and making very stupid and unintelligent comments like, “Slavery existed for 250 years.”

      Yes, we’re going to call out your bullshit. No, we’re not denying racism exists. I almost stopped visiting relatives around the holidays during the Obama administration because some of my kin have nasty things to say about black people.

      1. “Slavery existed for 250 years.”

        I don’t think that’s really where he went wrong. Slavery existed for around 250 years in the colonies that became the US and the US. Seems pretty clear that that is what he’s referring to there.

  6. If Trump actually wanted gun control after the El Paso, Texas, shooting, he’s already given up on it.

    He’s pulled the football away once again.

  7. Can you stay friends with your ex? Should you?

    When they finally legalize polygamous marriage, I won’t have any!

    1. Won’t have any what? Friends?

    2. Speaking from experience, my ex wife is an ex for a reason. I have zero desire to be friends. I’ll give her civil.

  8. http://victorygirlsblog.com/portland-protests-the-antifa-violence-is-a-feature-not-a-bug/

    It appears that Antifa was a bit more violent last weekend in Portland than reason contributor Nancy Rommelman portrayed. During the past week, reason has played up the violence of freedom seeking Hong Kong Protesters and downplayed the violence committed by masked fascists in Portland. How Libertarian of them.

  9. Prohibition still doesn’t work.

    Tell that to those who makes significant scratch off it.

  10. Paul Ryan is officially being swallowed by The Swamp.

    can’t bicep your way out of this one, can you ryan?

  11. What do campaign rally playlists tell you about presidential candidates? Mostly that they have really bad taste in music.

    finally, something all sides of the political spectrum can agree on: we should shame people for subjective tastes.

    1. We should shame candidates who lie about their tastes.

  12. Marvel Comics won’t publish an Art Spiegelman essay in which the Pulitzer Prize winner compared President Donald Trump to Captain America villain Red Skull.

    When you’re too woke even for Marvel.

    1. They should fire any of their creative staff with any leftist affiliations amd hire on,y conservatives and libertarians.

  13. Auschwitz and Hiroshima make more sense as dark comic book cataclysms than as events in our real world. In today’s all too real world, Captain America’s most nefarious villain, the Red Skull, is alive on screen and an Orange Skull haunts America. International fascism again looms large (how quickly we humans forget—study these golden age comics hard, boys and girls!) and the dislocations that have followed the global economic meltdown of 2008 helped bring us to a point where the planet itself seems likely to melt down. Armageddon seems somehow plausible and we’re all turned into helpless children scared of forces grander than we can imagine, looking for respite and answers in superheroes flying across screens in our chapel of dreams.”

    Shorter version, “Orange man bad and the world is going to end whenever the vile public rejects my politics”.

    Pathetic.

    1. The ideas expressed would be laughable if they weren’t so tedious, neurotic, and dated. It’s nothing more than the latest iteration of what the left was complaining about when they claimed that “Ronnie Raygun” and Barry Goldwater were going to get the country involved in global thermonuclear war.

      For all the accolades that Boehm is giving Spiegelman here, everything we really need to know about the guy can be summed up thusly:

      In 1973 Spiegelman edited a pornographic and psychedelic book of quotations and dedicated it to his mother.

      1. In 1973 Spiegelman edited a pornographic and psychedelic book of quotations and dedicated it to his mother.

        All of these clowns seem to have mommy issues (or if they are women daddy issues).

        1. Honestly, it’s not all that uncommon for urbanite Jewish men, particularly ones in mass media, to have a dysfunctional, codependent relationship with their mother that they project onto everyone else.

          Christ, just look at Chuck Lorre’s entire creative output. Every single show he’s worked on or developed has one or more of the main characters and their mother in a constant passive-aggressive snipefest.

          For WASP liberals, issues with their fathers seems to be more the norm.

          1. Christ, just look at Chuck Lorre’s entire creative output. Every single show he’s worked on or developed has one or more of the main characters and their mother in a constant passive-aggressive snipefest.

            In fairness, the Kristine Baransky character on Big Bang Theory is really funny. One of the funnier lines on that show is when Leonard is whining about his brother being mean to him Penny telling him “well you probably had it coming”.

            1. It wasn’t just BBT. Roseanne, Two and a Half Men, Mom–all shows with scolding, disapproving mothers that the children are still hopelessly dependent on.

              Chuck’s actually said that his mother was a pretty vicious woman, so it’s not a surprise that the moms on his shows share the same tendencies.

        2. I look forward to a day when subversives like these become unemployable.

    2. Auschwitz and Hiroshima are not alike.

      1. No they are not. The guy is a complete loon.

      2. people died from burns so they have that in common

      3. Because one didn’t happen?

        /Misek

      4. HEY!

        They’re both places on Earth.

        Ergo, the same damned thing.

  14. President Donald Trump accused Google of stealing votes from him during the 2016 election—which, of course, he won.

    now, if people opposed to him start using the popular vote count as a way to delegitimize him, he would have a point. but he has to wait until then

    1. Get a load of the Russian troll over here.

  15. Perhaps a lesson here. Cook gets Trump to listen on tariffs, Kardashian gets Trump to listen on justice reform. Talking to Trump may work. On the other hand, Eagles boycott visit to White House,
    city mayors say Trump unwelcome. This stuff pisses Trump off.
    Hey, he might be an ass, etc. but apparently he will listen. Apparently, talking to dictators and others with whom you disagree may work better than invective, hate, and doxxing.

    1. I always say that about Lebron.

      Instead of acting like a pretend SJW, call Trump and tell him your problem. He clearly has an open door policy.

      Or else shut the fuck up already.

    2. Trump only seems to listen to people who flatter him in some way.

      And a “discussion” is a two-way street.

      1. Normal person: Yeh but Trump passed the First Steps bill. Why would a racist do that?

        Person with the TDS: Don’t be a tool. He’s doing that to deflect and look good!

        Hoo-kay then!

        1. Amd Pedo a Jeffy doesn’t listen at all. Just spouting the same discredited argument no matter how many times his dumb ass is slapped down.

    3. You mean actually making your case and being reasonable might be a more effective course of action than acting like an angry chimpanzee throwing shit at your zoo keeper?

      Big if true.

      1. But then you have to admit that Trump is not actually pure evil or a retarded orangutan.

        1. Good point Zeb. Nobody wants that.

        2. Trump is the most open, transparent and moderate president we’ve ever had. He has no real partisan positions, he’s owes no real allegiances to anyone as he’s self made, he takes calls about criminal justice reform from anyone, he literally tweets non stop about everything that’s going on in his head yet all these things are considered terrible and unseemly and proof he’s Hitler. It’s quite comical.

          1. he might be a dumb venal orange orangutan but he’s a funny one and has all the right enemies. McCain, the Clintons, fucking neocon never trumpers, establishment media are the right enemies. Also I’m pretty sure he hates John Bolton so much he hired him to make him look like a total ineffective cuck on Iran and NK.

            1. I think he hired Bolton so that he could ignore his advice but always leave our adversaries with the thought that some day he might follow it.

              1. It’s just amazing that a man who has no real convictions beyond caring about his brand, fucking hot chicks and his obsession with making good deals is treated as some kind of existential threat to the world.

                1. He is an existential threat to the establishment because he shows how stupid and incompetent they have been.

                  1. This…over and over again.

                  2. I agree. So stupid and incompetent that Trump won the election.

                2. your comments in this area are all spot on and why i’m a T fan.

    4. This is why even though Trump treated Ted Cruz like shit during the primaries, I’m glad Cruz is the bigger man and talks to Trump– it’s possibly the main reason Trump’s policies have mostly been at least vaguely conservative.

    5. he also listened to students from Parkland school. I don’t remember a single time Obama sat down with any one with different positions except when he had a meeting with congress but all he did there was tell them he was president and that he was god

      1. Maybe it was such a commonplace event that it wasn’t reported. Plus, none of the publicity-seeking Obama opponents would dare be seen talking with him as an equal. Someone like Newt Gingrich or Pat Buchanan would be afraid of being accused of legitimizing Obama.

        1. “Maybe it was such a commonplace event that it wasn’t reported”

          RUFKM?

  16. So are we going to ignore the fact Cook gave one of the most chilling SJW speeches a couple of years back?

    1. True. And no, I have not forgotten that.

  17. More bad economic news.

    The Koch family fortune is currently a measly $124.5 billion, ranking them behind both the Walton and Mars families!

    Unlike my progressive friends, I consider extreme wealth concentration a good thing. So it genuinely upsets me to see Charles and David struggling under this #DrumpfRecession. Hopefully in 2021 when Democrats retake the White House and implement the Koch / Reason open borders agenda, things will improve for our favorite billionaires.

    1. The Kochs have a $124.5 billion and all reason gets is a lousy $15 million or so a year. It is one thing to be a whore but quite another to be a cheap one.

      1. Clearly Nick needs to brush up on his oral skills when he presents his funding request. And it wouldn’t kill him to swallow either.

    2. I hear they are clipping coupons now.

    3. I don’t think any Kochs have killed anyone with their cars, unlike Jacqueline Mars.

    4. It’s funny how little play and discussion the Mars family gets.

  18. http://babylonbee.com/news/under-mounting-pressure-from-snopes-babylon-bee-writers-forced-to-admit-they-are-not-real-journalists

    Under Mounting Pressure From Snopes, Babylon Bee Writers Forced To Admit They Are Not Real Journalists

    The Babylon Bee is killing Snopes lately. It is hysterical. And Snopes is so stupid they keep asking for more.

    1. Now that international leftism is the social conventional wisdom, as portrayed in schools and the mass media, anything that dunks on it is the counter-culture.

      1. Yes. That is what the establishment conservatives and libertarians don’t get. You will never win against them without being subversive. You can’t win and want to be a part of the establishment. The establishment is leftist and must be destroyed.

        1. Yes. That is what the establishment liberals and libertarians don’t get. You will never win against them without being subversive. You can’t win and want to be a part of the establishment. The establishment is right wing and must be destroyed.
          – Antifa

          …Couldn’t help myself

          1. You know I’ve had your back plenty but destruction isn’t the answer, better ideas are the answer.

            Wait til poor American citizens get ahold of stats on welfare for non-citizens during a recession. You want to see destruction? You’ll get it

          2. I don’t mean violence. I mean replaced with a new and better elite. You can’t do that hoping to be accepted by the current elite.

      2. And yet the old hippies and the new socialists still imagine that they are the counter culture like in the 60s.

        1. It’s the only time in their lives where they felt like their existence had any meaning. It’s not a surprise that they’ve idealized it and think they’re still fighting The Man.

          It’s why Boomerlibs in particular get hopelessly flustered when you throw their immaturity back in their faces.

        2. Oblige them. Change things so they are counterculture again.

  19. Maybe Marvel thought it was a bad idea to publish an unhinged paranoid rant wrapped up in purple prose, even if it is by a famous author. Is there anything in that Spiegelman quote that made sense?

    1. Hold it Mickey, you mean they might have thought alienating their customer base for the sake of winning the praise of people who will never buy their products was a bad idea? The nerve of those guys.

      1. Marvel doesn’t give a rip about alienating their customer base–they’ve been doing it for several years now with their Woke Superheroes sales strategy. Marvel’s main editor even admitted that this had backfired on them, but they’re going to keep pushing it because Marvel has been thoroughly taken over by the Soy Brigade and Dangerhair Regiment, and the comics are now propaganda vehicles to push radical left political positions.

        1. And don’t forget the Tattoo Battalion.

        2. I was never a fan of comicbooks. But, the ones I have seen from the last few years seem really bad. I mean almost a satire of what the typical woke moron would write.

        3. I don’t entirely fault them for trying. Maybe there was a market there or at least a small but profitable niche. They gave it a shot and now will be a chapter in Marvel’s long anthology.

          That goes for all corps who go ‘woke’. They’ll try because they’re not sure. Others simply see it scores them ‘good will’ points without losing much. See Nike. Gillette I’m not sure.

          1. Maybe there was a market there or at least a small but profitable niche.

            There really was never a market there because the primary consumer has always been teenage males. They probably thought that it would expand their consumer base, but all it did was alienate the people who actually purchased most of their product.

            The SJWs just wanted to claim Marvel as conquered territory and move on. Any actual business success isn’t relevant and incidental if it happens. That mindset was a big part of why Gamergate blew up the way it did.

  20. We should have had Hillary Clinton as President. She was literally the most qualified candidate ever, with an unblemished record of foreign policy success. Instead we got Putin’s Puppet, and the results have been predictably awful.

    Trump’s True Foreign Policy: Chaos

    “It took 70 years to build the interagency process that brought structure and discipline to U.S. leadership. It took less than three years for one man to shred it.”

    I sure do miss the version of the GOP that produced leaders like Bush and McCain.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

    1. You’re absolutely right but I can’t understand why you are holding back the news that Trump only wants Greenland so he can let the Russkies establish a secret new submarine base there to threaten America. [This only after his plans to sell the Norfolk Navy Base to Putin were withdrawn when Hillary threatened to reveal the Trump videos of him and Putin engaging in homosexual acts while cavorting in Majorca in 2016.]

  21. “Did Apple CEO Tim Cook Get Trump To Realize Tariffs Are Harmful?”

    That headline is an elitist fantasy. It’s not enough to lord over the deplorables–you have to lord over their hero, too! Meanwhile, if you want to believe the world works that way, that’s embarrassing all by itself. It’s hard to take someone with that worldview seriously.

    Oh, and you know what else is embarrassing? The assumption that people in the rust belt don’t want a trade war with China because a trade war with China is bad for them. They’ve been spoiling for a trade war with China for decades, but now they have one, the steelworkers are finally ready to listen to the elitists who legitimately should be lording over them?

    That’s bullshit.

    I suspect people in the rust belt are a lot like farmers.

    “DES MOINES, Iowa—As President Trump maps out his re-election bid, farmers in this battleground state are backing him even with the U.S. Farm Belt bracing for deeper pain from his trade fight with China.

    In and around the livestock barns, agriculture building and an antique-tractor collection at the Iowa State Fair in recent days, farmers almost universally expressed support for the president and pledged to vote for him in 2020.”

    —-WSJ, August 14, 2019

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-farmers-stick-with-trump-despite-trade-war-11565775003

    This shouldn’t be surprising–unless if you believe in that embarrassing notion about how Americans faint at the sight of blood. World War II veterans must be the ones who are most opposed to World War II–since they’re the ones who suffered the most, right? No, that’s bullshit. If anything, Americans are prone to sunk costs fallacies.

    Plenty of them are willing to suffer big sacrifices–they just don’t want those sacrifices to have been for nothing. World War II was a winner. We’re not sure what we got for the Vietnam War, but whatever it was, it doesn’t appear to have been worth the sacrifices. Support for Trump’s trade war still seems to be strongest among those who are being hurt by it the most, and that’s because they still believe it’s like World War II–that it’s likely to be worth the sacrifices.

    If you don’t understand this about the American people, you probably don’t understand much else about them either.

    1. If anything, Americans are prone to sunk costs fallacies.

      That is an excellent point Ken.

    2. “Plenty of them are willing to suffer big sacrifices–they just don’t want those sacrifices to have been for nothing.”

      Sounds like the MMT driving the democratic party… Gotta crack a few million eggs to feed the country

    3. Ken….this was one of the most cogent statements I have read to date, when you wrote: Support for Trump’s trade war still seems to be strongest among those who are being hurt by it the most, and that’s because they still believe it’s like World War II–that it’s likely to be worth the sacrifices…If you don’t understand this about the American people, you probably don’t understand much else about them either.

      Nobody argues if tariffs are harmful; they are, 100% no debate.

      The better question to ask to gauge how Americans see it
      Will the harm from tariffs to America be LESS THAN the harm to America by Red Chinese serial lying, cheating and theft? The answer to that question is much, much easier: Hell yes!

    4. Both WWII and Vietnam required a considerable propaganda effort to gain public support. If it were not for Pearl Harbor and Germany’s subsequent declaration of war against the US it is doubtful that we would have entered the war. So it is with all of them there is nothing unique about it. Look at Iraq.

      The trade war with China has a similar effort behind it. I remember when Japan was the villain in trade. Now Japan good China bad. There are always elements of truth in such efforts but to whip up public support you need propaganda.

      I hope Tim Cook talked some sense into Trump.

      To quote the philosopher Ferris Bueller “I do have a test today, that wasn’t bullshit. It’s on European socialism. I mean really, what’s the point. I’m not European. I don’t plan on being European, so who gives a crap if they’re socialists. They could be fascist anarchists and it still doesn’t change the fact that I don’t own a car.”

      1. Both WWII and Vietnam required a considerable propaganda effort to gain public support.

        All major conflicts feature propaganda efforts to maintain support, but this statement is inaccurate. Gaining public support for World War II was a non-issue after Pearl Harbor; even the America Firsters got on board, most notably Charles Lindbergh.

        1. Well there wasn’t much choice after Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war. To gain or maintain has the same goal. The idea is to increase support once the war is a fact. Eventually the public would not support Vietnam. It is still propaganda and not unique.

          I don’t worry about gen x, they are doing fine. The millennials I kinda worry about.

          The movie was just a movie but one thing I remember is Ferris had two good qualities, confidence and loyalty. If the kiddos got that much out of it good enough.

      2. And honestly, Ferris Bueller embodies why Gen-Xers have been particularly useless when it comes to even maintaining the most basic functions of society–because like Bueller, Gen-X confuses their solipsistic, cynical detachment with wisdom.

  22. “Is that across the line?”

    Well it’s certainly hyperbole and overwrought bad writing. Over the line? meh. who cares?

  23. Boehm roundups are trash. Missed the survey if manufacturers showing the tariffs are not having a big effect, huh boehm? Out of your way to highlight a liberal calling trump the red skull and a nazi huh?

  24. I was standing in line at a large international airport the other day, observing an advertisement that had two good looking guys looking at an iPad, one man with his head leaning on the other’s shoulder affectionately. It wasn’t an ad specifically designed to highlight homosexuality.. it was just an ad for life insurance. I thought it was interesting that this kind of thing has become so accepted in modern metropolitan areas. Neat. I like it when its just shown as normal, not a “OMG look at this we did an ad with gay people, everyone look!”

    While I was observing this ad, some guy behind me was talking to another guy. “Hey man, I was just reading something they were writing about Trump. All lies man, all lies.” The other guy responded, “yep, its all lies.”

    Interesting times we live in. I wonder how weird the 2020 election is going to get.

    1. I think most people don’t give a shit about gays anymore. They didn’t want gay marriage for the most part but have lived with it on the assumption it would finally get gays to shut up and let people go on with their lives. Gay activists don’t seem to be dealing with this situation very well.

      1. Honestly, I wouldn’t agree with that. When you look at a lot of recent cases, the ones who really seem to be making real problems for people are mentally ill trannies and straight left-wing enablers in the LBGT lawfare racket.

        1. I believe they called this “the slippery slope”

        2. I said “gay activists”. Yes, they have moved on to Trannies. And that I think is going to prove to be a bridge too far. The shame of that will be if gays who had nothing to do with it are harmed because of the resulting backlash and the activists associating gays with trannies even though one has nothing to do with the other.

    2. I thought it was interesting that this kind of thing has become so accepted in modern metropolitan areas. Neat. I like it when its just shown as normal, not a “OMG look at this we did an ad with gay people, everyone look!”

      I’m with you. There are quite a few commercials featuring mixed-race couples now too.

      1. There are also a ton of athletes who are mixed race. And no one cares. No one bats an eye that Patrick Mahomes’ or Blake Griffen’s mothers are white and father’s black. I am not sure anyone outside the race obsessed even think about what “race” guys like that are.

        Intermarriage does more to end racism than a thousand years of civil rights laws and affirmative action ever could.

        1. Indeed. I have several friends that are mixed race and they are the most level-headed people that I know. Even politically. All of them had a lot of exposure to different political positions growing up, so they tend not to label those they disagree with as evil. I’ve seen more acceptance of the world and its gray areas by my mixed race friends.

          I’m only talking about my own anecdotal experience, of course.

        2. The first interracial kiss on TV was when Ohura kissed Kirk on Star Trek. That was 1968. It was a huge deal then.

          There are still pockets of bigotry, prejudice and racism but we have come a long way.

  25. http://freebeacon.com/politics/moderator-shocked-by-lack-of-native-american-enthusiasm-for-warren/

    The moderator at a Native American forum was shocked on Monday after Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) received very little enthusiasm about her potential election.

    You can’t make this shit up anymore.

    1. Did you read her statement regarding her years of claims of NA ancestry to advance her career? It basically boiled down to, “Mistakes were made, but the real reward was the friends I made along the way.”

      1. That was no mistake.

        She consciously did so of her own free will.

        She saw an opening and took it like the opportunistic and parasitical lefty obsessed with race she is.

        1. She can’t admit it because by doing so, she’s essentially admitting that the last 40-plus years of race-based hiring policy is deliberately designed to exclude white people, regardless of their actual abilities.

          1. Were she to fall on it, both edges of that sword would be sharp: race-based hiring is designed to exclude white people and despite all the race-based hiring the most prominent Native Americans are people like herself, Elvis Presley, Will Rogers, and Iron Eyes Cody rather than people like Benjamin Bratt, Adam Beach, Chief Dan George, Chief Yowlachie, or Chief Thundercloud.

      2. You can’t get hired as a tenured track professor at a third rate law school much less Harvard if you didn’t attend a top ten law school and work a clerk at the federal level. But somehow we are supposed to believe that Warren and her Rutgers law degree got hired at Harvard without her claiming to be a “female native American”? Yeah right.

        1. The thing is, there’s a track record of her really being a banal, run of the mill disingenuous hack.

          She doesn’t exude she’s a great lawyer or thinker. Just my impression.

          Like Obama. He *sounded* nice but it was all empty rhetoric.

          Great orator my ass.

          1. She is a total hack. She made her reputation from a law review article claiming that medical costs were driving large numbers of people into bankruptcy. The article has been debunked numerous times but it told leftists what they wanted to hear and that is all that matters.

            1. Yeh whatever happened to all the medical bankruptcy rhetoric and allegations? It’s strange how that died down. Did Obamacare actually solve that?

    2. “received very little enthusiasm ”
      Really? Today’s propaganda from the Assoc. Press says she “received a warm reception.”

    3. She got 1/1024 enthusiasm.

      1. Actually, they gave her 1024/1024 enthusiasm but took 1023 back.

    4. Only 1 out of 1024 attendees were enthusiastic about Warren?

  26. If Tim Cook got Trump to realize that tariffs are bad for America, then he is a very evil man.

    Look, America is the source of all evil in the world and always has been. It was founded on slavery, thrived on slavery, still exists solely as the source of bigotry and racism and white supremacy colonialism – it is simply an irredeemably horrible, evil, deplorable place. Donald Trump is doing his level best to destroy this country and for that he should be applauded.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, keep insisting they love this country and they’re working hard to preserve it, to keep it safe from Donald Trump. What evil bastards! What kind of monster wants to prevent Donald Trump from destroying the greatest evil this planet has ever known? Evil monsters, that’s who.

    1. Donald Trump is doing his level best to destroy this country

      And make the white supremacists pay for it.

  27. Lmaoing at the Red Skull comparison because in a more recent series (Secret Empire) where Captain America is a Hydra operative, Red Skull gets extremely political. It’s a poor attempt at satire because it makes extremely logical and correct arguments in favor of his positions. You eventually see him strapping a young white follower with a suicide vest and that’s when the author jumped the shark, comparing basic, rational concerns of the nation-state and its cultural identity, embodied in law, with literal jihadis.

    1. It’s a poor attempt at satire because it makes extremely logical and correct arguments in favor of his positions.

      Yeah, that narrative backfired in a big way. Red Skull correctly points out that Cap thought he was preserving the “white picket fence, Mom, flag, and apple pie” version of America that existed as a national ideal following the end of World War II, but in fact was defending a decadent, corrupt society that went out of its way to shit on everything that Cap held dear.

  28. Maybe Tim Cook can convince everybody that all tariffs are bad, not just Trump’s. Then we can cancel all tariffs and take a step toward Libertopia. I’m sure there will be no objections to removing all tariffs because Tim Cook proves they are bad.

    1. That’s NOT what Scott did.

  29. did anyone *trust* Google?

  30. Eric quotes TRUMP on Trump’s tariff fuckup … which (again) causes Trumptard “brains” to EXPLODE in rage, bellowing and punishment.

    Meanwhile, it’s over. Trump is finished. Dead in the water. Fox News saw Trump’s ship sinking and … abandoned ship.

    FOX NEWS: Trump in big trouble for 2020. Political and economic warning signs there for all to see

    The strong economy Trump touts is anything but and the signs are obvious.

    First, Trump cut taxes and said it would pay for itself. Instead, it has exploded the deficit. President Barack Obama inherited a trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2009, but it was down to $600 billion by the time he left office. In just two years, thanks to tax cuts, Trump has taken the deficit back to a trillion dollars. And on “Fox News Sunday,” White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow admitted that the administration is looking at more tax cuts.

    Next, Trump said China would bear the costs of his trade war with them. Really? Trump’s suspension of additional tariffs is an admission that they have been hurting American consumers despite his claims to the contrary. In the Fox News Poll, 46 percent said tariffs were hurting the economy. Americans know the cost of everything has increased while their paychecks haven’t increased.

    The fact is Trump’s best economic growth is 3.5 percent in two quarters out of the 10 quarters he’s been in office, CNBC’s John Harwood reports, adding that same growth figure, 3.5 percent, is Obama’s seventh best quarter, George W. Bush’s eighth best, and Bill Clinton’s 17th best. Yet, Trump claims his economy is the best ever. Far from it.

    If that wasn’t bad enough, a staggering 59 percent of voters think Trump is tearing the country apart.

    Fox News leaves Trumpsters all alone, twisting in the wind …

    Obama inherited the 2nd worst economy since the 1930s
    Trump started with the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President … FROM OBAMA … and is WORSE than Obama on the economy and the worst EVER on debt, which he campaigned on PAYING OFF!

    Trump is now PROVEN the biggest clusterfuck since FDR. By Fox News.

    Left – Right = Zero

    1. Have you ever tried not being a lunatic? Just curious.

      1. No he doesn’t. He is the most legitimately crazy person ever to post on here.

        1. I’m not familiar with the origin of the legend of STEVE SMITH, but this casts considerable shade.

      2. Have you ever tried not being a lunatic? Just curious.(SNEER) Trumptards REJECT facts AGAIN!
        Now clam FOX is FAKE NEWS,
        Earth is flat.
        And Trump’s 39,000 voters was a RECORD Electoral College margin.

        Bullies hang together … as the new Brownshirts,

        1. You could have just said no.

          1. even-odds on whether he could have.

        2. You forgot left – right = zero.

          HOW COULD YOU?!

      3. Pi know where Hihn lives. Seriously debating to have local mental health officials visit him for a welfare check. My guess is this will enrage him and he won’t be able to control himself any more than he can control his bowel functions.

      1. dude. more…

        More HUMILIATION for GOOBERS!!!

        Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazis. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof PSYCHO PRESIDENT

        The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs


        “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
        Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
        Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.
        Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry, on the left OR right.

        Left – Right = Zero
        Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
        As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction.
        While authoritarians, Left and Right, are braying like jackasses, whining like pussies and chirping like dodo birds.

        I DO have more PROOF ….

        1. I DO have more PROOF ….

          Funny, that copypasta is all you’ve ever posted.

        2. “More HUMILIATION for GOOBERS!!!”

          Yeah, goober, if you had any decency, you’d be at least embarrassed and likely humiliated.

        3. Ooohhh…….MORE PROOF!!!!!

          I don’t believe you.

    2. “Mary Anne Marsh is a Democratic political analyst ”

      How much weight should I give that in regard to her opinion?

  31. But if you’re going to hire the guy who wrote Maus, don’t act surprised when he gets political.

    I don’t have a problem with political, it’s the breathtaking stupidity that’s utter garbage.

    Wishing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were works of fiction is pretty political but makes some sense. Wishing that Captain America would come to life and heroically thwart all of Orange Skull’s political machinations? Confused and stupid.

    1. P.A. didn’t quite go that far.

      1. You’ve got it backwards. He goes that far and further and then fails to reel it back in. “In today’s all too real world,” he ranks immigration policy snubbed by district courts with Auschwitz and Hiroshima.

  32. Nothing on the far left leaders of the Dems condemning Israel for suppressing human rights while refusing to discuss the P.A’s decision to ban homosexuality?

    I mean, if the Indian P.M being a big ol’ meanie to Kashmir makes the cut, why wouldn’t this?

    1. Umm, they BOTH suppress human rights … but Israel is the very worst in world history … committed the ONLY mass genocide of an entire culture (Canaanites), as the first theft of “their” land.

      How many assholes will scream “ANTI-SEMITE” …. for quoting FACTS from the Holy Bible?

      MORE …

      Even then, Jews ruled the land for fewer than 300 years, over 2000 years ago. They lost the land on their own fault. Solomon had sold his own people into slavery, which led to a civil war at his death, creating two Jewish kingdoms, Judea and Israel. When the Assyrians invaded Israel, their fellow Jews REFUSED to help them.
      JEWISH source:
      https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-two-kingdoms-of-israel

      More …
      It was Christian Crusaders who first expelled the Jews from Jerusalem (the ones they didn’t slaughter) and Muslims who allowed them back in — for which they were later rewarded … HOW? This was AFTER the First Holocaust, the Rhineland Massacres, also committed by Christian Crusaders (attacking those “Christ Killers”)

      You’re also likely profoundly ignorant of Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Your brainwashing probably also ignores that Israel still maintains a military blockade on Palestinian ports, that a blockade is an act of war, and that followed over 20 years of military occupation,

      So ISIS recruits by saying there’s a Judeo-Christian War in Islam, pointing to almost daily proof in American media — and the raging hatred and lies by right-wing Islamophobic goobers, precious snowflakes who don’t know ONLY the Old Testament commands the killing of all infidels (Deuteronomy 13).

      As Moses weeps in silent shame, alongside Christ doing likewise.

      1. Israel is the very worst in world history

        Fuck, man, Stalin, Robespierre, and Mao must be spinning in their graves for being overtaken by a small country of mostly Eastern and Central European Jews.

        1. Genghis Khan is wondering if he is just a joke.

          1. Well, Hihn certainly is.

            1. Amd people look down on me for wishing others dead. Hihn is an argument for my sentiments.

      2. “committed the ONLY mass genocide of an entire culture (Canaanites)”

        and they were so advanced too, with their practice of post birth abortions

        1. Look, another Comstock Law Republican who read the Holy Bauble in the original Aramaic, knows all about resurrections and Rapture and is here to repeal the 14th Amendment. How subtle!

        2. but Israel is the very worst in world history … committed the ONLY mass genocide of an entire culture (Canaanites), as the first theft of “their” land.

          Weird how the bible becomes an ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL AND CORRECT resource whenever it suits the purposes of the left–and at all other times is ‘ignorant superstition’.

  33. Sorry, but Trump just tweeted another denial that the tariffs were affecting American consumer prices.

    1. And you are… triggered!

  34. Marvel Comics won’t publish an Art Spiegelman essay

    That’s not really ‘cancel culture’. Had they fired him, torn up a contract, refused to ever work with him again… that’s ‘cancel culture’.

  35. Maybe ten comments on here regarding the article, this place is overrun with troll bots.

    Antway Tim Cook is now the authority on tarrifs? He doesn’t even understand the company that he is supposed to be leading. Eric needs to get a life because the breathless anti tarrif bleating has become intolerable. If you don’t understand both sides of the tarrif discussion you shouldn’t be writing about it.

    1. True dat. Bleating about tariffs only entrenches the individual income tax the feds use to confiscate your car, bank account and home (while leaving you liable for the mortgage). There was a huge coke bust, and Wall Street is again in a slump, just like in 1929, when the illegal economy was larger than the federal budget. The major trials were kept as secret as possible and dragged on for about four years, long enough to change Administrations.

    2. Antway Tim Cook is now the authority on tarrifs?

      Insofar as Tim Cook is the authority on rent seeking on behalf of his company: he’ll accurately tell Trump what’s good for Apple, along with the usual blather that what’s good for Apple is good for the country.

  36. Cook doesn’t? When Steve Jobs died everyone thought it was over for Apple. The stock was selling for $54 a share then. It closed at $210 today despite all of this tariff crap. At a P/E ratio of 17.9 should be higher.

  37. Were it legal, I’d bet money Eric has never read a tariff act cover-to-cover. The Jacksonian-era ideal of a 10% cap amounts to a 20% protective tariff in that ocean shipping ran another 10%. They also paid off all debt without an income tax, and yes there were roads and railroads all over America before the Wilson administration announced the first income tax levies (and all US stock markets promptly crashed and shut down for months). The Herbert Hoover crash, depression and banking panics were due to prohibitionist asset forfeiture, not the 1930 increase in sugar rates.

  38. Cheap Chinese labor, contrary to popular opinion, is not the source of most of the savings achieved by building iPhones in China. Apple pays about $5 per iPhone in labor costs, but building phones in the U.S. would add only about $10 to that total. The real problem with trying to make an all-American iPhone is that cell phone components and parts are sourced all around the world. The pieces that go into an iPhone cost Apple about $190 to puchase, but would easily cost three times as much to produce in the U.S.

    And why is that? Oh, right: it’s because of higher wage costs that go into the parts, plus regulatory costs, taxes, and other government created overhead.

    The comparative advantage that makes trade between the US and China beneficial are the fact that China is a totalitarian communist state, and that the US is an overregulated social welfare state with a looming debt crisis. Reason apparently wants to take full advantage of this “comparative advantage”.

    1. Nobody can make a pencil.

      Milton Friedman

      That is the best lecture on economics ever. In ten minutes. Now imagine what it takes to get this amazing thing under my fingertips.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU

      1. That is the best lecture on economics ever. In ten minutes.

        It’s a great lecture, in particular if you don’t know much about economics. What I can’t figure out is why you think it’s relevant to tariffs between the US and China.

        Do you believe that US cannot create iPhones without no-tariff imports from a communist dictatorship using slave labor? Or what?

        1. Are the tariffs designed to effect regime change and system of government in China? Nobody, not Trump nor anyone in government has said so.

          So we can scratch communist dictatorship right off that list.

          Slave labor is up to you to prove. Workers in China may be paid less than those in America. Wages in China have increased at an astonishing pace over the past 30 years.

          https://tradingeconomics.com/china/wages

          Labor cost is not what Tim Cook is so much worried about. To make his pencil requires many other variables. To give government, not just government but one man who calls himself “the chosen” with a twitter account, control over cost, resources, and prices always ends up badly.

          Get government off our backs. Let the people here work and we will do just fine. I am an idiot capitalist who knows nothing.

  39. i think Apple CEO is absolutely right tariifs are not good for America because other countries will also imposed taxes on the America
    https://www.macappsworld.com

Please to post comments