Donald Trump

Let Us Now Thank Donald Trump for Revealing Brutal Truths About How Power and Privilege Operate

The president has turned "business as usual" into a national scandal.

|

As the impeachment of Donald Trump becomes increasingly popular—45 percent of Americans now support the investigation of the president over his dealings with Ukraine—nobody knows exactly how it's all going to play out. But this much is gloriously clear already: The behavior revealed in call transcripts, the emerging parallel story line about Joe Biden's son Hunter, and Trump's refusal to go gentle into that good night are forcing us all to come to terms with ugly truths about how power operates.

Because Trump is cartoonishly simple, he is revealing of how things actually work; we can see in him the moves and machinations that more sophisticated and suave operators are able to mask. The real test for the country is whether we will use this moment to admit we've been living all sorts of lies that we choose to obscure with soaring political rhetoric and false politeness. Whether Trump is removed by the Senate, fails to be reelected in 2020, or serves a second term, we need to restructure the size, scope, and spending of government so the political class isn't able to wield so much power.

Trump's presidency is like an immersive production of Eugene O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh, a play set in a New York saloon populated by beaten-down drunks and prostitutes who swill booze all day while lying to themselves that they're about to get their lives back on track and finally fulfill their dreams. A couple of times a year, a hard-drinking traveling salesman named Hickey comes to town and leads the rummies on a bender. But as the play unfolds, Hickey arrives sober as a judge and methodically works his way through the characters, forcing them to acknowledge they are living total lies before admitting that he has murdered his wife and turning himself into the police (The Iceman Cometh debuted in 1946, so all spoiler alerts are off.) Like Hickey, Trump is forcing us to come to terms with the vast gulf between the falsehoods with which we comfort ourselves and the realities we know to be true.

In the already endlessly dissected call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, it's patently clear what Trump is up to. He's asking for dirt on Joe Biden, a domestic political opponent. Whether that action is an abuse of power or the mere exercising of power is a fair question. Trump doesn't defend what he was doing in the call as much as declare that what other people do is far, far worse. Hence the speed with which he tries to shift the conversation to Joe Biden and the various deals his son Hunter has secured over the years, including a plum gig with a Ukrainian energy company.

The strategy is not subtle, but it is effective, as even anti-Trump observers grudgingly acknowledge. At the end of a long Vox piece tellingly titled "Hunter Biden, the black sheep who might accidentally bring down Trump, explained: A troubled guy at the center of a fake scandal that became a real scandal," Matt Yglesias helpfully corrects many of the specific accusations hurled by Trump at the Bidens, but in the end he concludes:

Some aspects of Hunter Biden's career and life story are a bit extreme…but the kid who trades on family connections to make money is much more a case of business as usual than an extraordinary scandal. "Business as usual in Washington," however, is normally the subject of scorn in American politics. Any focus on Joe Biden's son is likely to remind people of at least some of what they don't like about it.

Trump is great at reminding people about all the things they don't like about "the swamp" in D.C. And while Trump may well be removed from office, it's much more likely that Joe Biden is the real casualty of the telephone call now at the center of the impeachment process. The same poll that finds 45 percent of Americans favor an impeachment investigation of Trump also finds that by a margin of 42 percent to 21 percent, Americans "there are valid reasons to look at the behavior of Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine." Biden has long campaigned as a working-class stiff whose career is completely aboveboard (never mind his history of plagiarism). All of the details emerging about the way his son used his father's position to live large—"Hunter Biden's whole career is being Joe Biden's son," as Yglesias puts it—betray an ugly reality that helps explain why Americans have been losing trust and confidence in "the system" for decades.

Here's a short video that the president posted the other day on Twitter, which was taken down over copyright claims and then reposted by Trump supporters. It's a great shorthand for the way Trump operates, which is to rub the establishment's face in its own apparent hypocrisy (the "Ukraine gas exec" identified in the photo is American businessman Devon Archer, who brought Hunter Biden onto the board of Burisma). Again and again, he uses his own misdeeds as a pretext to attack his rivals.

Trump's political power has always been to reveal in raw form the dynamics that political rhetoric is designed to obscure. In the 2016 campaign, he shredded his dozen-plus adversaries by speaking obvious truths directly and calling people the sorts of demeaning names we all conjure up in our minds, from "Low-Energy Jeb" to "Lyin' Ted" to "Little Marco." Despite his own extensive accusations against him of sexual grossness, including the infamous "pussy-grabbing tape," he seated three women who had accused Bill Clinton of rape and assault directly in Hillary Clinton's view during a presidential debate. Again and again, he doesn't defend himself against charges as much as he forces us to entertain the reality that he is not fundamentally different from the people already holding power. Often he's right.

This is, to be sure, a hugely cynical strategy, and it may not guarantee his survival even as it scorches the earth around him and brings down his rivals.

For obvious reasons, partisans want to focus on specific, procedural claims because they want their side to win and take over the apparatus of power. Thus, Republicans are zeroing on irrelevant claims that the whistleblower may not have followed proper procedure in exposing Trump's behavior. (Who cares, especially if the underlying documents are real?) Democrats are rushing to map out intricate timelines to document that Hunter Biden's deals took place after his father was out of office or that there was firewall between dad and son, as if any of those details matter when the system itself is the problem.

The only bad outcome of the current brouhaha would be if the large and growing plurality of us who stand outside rabid tribal politics allow the current moment to pass without calling attention to the larger system of power that's being revealed. "The kid who trades on family connections to make money is much more a case of business as usual than an extraordinary scandal," writes Yglesias with the empathy of someone safe and snug within the system. But in a moment when more and more people feel as if they are on the outside looking in, "business as usual" is the scandal. Whether it's Trump and his kids cashing in on his presidency or Hunter Biden jetting to China on Air Force Two on business trip doesn't matter. The fact that any of it's happening is what matters.

At the end of O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh, after Hickey reveals his murder and the cops haul him off, all of the characters but one (who commits suicide) return to their self-delusions and their drowsy drinking. That more than anything is what we need to resist—a return to where we were before Donald Trump strode into the White House, rubbing our faces in the brutal reality of political power. Trump is the culmination of long-term trends, and the challenge is to find a way to preclude the people who run the government from using it to enrich themselves long after they have left office.

NEXT: Why Are More Americans Than Ever Getting Busted?

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. >>he is not fundamentally different from the people already holding power

    your lack of insight is your lack of insight … to be sure

    1. Last month I have made $19365 by working online from home in my part time.I have made this income in my very first month of joining and that was awesome.I am a college student and doing this job in only my part time.I want you also to join this and start earning online right now by follow details on this link..>> http://earny.xyz/Ij0L12NO

    2. Think nick needed more vitriol against Trump to really cement his naive point.

      1. Such as…

        “In the already endlessly dissected call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, it’s patently clear what Trump is up to. ”

        Nick here is wrong and cant see the forest for the trees. The dirt on Biden was public on 2016 when NYT reported his son was working for Burisma. So no dirt was being asked to be dug up, it was already up. He was asking for an investigation… like the one he suffered under Mueller. That isnt dirt, that’s a probe.

        1. No, Trump was strong-arming Zelenskiy to fabricate two faux-investigations, both premised on fraud.

          First came the CrowdStrike Conspiracy, something so nutso that it make Birtherism look tame. Tom Bossert, who served as Trump’s homeland-security adviser, has said he personally led DJT through all the evidence disproving the CrowdStrike, step by step. But truth and evidence aren’t germane to Trump aims, so he laid out exactly what lie the Ukraine president had to support. Sure, you can “investigate” the CrowdStrike bullshit. You can also “investigate” whether the Loch Ness Monster is held underground in a water tank below Area 51; that would be equally relevant. Trump was trading the favor of the United States for personal gain, and what he wanted from Zelenskiy was lying.

          What he didn’t want was an investigation into little Hunter Biden. The kid’s name arose only briefly to set up the Shokin firing; everything else after was the firing, and the firing alone. If you put out a hit on someone you gotta say who, and the signal to Zelensky was target Joe Biden

          Of course the “Joe-Pressured-Ukraine-for-Hunter” shtick is just another lie. Biden pressured for Shokin’s firing by order of the President, by State Department policy, per the expressed aim of the European Union, and in conjunction with the World Bank and IMF. It was also applauded by every reform group in Ukraine itself and supported by Senate Republicans – who wrote a letter to that effect, just dug up in today’s news. Yet Trump walked Zelensky thru the lie he wanted, word by word. That’s the only sure way to suborn perjury.

          We’re all so used to Trump’s compulsive lying we’re deadened to the effect, but this is truly something new. Trump withheld critical military aid to a country under Russian invasion – to force that country’s president to lie for Trump’s personal gain. How can anyone excuse that ?!?

          1. grb
            October.3.2019 at 3:55 pm
            “No, Trump was strong-arming Zelenskiy to fabricate two faux-investigations, both premised on fraud….”

            You lead an active fantasy life and if you kept it to yourself, you wouldn’t be seen as the lefty fucking liar you are.

            1. Jonah Goldberg, National Review :

              “But the charge that Joe Biden was freelancing foreign policy to protect his son simply doesn’t hold water if you spend five minutes reading up on it. Biden was acting on orders from President Obama in coordination with allies and State Department policy to force the former Russia-backed Ukrainian regime to fire a dirty prosecutor who was failing to properly investigate corruption, including at the firm Hunter Biden worked with.”

              1. The prosecutor specifically denies that. And Jonah is a dolt.

                1. Indeed, there is never an “excuse” for getting a prosecutor fired. Here at NYU, we cooperate closely with law enforcement authorities to secure our interests. In this regard, it must be said that this article is based on the false premise that protecting respectable members of the community is somehow a matter of something bad that the author calls “power and privilege.” Without certain special arrangements, all sorts of unsavory sorts would roam the world at large, even perpetrating criminal “satire” upon various respectable individuals. We are very clear about this here, and have given specific warnings that anyone who crosses the line with illegal “speech” directed against our interests, will have to deal not only with us, but with all of our honorable friends and allies in the criminal justice system. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “parody” case at:

                  https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

                  1. The Raphael Golb Trial ?!?!?!?

                    Absolutely. Frigging. Hilarious.

                    A reminder : You can be Right-wing and still not debase yourselves by peddling lies. As evidence, I give you the very Right-wing Washington Examiner :

                    “Trump needs to wake up to the facts, but he doesn’t want to. After all, by presenting Shokin as a victim of Biden’s effort to cover up son Hunter Biden’s supposed criminal involvement with the Burisma Holdings group (of which Hunter was a director), Trump can portray his potential 2020 rival as corrupt. But hearing the president’s description of Shokin, Zelensky must have thought Trump mad. This is because as a prosecutor, Shokin was about as far away from “good” and “fair” as you can imagine. During his 2015-2016 tenure as chief prosecutor, Shokin did two things: He covered for the criminality of powerful figures close to then-President Petro Poroshenko, and he earned the ire of just about every anti-corruption group in Ukraine.”

                    1. That’s idiotic. You have to be the most gullible partisan rube to buy that stupid shit.
                      If true, firing the supposedly incompetent Shokin would have led to aggressive investigations of Burisma, etc. Is that what happened? Uhhh, no. Firing Shokin let Burisma off the hook. That was three years ago. 3 years ago. 3 years. Not enough time for Shokin’s boy-scout replacement to do a bang-up job? I guess not.
                      And yeah, nothing fishy about Biden holding out $1bil until they fire the guy investigating his son, who has a job he didn’t earn, which is a clear violation of conflict of interest rules.
                      Gullible moron. You’re either a propagandist or you’re throughly propagandized.

                    2. In response to GRB, there was nothing at all amusing about the illegal “parody” that respectable faculty members here at NYU were made to endure in face of the entire nation. These are serious matters, and it is appropriate for legitimate power and authority to be invoked, when necessary, to protect the important interests of respectable members of the community, many of whom are involved in major real estate transactions as well the handling of very special affairs of deep concern to America’s social and political life.

                    3. grb
                      October.3.2019 at 5:26 pm
                      “The Raphael Golb Trial ?!?!?!?
                      Absolutely. Frigging. Hilarious….”

                      Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

                    4. These remarks are highly inappropriate–certainly they wouldn’t be tolerated if they were bandied about in the course of polite discussion in one of our student or faculty lounges. Hopefully changes in the law will soon be made that allow us to address such conduct in a broader way, outside of purely academic confines.

                    5. The very right wing Examiner?
                      Funded by the same leftie who ended up funding the Weekly Standard when it went left and died?

                      Sure.

              2. That doesn’t refute the charge at all. Did you think it did?

                1. Foreign Policy :

                  “For years, Ukrainian anti-corruption activists like Daria Kaleniuk looked to the United States for support in her country’s fight against graft and fake news. The Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea and eastern Ukraine was ground zero for Russian disinformation that spread across the world. Corruption was so pervasive in Ukraine that voters opted for a comedian with no political experience, Volodymyr Zelensky, who defeated the incumbent president by nearly 50 percent in elections last spring.

                  But the release of a July 25 memo detailing a conversation between U.S. President Donald Trump and Zelensky has, for many Ukrainians, turned the United States from a model of good governance and truth into a dispiriting example of the very kind of corruption and disinformation they are battling”

                  1. So investigating corruption in Ukrain was fine before Trump, and now it’s not?
                    Do you have to be stupid to be a lefty, or does being one make you stupid?

              3. “Biden claims he was acting on orders from President Obama in coordination with allies and State Department policy to force the former Russia-backed Ukrainian regime to fire a dirty prosecutor who was failing to properly investigate corruption, including at the firm Hunter Biden worked with.”

                Ftfy and the jellyroll

                1. The Christian Science Monitor used to have a pretty good reputation for journalism. I have no knowledge of their status now, but let’s throw’em in the mix :

                  Why did Joe Biden push to remove a prosecutor in Ukraine? In short, corruption. But not the kind that President Trump has alleged. Joe Biden was the Obama administration’s point person on relations with Kyiv. In 2015, Joe Biden, along with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the European Union, and the International Monetary Fund, called for Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin of Ukraine to be fired. But that was not because Mr. Shokin was investigating Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani has said, but because he wasn’t

                  1. You’re pathetic.
                    So, now, Joe Biden and all these others wanted the prosecutor fired because he wasn’t investigating Hunter, the crack-head?
                    Hil-fucking-arious.
                    P.S. It’s still interfering in the business of a sovereign nation’s internal affairs, under threat of blackmail. Regardless of who wanted it done. And the world has been shown enough evidence that Biden had a personal stake in it, because of his son’s involvement, and that he should have recused himself from any dealings, due to the conflict of interest. And that Trump was just trying to have looked into a US official’s corruption, not because the person happened to be a potential electoral rival.

                    1. And the world has been shown enough evidence that Biden had a personal stake in it, because of his son’s involvement, and that he should have recused himself from any dealings, due to the conflict of interest

                      ^ This.

                      As a Form 700 filer myself, my training tells me unambiguously that Biden shouldn’t have had any dealing with the Ukrainian government whatsoever on account of his son’s position in the country.

                      Full stop.

                      “I cannot accept this position with regards to Ukraine because I am forbidden from creating even the appearance of corruption with regards to my son’s business dealings in Ukraine.”

                      I’m not expressing any opinion on what Trump did, because I don’t have one, but to claim that Biden is totally innocent and was just trying to clean up Ukraine is absurd on the face of it.

                    2. P.S. It’s still interfering in the business of a sovereign nation’s internal affairs……

                      What a clownshow you guys are !!!! In the midst of defending Trump over holding military aid hostage until Ukraine serves DJT’s personal ends, you stop to shed dainty snowflake tears over “interfering in the business of a sovereign nation’s internal affairs”. No doubt you dabbed delicately at the corner of your eye with a lace handkerchief while doing so.

                      Did you people have any brains before you dedicated your life to defending a lying buffoon? Or did you lose everything in these past years of self-abasement? Just to be clear :

                      (1) You are never going to rescue the lie Biden applied pressure over Hunter. Every single fact is against you and there are a LOT of them – piled high as the sky…….

                      (2) You are never going to make the case that Trump’s pressure was about anything other than Trump. We all know exactly what President Dumpsterfire is. We all know he’s gutter trash. Who do you think you’re kidding?

                      Your B.S. up and down this comment thread is just empty posturing. Slightly entertaining to be sure, but you’re only weaseling. I have the facts at my back……

                    3. “to claim that Biden is totally innocent and was just trying to clean up Ukraine is absurd on the face of it”

                      Well I’m claiming that Biden pressured for Shokin’s firing by order of the President, by State Department policy, per the expressed aim of the European Union, and in conjunction with the World Bank, IMF, G-7 and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

                      Furthermore, I’m claiming Biden’s pressure was applauded by every reform group inside Ukraine.

                      Furthermore, I’m claiming Biden’s pressure was supported by Senate Republicans. They wrote a letter to that effect – the subject of a news story today.

                      Furthermore, I’m claiming the company Hunter worked for wasn’t even under investigation for over a year before Joe Biden’s pressure.

                      And every single claim above is true. And you can’t challenge any of them, however “absurd” you claim they are. That’s the advantage I have. The facts are on my side……

                  2. FIRST OFF, I heard a live hearing on C-span (I watch so many – great for bringing on an afternoon nap – so I don’t know which one) where one of the intelligence guys (was it Strzok?) being questioned talked of CROWDSTRIKE, so it is NOT a “conspiracy theory”!!! Shokin said in a signed affidavit that he WAS told to not investigate Hunter and yes, he was planning on investigating Burisma and Hunter. And as for Trump “holding back the security money”, he was talking about Ukraine’s PURCHASE of weapons in the phone call, not the aid money. The truth is that pres Zelensky said he didn’t even know about the withholding at the time of that phone call, and it was already done before the phone call but hadn’t gone through yet.

              4. FactCheck.org :

                In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Services report.

                Shokin served as prosecutor general under Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after he was removed from power in 2014 and was later found guilty of treason. Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

                “By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.” In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.” In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.

                1. Still, all this does not blot out the fact that Biden was put in charge of the Ukraine by Obummy & shortly after his son gets a $50,000 a month job on the board of a corrupt gas company & when supposedly corrupt prosecutor wants to investigate company & Biden’s son, Biden gets on a plane to the Ukraine & threatens to withhold US aid if the investigation of son is not stopped!

                  This is all in affidavit that was submitted by the prosecutor to the EU while he was under oath!

                2. The Wall Street Journal:

                  “Shokin had dragged his feet into those [Zlochevsky] investigations, Western diplomats said, and effectively squashed one in London by failing to cooperate with U.K. authorities.” In fact, Shokin was widely viewed as corrupt and ineffective. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden,” says Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.”

                  I suspect most of you are just gaslighting to cover the stench of Trump’s lying. You probably know zero about this. Zlochevsky was the owner of Burisma, and a major figure in the corrupt Yanukovych regime, forced out after the popular democratic uprising of 2013. Shokin prosecuted no one from the Yanukovych regime, refused to supply evidence to British investigators trying to charge Zlochevsky, and hadn’t investigated the Burisma head for over a year before Joe Biden’s pressure. Most people think Shokin only flirted with pursuing Zlochevsky to solicit a payoff. For the truth of that, consider the subordinate prosecutor under Shokin arrested for bribes, with several million dollars in diamonds found in his home. Shokin released the man, dropped the charges, returned the diamonds.

                  And he’s your guy huh? Aren’t you worried Trump’s lying & sleaze is starting to rub off on you?

                  1. You really excel at the use of non sequitur. do you ever directly talk against an argument? The hill had an article last week in which a judicial finding occurred in Europe in regards to this issue.

                    1. The Stars and Stripes, from just minutes ago,

                      “The former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine told House investigators on Thursday that he warned President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, that Giuliani was receiving untrustworthy information from Ukrainian political figures about former vice president Joe Biden and his son, according to two people familiar with his testimony.

                      Giuliani was warned that Ukrainian claims of Bidens’ misconduct were not credible, Trump’s ex-envoy tells lawmakers that his sources, including Ukraine’s former top prosecutor, were unreliable and that he should be careful about putting faith in the prosecutor’s stories, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the closed door meeting. Volker’s testimony offers the first inside account of the Trump administration’s efforts to press for a Ukrainian investigation into Trump’s political rival.”

                      I guess you can have the “anonymous sources” thing to fall back on, but bottom line : Giuliani is peddling bullshit lies and so are you. And you both know it. And you both continue to do it. So what exactly does that make you?

                    2. Joe Biden has admitted, on video, of using US loan guarantees as pressure to force a sovereign nation to fire a prosecutor, the country clearly didn’t want to fire.
                      How can anyone be told “untrustworthy information” about this fact, when we have a video-taped confession.
                      Worst part is that Crazy Uncle Joe sounds proud of such interference in a nation’s internal affairs.

                    3. “….Joe sounds proud of such interference in a nation’s internal affairs”

                      Damn right he is proud.

                      (1) He successfully followed the directive of the President.

                      (2) He achieved the aim of the State Department

                      (3) He accomplished the objective of the European Union

                      (4) He effected the goal of the World Bank and IMF

                      (5) He fulfilled a priority of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and G-7

                      (6) He earned the applause of every reform group in Ukraine

                      (7) And he got a grotesquely corrupt official out of office.

                      The funny thing about accomplishment No.7 is it seems to be occurring again, right in front of our eyes. Once more Biden is doing his part to get a lying sleazy corrupt official out of office – even if only by being a target……..

                  2. Whether or not Shokin was investigating Burisma, Biden continuing to serve as liaison to Ukraine when his son sat on the board of a corporation whose fortunes depended on its relationship with that government is a clear conflict of interest. Not a probable conflict of interest, not a hypothetical conflict of interest, but an explicit and undeniable conflict of interest.

                    Any public employee who has any spending authority whatsoever gets training on this, and it’s not ambiguous. At all.

                    If you want to argue that what Trump did was shady, fine, but arguing that Biden did nothing wrong is just unsupportable.

                    And you accuse others of being dishonest.

                    1. Let’s call it a tie. Settle it next November.

                      Haha. Which side won’t like that?

                  3. I see you.

                    It seems your tactic of bludgeoning the dumb out of their heads is more effective than whatever it is I’ve been attempting.

                    1. Jeff. Go away. You outed yourself. Time for a new sock clown.

                  4. Isn’t if funny how Biden has totally clammed up about this issue?…If as you say this was all above board & in tune with Obummy & the banks & the EU & the will of the Ukrainian people, etc.., why would he not defend himself right now & explain it all to save his campaign which is dangerously close to imploding? He cannot because he knows it is all BS!

                    Biden is a profoundly corrupt Pol who makes most of the other corrupt pols look like saints….He is also a LOSER in trying to make it to the Oval Office….He is toast now!

                    1. Why should Biden say anything while Trump self-immolates?

                      Any news item on Trump’s charges will report they are lies. Because they are. All Biden has to do is sit back and watch Trump implode.

                  5. FIRST OFF, I heard a live hearing on C-span (I watch so many – great for bringing on an afternoon nap – so I don’t know which one) where one of the intelligence guys (was it Strzok?) being questioned talked of CROWDSTRIKE, so it is NOT a “conspiracy theory”!!! Shokin said in a signed affidavit that he WAS told to not investigate Hunter and yes, he was planning on investigating Burisma and Hunter. That fact that he didn’t, doesn’t change anything. IF Biden thought he might, that’s a conflict of interest and HAS THE INVESTIGATION HAPPENED SINCE? IS ZLOVESVSKY IN JAIL?? ALSO, I have a big problem with Biden being in charge of “corruption” and GETTING HIS COKE ADDICTED, DRUNKEN, PROSTITUTE VISITING SON ON THE BOARD FOR $50,000 to $100,000 a month!!! Biden admits to what he did on video. And as for Trump “holding back the security aid”, he was talking about Ukraine’s PURCHASE of weapons in the phone call, not the aid money. The truth is that pres Zelensky said he didn’t even know about the withholding at the time of that phone call, and it was already done before the phone call, which was a part of Trump’s “we’re not going to give away all this USA tax money to all these corrupt countries without some stipulations made first” policy. hadn’t gone through yet.

              5. Jonah is as credible as Mark Sanford.

                1. Well, let’s try an official briefing paper prepared for the European Parliament :

                  “The Rada voted to remove Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016, after Western donors condemned his failure to prosecute open cases of corruption.”

                  https://tinyurl.com/y4ogx84d

              6. Oh, Jonah “NeverTrump” Goldberg at the NeverTrump National Review? How fucking gullible are you? Gullible enough to see clothes on the emperor because your intellectual overlords tell you to.

                Yeah, but you know what, you’re right. Biden is such a dumbass that he didn’t know the Ukrainian prosecutor that he demanded be fired— on penalty of losing $1bil in aide— was investigating Burisma and his son. He’s that stupid.

                But let’s follow this moronic liberal fairy tale— because liberals and never trump neocons love their fairy tales, thus their 3 year infatuation with Mueller.

                Ok, so let’s pretend this fairy tale is true: Biden and his corrupt cronies wanted Shokin fired because he was not doing a good enough job investigation Burisma.

                So how has the investigation of Burisma fared since they fired this Uber-incompetent guy who Honest Joe withheld $1bil to force them to fire?

                Has Burisma been aggressively investigated in the 3 YEARS since Joe fires the guy investigating his son?

                Uhhh, no. The investigation was killed. Because they fired the guy doing the investigating and made damn sure Burisma was left alone.

                Damn you’re a moron. Go light a campfire with Jonah Goldberg and tell each other some Mueller and Slenderman stories.

            2. Second gets it right. Fantasy life indeed. GRB actually masturbates to this shit. To an 8×10” glossy of Trump, and bitterly.

              1. The Left really spent big money to keep grb trolling reason yesterday.

                1. Since he’s probably getting welfare I’m sure he has little else to do.

          2. “Of course the “Joe-Pressured-Ukraine-for-Hunter” shtick is just another lie. Biden pressured for Shokin’s firing by order of the President, by State Department policy, per the expressed aim of the European Union, and in conjunction with the World Bank and IMF.”

            Well, just like Nick said in the beginning of the article, those unlike Trump can be more discrete & subtle in their law breaking:

            “Because Trump is cartoonishly simple, he is revealing of how things actually work; we can see in him the moves and machinations that more sophisticated and suave operators are able to mask.”

          3. “”No, Trump was strong-arming Zelenskiy “”

            Show us the evidence of strong arming. There is none in the transcript. Unless the call got really ugly at the end, the two sound very cordial.

            1. Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty :

              However, there are two big problems with the narrative presented by Trump and Giuliani, according to activists in Ukraine and others.

              For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand. “There was no pressure from anyone from the United States” to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,” he added.

              Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin’s office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them. Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine — first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor — worked to bury it.

              “Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case,” Kaleniuk said. Ukrainian prosecutors have described no evidence indicating that Biden sought to help his son by getting Shokin dismissed — and have suggested that they have not discovered any such evidence.

              But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired. They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.

              1. So you don’t have any evidence.

                1. Your logic and citations are boundless! True genius! Left minus right = ZERO! (sneer) If I get rid of my low-life friends, can I be Your butler?

                  What with Your Mastery of Space Time, Prose, Poetry, and Computer Codes, can You please review the following source codes:
                  Exclude negligible variables, and Begin Begin-Beggin’ [Honest-Babe-I-Luve-Ya(Willya-B-Mine 4 ^ Ever) If-else-I (Meet Sum 1 Bettah) || (her tits R bigger)] || [I ken doo bettah] end-Beggin’
                  Invoke DisplayModule “Don’t touch my keyboard that way!!! It makes me feel dirty!!!”, end; end module ;

                  If You will please help me get this code to compile, our therapists will give us pats on our heads.

                  1. Ya know, if you didn’t feel obligated to defend Trump’s lies & sleaze, you wouldn’t need to make a fool of yourself like in the word-salad above. Is the taste of Trump’s shoe leather on your tongue worth that much to you ?!?

                    1. You’re responding to a SQRLSY shitpost that’s making fun of the one that responded to you, you dumbshit.

                    2. OK, supposing Biden in an angel, go read up on the Obama admin’s history with Ukraine.

                      1. Was pressure placed on Ukraine because Obama wanted to chill warming relations between Ukraine and Russia?
                      2. Did the Obama admin profit in other ways, like arms sales/military aid schemes to Ukraine?
                      3. Did the Obama Admin work to sell arms to other countries thru Ukraine? If so, which of those countries benefited in military supplies/aid/equipment?

                      Also we were supposed to take on faith that Russia was bad, and that pro-russian Ukrainians were bad. But why? Is everything that Russia does supernaturally evil? Why might have some Ukrainians been friendly toward their neighbors?

                      Democrats crying about Russians kinda lost its charm years ago, and I want to them explain themselves better than they have.

                      I think its time to scrutinize their agenda, and as Democrats themselves have been saying for years now regarding Trump, if there wasn’t any wrongdoing, they should have no reason to worry about being investigated. Seem fair?

              2. In that long winded post I see nothing that shows strong arming.

          4. Asking for a country to investigate a possible crime isnt digging up dirt you fucking retard. Your admission here literally states the entire Mueller investigation was an attempt to dig up dirt.

            1. Jesse,

              Let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re not a serial killer, there’s no evidence you’re a serial killer, and there is aq sizable amount of conclusive evidence you’re NOT a serial killer. Whew !!

              If I then blackmail / bribe someone into opening a very-public “investigation” into JesseAz, Serial Killer, faux-pieties about how “I only want an investigation” will be bullshit. As is your argument.

              Give up your self-imposed obligation to defend Trump’s lies and sleaze and you, JesseAz, won’t have to scrub the stink of bullshit off your body every night. Now honestly, wouldn’t that be a relief?

              1. Ah, more innuendo and unfavorable interpretations instead of evidence

                1. Needs more neurons! Also a wee tad less heavy on the stupid!

              2. Your argumentation style is worse than Jeff’s, which is difficult, so congrats.

                1. Well, Jess, having my “argumentation style” (sic) criticized by someone who has no style save for insults & weaseling probably translates into a reverse complement.

                  So you’re welcome………

                  1. You’re subhuman garbage GRB. Just an empty vessel to be filled with the pablum your Marxist masters puke down your throat.

              3. I’m sorry dude, but no! No to all this bs line about how Biden has been cleared. The fact that that there was a job is evidence of corruption. Hunter’s ONLY qualification was being the VP’s son. He got paid $50K a month by an oligarch when his only life experience was being a drug addicted navy officer. He had just been kicked out, left a crack pile in a rental car and went straight to his multimillion dollar job in Ukraine. Are you daft? Of course it needs to be investigated. $600k a year, for a crack addict. Jesus you people will believe anything as long as Trump is bad, Obama is good.

            2. The Dotard has taken the Unitary Executive concept of the Bush-pigs to new power heights.

          5. Its possible that there’s both no real Biden scandal and no real Trump scandal, either.

            Just because Trump asked Zelensky to look at CrowdStrike, doesn’t mean he was asking for anything to be fabricated or made up, just that he gave a conspiracy theory credibility that he maybe shouldn’t have. Ukraine says they didn’t feel any pressure and were never under the impression that their decision to investigate that was tied to severing of aid.

            I would be more impressed towards your skepticism against witch hunts if you didn’t apply it selectively against Trump.

            1. there is still the quid pro quo in Trump’s case, however. That should not be overlooked.

              1. From today you ignorant fuck.

                “In the texts, Taylor expressed concern about U.S. foreign affairs in Ukraine, writing, “It’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

                Sondland responded to Taylor, calling the accusation “incorrect,” adding, “The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.””

                1. Jesus. Bloody. Christ. Az.

                  Since you can’t figure this out on your own, two points:

                  (1) Taylor says Trump is withholding military aid until Ukraine services Trump’s private objectives. Sondland says Trump is pure as driven snow, piously concerned about reform in Ukraine. Just because you, JesseAz, prefer the second option doesn’t make it proof of anything – even if you do throw one of your “ignorant fuck” things into the mix. Are you REALLY so dumb you don’t understand that? At a minimum you need to determine who has a bigger reputation as a pandering flunkie, Taylor or Sondland. Are you sure you’d welcome that finding?

                  (2) Can you – JesseAz – name anywhere else in the whole freak’n world where Donald John Trump has shown one microscopic dust mite’s worth of interest in “transparency” or “reforms” ? Because I can run off a mighty long list of places where DJT showed total contempt at the mention of those words. He didn’t care a jot when the Saudis sawed Khashoggi into bite-sized bits. His BFF Putin runs Russia like a mafioso thug. He lavishes hugs and kisses on the the most brutal dictator on earth, Kim Jong Un. If Xi Jinping gives Trump anything (anything) he can call the “best treaty ever”, DJT will write off the Uighur Muslims in a heartbeat. Exactly when do you think this concern for “transparency and reforms” came into existence? The day of the Ukraine call perhaps?

                  You know, Jess, I’m going ask a favor of you: Please tell us all you find Sondland’s version of Trump’s behavior more credible than Taylor’s. It would be so, so, so, damn entertaining to watch you do that….

          6. From your posts below:

            “Biden was acting on orders from President Obama in coordination with allies and State Department policy to force the former Russia-backed Ukrainian regime to fire a dirty prosecutor […] Shokin [the prosecutor] did two things: He covered for the criminality of powerful figures close to then-President Petro Poroshenko, and he earned the ire of just about every anti-corruption group in Ukraine.”

            1) Poroshenko wasn’t Russian-backed. (Did Jonah really confuse him with Yanukovich? Seriously?) Poroshenko financed the 2014 US/EU-backed uprising against Yanukovich (who stepped down and fled to Russia), then won a US/EU-backed election. He was accused by Putin of orchestrating a coup. That’s about as far from “Russia-backed” as you can get.

            2) I checked the sources for your CSMonitor excerpt: the claim that “Biden, along with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the European Union, and the International Monetary Fund” wanted Shokin gone is based on a single ambiguous comment Biden made during a speech in Kiev. He didn’t mention the EU or IMF at all in that part of the speech. Their claim that Shokin wasn’t investigating Burisma was based on a Daily Beast article that relied entirely on an obscure activist who wasn’t in a positon to know.

            3) Would those allies Obama coordiated with include Poland, whose ex-president Aleksander Kwasniewski was also of the board of Burisma? It appears that just about everyone was milking Ukraine at that time.

            1. First of all, you’re engaging the facts. Thank you.
              As to your points :

              (1) Shokin’s tenure straddled two Ukrainian presidents, the Yanukovych regime, which was Russian-backed and extremely corrupt, and the Poroshenko regime following the 2013 uprising. There was a great deal of hope re Poroshenko, but by the end of his term Ukrainians considered him only a marginal improvement over his predecessor. That’s a pretty close equivalence with Shokin himself. Part of the reason the entire world of western governments and institutions was so viciously set against the man was they considered him the last vestige of the old Yanukovych crew, blocking European Union judiciary reforms and refusing to hold crooks of the old regime accountable. If I had to guess, I’d say everybody saw Shokin as the only roadblock to a new golden area.

              Roadblock he was, and ruthlessly corrupt – but like the case with Poroshenko, the guy who followed Shokin was only a degree better. This is Ukraine, mind you, which is one reason I wonder (thru gritted teeth) why little Hunter couldn’t have found a slightly less sordid way to leech off his daddy’s name.

              (2) In the sources I quote above, there are three reference to IMF opposition : FactCheck, The Wall Street Journal, and Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. I admit their were some one-off references among the lot, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, of which I know zilch about.

              As for the status of Shokin’s investigation of Zlochevsky, I’ve seen multiple references to it being dormant, but I think most are built around a handful of go-to-Ukrainian sources on the subject of reform & corruption in their country. (With a little bit of effort I could lasso some names) There aren’t any facts to contradict them, and these are supposedly people with a good record reform-wise, but details on Shokin’s machinations aren’t exactly hard science. I’m pretty certain his stab at Zlochevsky was a shake-down anyway, since the prosecutor left all of Zlochevsky’s fellow oligarchs untouched.

              I didn’t see any references to Poland – or any individual European countries as opposed to the EU in general, for that matter. I did see one reference to Burisma shopping for status via its board, though Kwasniewski wasn’t mentioned specifically. Of course this is why talk of Hunter in danger is ridiculous. He was a bought name to add luster to their brand. I’m sure a oligarchic thug like Zlochevsky figured Hunter as a small-change write-off for an empty suit. Somehow I don’t picture young Biden invited in the inner circle to scheme and plot.

        2. >>>cant see the forest for the trees

          or isn’t because paycheck.

        3. “patently clear” lol

      2. “Matt Yglesias helpfully corrects many of the specific accusations hurled by Trump at the Bidens, but in the end he concludes:”

        This is the same Yglesias that openly brags about gaslighting America on the Trump tax cuts. The fact that Nick uses him as an authority is just idiotic.

        1. People here–even contributors, used to refer to him as ‘Sadbeard’.

          Now he’s a trusted source.

        2. Nick wants to know how power works, he should tell us. The Powerful own Nick and Yglesias and every word they pen. I’m embarrassed for them. Yg and the woke hedge fund crowd are the same guys who joked that Trump could have easily made more money investing in stocks instead of risking it all to build a business. Risk is, and always will be the driver of free market capitalism. Nick and Yglesias are vultures picking the scraps of billionaire cronies who want to centrally plan the economy and tax, mandate and ban upward mobility into submission.

          1. And though Trump may be sleazy & corrupt at times in his own business dealings, his businesses have created tens of thousands of jobs for people that his investing in stocks would not have!

            1. In Soviet Russia, Trump trumps ALL excluding the Putin-Bots! All Hail! Very progressive, Comrade!

      3. Had the Democrats won the 2016 election, the corruption would have occurred, but we would have been blissfully ignorant of such an occurrence. That will teach the country to elect a president who is not afraid to tell it like it is.

        1. If Hillary Clinton were President, kids would still be in cages at the border, but the media would just be running adoring profiles about how her granddaughter plays under her desk in the Oval Office, just like JFK, Jr. used to!

          1. All hail Comrade Clinton! But PWEASE do NOT forget to ALSO hail Comrade Trump!

            ALL Comrades MUST be hailed, in Soviet Russia!

          2. “”If Hillary Clinton were President, kids would still be in cages at the border, “”

            They ignored that it was happening in 2014.

    3. At this point Nick Gillespie does not even realize that he is crazy.

      1. Nick has fallen prey to the thinly disguised hatred Donal Trump engenders in so many people. He hides it pretty well under a veil of libertarian sophistication, but he can’t bring himself to just come out with the obvious. Donald Trump is an asshole, but one perfectly willing to speak the truth … and that is very, very rare in politics. I voted Libertarian last time, but next time Trump gets the vote he so richly deserves.

    4. Trump is setting up his defense in the Senate impeachment trial: How can I be impeached for using foreign governments against political opponents when my opponents used foreign governments against me?
      Also interesting in this article: “Who cares if the procedure was not followed if the documents are real?” Try using that argument as a prosecutor when a defendant moves to suppress evidence based on an illegal search.

    5. I’m thinking that the right honorable editor from Reason might be happier working with VOX or better yet MSNBC. Not that his efforts here aren’t appreciated, but there is a certain “other worldliness” to his observations that reminds me of an Elon Musk night of alcohol, pot, Ambien, and Twitter.

    6. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump set up the entire Ukraine phone call canard as a way to put Joe Biden’s criminality on the front page and get the DemonCRAPS to launch another “Russia Collusion” style hoax. Pelosi announced impeachment before even seeing the transcript. Schiff asserted he was reading the transcript – and that turned out to be a lie. At this point, the DemonCRAPS are kind of stuck. They either go forward with no reason for impeachment (as they tried to do for 2 1/2 years) or they admit they’re a bunch of jackasses whose only goal is to “GET TRUMP” (America be damned.)
      I would kind of like to see a Trump impeachment vote. I think it would be the end of the DemonCRAP party. It would either splinter along the lines of DemonCRAP representatives in red states not daring to face destruction by voting for impeachment (shattering party cohesiveness and nullifying the impeachment push) or gutting the DemonCRAP majority in the House by forcing red state Dims to commit seppuku.
      And what happens to the Dims if they impeach Trump – and he’s re-elected? Do they all spontaneously combust? One might hope so.

  2. Trump is taking what was supposed to be a scandal that gets him impeached and using it like a chainsaw to take apart one of his most formidable Democratic rival’s political career. But it is Trump who is simple.

    Nick just can’t bring himself to face the reality that the people and politics and the media in this country are just not very bright.

    1. But are exceedingly venal and greedy.

      1. Most Americans are perfectly OK with venal and greedy. It’s only unforgivable behavior from the other Americans on the other side

        This sort of stuff only makes the DeRp stronger

        1. In Soviet Russia, the DeRp that does NOT kill us all, only makes us stronger!

    2. most of the words of this article are the exact opposite of reality

      1. Trump stands accused of that which Biden is self admittedly guilty. Reason insists Trump deserves removal from office. Yet, in yesterday’s article on Biden Reason does not see fit to note that Biden should be considered disqualified from that same office.

        And Pleather Jacket cannot understand why people cannot understand the problem with Trump. Hey Nick, maybe it’s because we can see that you have no actual problem with ‘the problem’ but that your only problem is with Trump.

        1. Biden, like HildaBeast before him, should not only be denied a chance to run for prez, he should be in a federal prison!

          1. Your wit and wisdom knows no bounds! If I can obtain all of the correct degrees, licenses, and credentials, can I have some ice cream?

            Ontologically speaking, can You please review the following source codes:
            ThemNotUsBad WeBeGood Begin Polygon_Disambiguate [ Modulus ( QuadWord[15:0], Plasma[15:0], Nuclei[15:0] ), Function ( $B$97 ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
            DisplayModuleCall "Orange Man Bad.", end; end module ;

            If You would stoop so low as to help me, a mere grasshopper, debug this code, then I promise to totally forget about "that incident" with You, the geese, the Mazola oil, and the rat traps!

      2. So who’s the most dishonest writer at Reason, folks?
        The seeded candidates are Gillespie, Suderman, Boehm, Britschgi, Shikha, Shackford, Sullum, ENB and Binion.
        Write-in candidates are welcome.

        1. Definitely Shikha or Binion. Pretty much all of that list have had some boldly dishonest takes, but those two regularly put out some especially terrible articles. Gillespie is probably the most honest and aware of that list. Not saying he is good on ascertaining facts or holding to libertarian principles, but he is one of the closest of major contributors

        2. So who’s the most dishonest writer at Reason, folks?
          The seeded candidates are Gillespie, Suderman, Boehm, Britschgi, Shikha, Shackford, Sullum, ENB and Binion.

          YES.

          1. In honor of the Jewish High Holy Days, I nominate Shiksa!

            Binion is second because it sounds like Biden!

            1. In Soviet Russia, Teddy Pump pumps up yer teddy! Very progressive, comrade!

            2. Boehm is pretty consistently awful with his trade articles.


        3. I was going to list a top 5, but it’s pretty much just all of them when I think about it.
          I notice you left Welch and ENB off your list, which is quite the oversight.
          Rico isn’t as bad as the rest.
          Bailey is entirely dishonest in that his religion is entirely dishonest, but I don’t think he means to be – he’s just a true believer

          1. There is no greater truth than revolutionary truth comrade.

            1. Your truth is plain for all to see!!! VERY progressive, Comrade! Bernie will be SOOO proud of you!

          2. Look again, Nardz. ENB is there.

        4. Shikha in a landslide. I read her stuff only to learn that the opposite is actually true.

      3. Some of the reason commenters will have to spend the next 5.5 years talking Gillespie off a ledge.

        Gillespie is crazy, he does not realize it evidently, and Trump will still be President for 5.5 more years.

    3. Trump’s opponents always portray him as flying by the seat of his pants. Somehow, he’s just gotten lucky and come out on top of every situation since his election.

      1. I remember during the 16 primaries when Carly Fiorina ran for President. Fiorina was a famously bad CEO at Hewlett Packard. But when she went on stage with a bunch of politicians she looked like a freakin genius. She may have been a back of the bench CEO, but putting her among politicians was like taking someone off an NBA roster and putting them in a JV high school game.

        Trump has destroyed these people not because he is necessarily a genius. He has destroyed them because they are all a bunch of complete morons who managed until Trump to insulate themselves against anyone with any brains getting into the game.

        1. In your perception . . . Trump is the guy with the brains?

          And he is the destroyer?

          That’s the type of thinking that precipitates life at the irrelevant fringe.

          1. Yeah Rev it is. That is because I have brains. You, however, are a delusional, angry moron. So who is smart and who isn’t is not a subject you really have any standing to speak or expertise.

            Sorry but sock puppets who post canned talking points that often are not even germane to the topic at hand such as yourself, really are not entitled to an opinion about anyone else’s intelligence.

          2. >>>Trump is the guy with the brains?

            dude everything is relative.

          3. Hey Rev……
            You forgot the “clinger” sign off phase at the end of your post….
            (just trying to help)

          4. You really need to reread John’s statement. He didn’t say Trump was smart, he said the others were so fucking stupid it made Trump look good by comparison. And yeah, Trump did pretty much destroy the Republican field. And Hillary. You can tell because Trump is currently in the White House and not, you know, anyone else. And just to get ahead of what I know you’re gonna whine about next, Trump got 57% of the electoral votes to Hillary’s 42%, which is what matters, not total number of individuals.

            Are you sure YOU’RE not a politician? Because you sure have the lack of brains for it, you paint-huffing chucklefuck.

          5. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
            October.3.2019 at 12:44 pm
            “That’s the type of thinking that precipitates life at the irrelevant fringe.”

            Our resident asshole bigot has been assuring us that the elite among us are ‘winning’ and leading us to utopia.
            Somehow, he’s yet to add to the list of those wonderful ‘progressives’:
            Partial List of ‘Elites’ Supporting Mass Murderers
            1) Lincoln Stephens
            2) Walter Duranty
            3) Joseph Davies
            4) Julian Huxley
            5) Upton Sinclair
            6) John Dewey
            7) Jean Paul Sarte
            8) Henry Wallace
            9) Alger Hiss
            10) Malcom Cowley
            11) Edmund Wilson
            12) G. B. Shaw
            13) Lillian Hellman
            14) C. Wright Mills
            15-20)Donald MacLean, Kim Philby, and the remainder of the Cambridge useful idiots
            21) Harold Lasky
            22) Jacques Derrida
            23) Harrison Salisbury
            24) Norman Mailer
            25) Graham Greene
            26) Harry Bridges

            C’mon, asshole, you’ve been studying this; add a couple of names!

        2. Yeah, I remember Fiorina being a preferred republican candidate for me (after Rand Paul). It really isn’t that hard to outsmart these fucks

          1. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Everyone else becomes a politician.

        3. “Fiorina was a famously bad CEO at Hewlett Packard. But when she went on stage with a bunch of politicians she looked like a freakin genius.”

          Yeah, and remember how everyone said her failure as a CEO made her unqualified to hold office? So obviously that meant we had to get behind people who weren’t skilled enough for a mail room position at Hewlett Packard. Logic!

    4. Oh yes, Trump getting caught by a whistleblower complaint that will result in his impeachment is totally 4d chess.

      1. Trump’s approval rating is the highest it has been during his presidency and is up this month. Meanwhile, Biden’s entire campaign is going South like Sherman.

        Trump wasn’t caught doing anything. The public just found out that Biden and his son are crooks. And to top it off, it was the Democrats who made it public.

        1. “Trump’s approval rating is the highest it has been during his presidency and is up this month.”

          That’s not true, dude. You guys have to live in a alternate reality in order to supprot Trump. It’s so sad. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

          And Trump has been caught abusing the powers of his office, again. And 2 other world leaders have now said that Trump tried to coerce them into helping the Trump 2020 campaign as well. I wish Trump would collude with America just once for novelty sake.

          1. Yes it is

            http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-economy-killing-it-with-union-workers-the-opening-to-women-independents

            538 is a amalgamation of polls manipulated by dubious math. At best it is a lagging indicator.

            Regardless, the polls taken since this nonsense started show it is helping Trump not hurting him. You do yourself no favors letting 538 gaslight you into some alternative reality. 538 hasn’t been right about anything since 2012.

            1. C’mon, john, de only does what he can.
              Hive minds aren’t much capable of analysis or independent thought

            2. Only the Lefties are convinced that garbage into math problems equals Trump unpopular.

              Trump won (30 + ME 02) states compared to Bill Clinton (32 + DC) in 1992 and in 1996 (31 + DC). Trump received more EC votes (304 vs 271) and states than W. Bush in 2000 (30 + ME 02 vs 30). Obama only won (28 + NE 02 + DC) states in 2008 and (26 + DC) in 2012.

            3. 538 is a amalgamation of polls manipulated by dubious math. At best it is a lagging indicator.

              Well here’s a mostly different set of polls – without the attempt to individually adjust them.

              https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

              Consolidating polls does not produce a ‘lagging indicator’. It merely reduces the effect of sampling error. The only significant thing re all the job approval polls of the Trump presidency is that there is no trend whatsoever – hence ‘lagging indicator’ is a meaningless term. Every poll analyst will tell you the same thing even if they tell the headline writer something different when they release the poll for clicks.

              Trump has, by far, the most stable approval/disapproval ratings of any Prez since those polls first began in the 1950’s. In layman’s terms – there is virtually no one who has changed their mind about Trump since inauguration day. The trend is – a dead parrot.

              Absent that dead parrot reviving from a kip after a long squawk, the only thing those polls really hint at is what the 2020 election will look like. It will be fuglier than 2016. Designed to repel everyone who is not partisan so that they simply won’t vote which is what will GOTV of the already decided partisans.

              If I were to guess the R’s will try to turn 287,000 voters in VA, MN, NH, NV (33 EV). D’s will try to turn 456,000 voters in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NC, FL (101 EV). Used to be easy to turn that few – with no underlying trend to get in the way – but they both have become so partisan they can’t get swing state candidates anymore.

              1. Just to show the difference in volatility of approval/disapproval. Here’s the chart for Obama prez

                https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#!

                Volatility of approval/disapproval is what is mostly important cuz it indicates people are changing their minds. And that means one can try to manipulate minds/opinions.

            1. “Trump’s approval rating is the highest it has been during his presidency and is up this month.”

              Dude, neither of those polls support your claim that Trump is at his highest approval rating ever. The first poll wasn’t even about job approval. Are you really this indoctrinated? Can you not admit you were wrong, or are you taking a page from one of Trump’s ghost-written books?

                1. John, go ahead and quote for me then directly from one of your links where it shows Trump’s approval rating at the highest of his presidency. You really do seem to be delusional. I’m not name calling here, I just don’t know what else to call it.

                  1. He did. Refusing to click on the link but still demand proof is retarded.

                    1. I clicked on them. The NY Post piece doesn’t talk about Trump’s approval rating at all. The other two say that Trump’s approval rating is higher (by a razor thing margin that I suspect is within the margin of error, but whatever) than Obama’s at the same point in his presidency. They do not say that Trump’s approval rating is at the highest of his presidency.

                    2. I read them all, to great disappointment. No wonder you guys support Trump, you stay willfully ignorant.

                    3. Trump’s approval rating on Wednesday was 44.3 percent, according to a Real Clear Politics average of more than a half-dozen major polls. That is higher than Obama’s average approval rating of 43.9 percent on September 18, 2011, by the same measure.

                      The 45th president’s average approval rating surpassed that of his predecessor on Monday and stayed on top for the next two days. Trump’s average approval rating on Monday was 44.1 percent compared to Obama’s 43.9 percent on September 16, 2011, and 44 percent on Tuesday compared to Obama’s 43.8 percent on September 17, 2011.

                      Poor trolls lynchpin1477 and DeOppresso Liar

                    4. loveconstitution1789

                      So where does it say his approval rating is at the highest of his presidency, as per John’s claim?

                      Why do you all have such a difficult time with reading comprehension?

                    5. I said

                      The other two say that Trump’s approval rating is higher (by a razor thing margin that I suspect is within the margin of error, but whatever) than Obama’s at the same point in his presidency

                      LC quoted from the articles

                      Trump’s approval rating on Wednesday was 44.3 percent, according to a Real Clear Politics average of more than a half-dozen major polls. That is higher than Obama’s average approval rating of 43.9

                      and

                      The 45th president’s average approval rating surpassed that of his predecessor on Monday

                      For the record, the difference in approval ratings was 0.4% in one poll and 0.2% in another, which, as I said, is razor thin.

                      So, thanks LC, for confirming that what I said was wholly accurate.

                2. Yeah, sorry, but the articles don’t support the point under contention.

                  We call this shifting goal posts. It’s something the Democrats do constantly.

                  John and lc1789, why are you acting like Democrats? Is this what TDS has done to you?

                  Seriously. Step back a minute, and read all this. You guys are fuckin’ delusional. It’s like arguing with progressives.

                  1. In Soviet Russia, PROGRESSIVE people do NOT trouble themselves with “reality” or “the evidence of their senses”! Ideology is the be-all and end-all!!! ALL HAIL COMRADE TRUMP!!! PLEASE get with the program, comrade!

          2. 538?

            98 percent Hillary wins 538?

            Ahahahahahah you’re so fucking gulllible

            1. Another genius who never took a stats class.

              1. But enough about Nate Silver.

                1. I have to tip my hat to Nate Silver. He figured out just enough statistics to tell these idiots what they want to hear and convince them he is a genius. Silver is certainly not moral or upstanding but you have to give him credit for knowing how to scam these people.

                  1. And that’s what all progressives want. Reassurance. The truth is actually anathema to them.
                    You’ll never go broke stroking the left.

                    1. The truth is very bleak for them.

                      I mean Donald Trump beat their Queen Mao.

              2. De Oppresso Liber…..
                I love watching a rousing game of….”Dueling Links”…!!!!!
                Very entertaining…..!

                  1. No one can argue with any of your citations. Your reasoning astounds us all! In the sight of Your Wise Benevolence, can I have some more gruel?

                    As is painfully clear for all to see, as brilliant as Your insights are, I bet You’d have no trouble helping me debug the following:
                    Include Me_righteous, You_Scumdawg, Begin Terminate [ Interlocate ( BadWord[15:0], abort[15:0], mstr_reset[15:0] ), over_ride[15:0] ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
                    Invoke DisplayModule "Get that off of the screen quickly!!! Your Mom is coming!", end; end module ;

                    Now if You will only PLEASE help me get this code to compile, Putin might take back ALL of the bad things that He said about You!

                    1. New Hihn sock.
                      Fuck off, Hihn.

                    2. In Soviet Russia, we are ALL Comrade Hihn! VERY progressive there, Comrade Hihn!!!

          3. “”You guys have to live in a alternate reality in order to supprot Trump.””

            Are we still doing projection?

          4. What team were you on?

        2. My guess is that if Trump’s moves here are in any way calculated, then he did it to sink Biden’s campaign in order to face Warren who he believes he can beat way more easily than Biden!

          1. In Soviet Russia, Obama Bin Biden his time, till we ALL be wearin’ burkas! All Hail Comrade Biden!

      2. Clinton was impeached. How did that work out in the end?

        1. Left office with 60% approval?

          1. says Nate Silver’s buddies

          2. But how did it work out for dems in Congress?

            1. 106th Congress

              This Congress met from Jan 3, 1999 – Jan 3, 2001.

              It started with 55 GOP Senators and 45 Democrats. Ended at 50 and 50 Senators.

              206 Democrat Representatives and 228 GOP Representatives. Ended at 211 and 221 Representatives.

              1. So you’re saying the Dems benefited from the impeachment?

      3. again with the exact opposite of reality.

        1. This is exactly the same crap that Lefties said with the Mueller investigation.

          Lefties have to lie to themselves because the truth is so sad for them.

          1. the projection would be cute if not so sinister.

      4. Except

        1) it wasn’t a whistleblower

        2) he didn’t get caught doing anything

        3) you’ve been lying about this shit for THREE YEARS if you want your weird interpretations of his actions to be taken seriously, you should have thought about that.

        1. What’s the weather like in bizarro world? Seriously, no whistleblower complaint? What happened last week, then?

          1. I guess you stopped pretending you weren’t a regular hiding behind a sock looking for a straight polite conversation. We knew that already but you lying certainly convinced no one jeff.

            1. Your reptile brain operates on pattern recognition, which is normal. But the rest of use the more modern parts of our brain to deduce reality beyond simple pattern recognition. You should try it. You ever wonder why you see conspiracies everywhere that other people don’t see?

            2. He dropped that act in less than 24 hours.
              He also hasn’t mentioned his “decoration for (stolen) valor” again.
              Funny, that

              1. Nardz, someone called me a blue falcon, which is army slang for a piece of shit soldier. You had no problem with the shit slinger, but you do have a problem with me correcting his slander? Your tribalism is stinking the place up. And not one of you cowards would ever talk like that in person, so lay off it here.

                If you don;t want to hear about me, then don’t slander me. Pretty simple. I am here to debate ideas. I’ve never once offered information about myself unsolicited or made wild speculations about someone’s personal life, at least not until they have become unbearable in their own ad hominems.

                1. I have a problem with you fraudulently claiming military service, as soldiermedic thoroughly pointed out.
                  And “blue falcon” is commonly known among the enlisted as a “buddy fucker” though “piece of shit soldier” is vaguely passable enough for one who doesn’t know from first hand experience

                  1. Oh? You are so sure I’m fraudulently claiming military service? How are you so sure? Your gotcha moment was so devoid of logic it is hilarious. Did you ever think I assumed you were a life long civilian when I explained what blue falcon meant? If I was a civilian, how did I know the meaning of blue falcon to being with?

                    You have no evidence I’m fraudulently claiming anything, but you do have a sense of strong tribalism. My comments make you angry because you can’t refute them with your own cited arguments, so you slink down to personal insults.

                    Let me try a take on you:
                    You are a regular-ass pog with a high and tight who hasn’t done anything more exciting than pulling gate guard duty. You wear a PT belt daily. You are proud of your PT score being over 200 but below 300.

                    How’d I do?

                    1. “How’d I do?”

                      You watch too many war movies.
                      Fuck off and die.

                    2. “Oh? You are so sure I’m fraudulently claiming military service?”

                      Well, you are. So yeah.

                    3. “Let me try a take on you:
                      You are a regular-ass pog with a high and tight who hasn’t done anything more exciting than pulling gate guard duty. You wear a PT belt daily. You are proud of your PT score being over 200 but below 300.

                      How’d I do?”

                      Like a bad fake.

                    4. Sorry dude. You set yourself up for that one.

                    5. Come get me then, Sevo. You wouldn’t say a goddamn thing in person, coward. You can’t even back up an internet argument with a source or an unbroken logic chain. Pathetic coward.

                    6. I love how none of you can even articulate an argument, but double down on the tribalism. Like a troop of baboons in here.

                    7. You do not need to verify that you are who you say you are DOL. It just feeds into the trap set by the people trolling you.

                      I really do not know why some posters get off on this game of personal attacks, multiple accounts and sock puppets. There are lots of great games out there like World of Warcraft or something if you want to get your aggressions out.

                      Same reason I just ignore the antisemites and racists lurking around. Responding just feeds into the pathology. They get off on that.

                    8. Solid advice, Echospinner.

                    9. In Soviet Russia, socks sock themselves! Rock ’em, sockem, sockbots! But behold the MEEEE, the bottomless botter of ALL sockerbots!

                    10. Come get me then, Sevo. You wouldn’t say a goddamn thing in person, coward.

                      Unlock your email and we can find out.

                    11. Wearing a PT belt everywhere? That is usually a command directive. Calling people a POG, what are you now claiming to be an operator? Fuck I think you learned a little lingo and are trying to talk the talk. Next you’ll be bragging about all your time outside the wire. The more you try and talk tough the more I am convinced you are stolen valor. Fuck, combat veterans don’t brag. Unless they are willing to put up. You still haven’t stated what you were decorated for (though you were the one who brought it up first). You claimed to be in the top 10% of your peers, on what basis? What unit were you with? Where did you serve? I am willing to list every unit I was assigned to and can provide times of service and assignments.

                    12. De Oppresso Liber
                      October.3.2019 at 5:32 pm
                      “Come get me then, Sevo. You wouldn’t say a goddamn thing in person, coward. You can’t even back up an internet argument with a source or an unbroken logic chain. Pathetic coward.”

                      Stuff it up your lying ass, you pathetic piece of shit. Caught bullshitting and now your all ‘I’m an internet warrior!’
                      Maybe your mommy is impressed; I’m not.

                    13. Echospinner
                      October.3.2019 at 5:47 pm
                      “You do not need to verify that you are who you say you are DOL. It just feeds into the trap set by the people trolling you….”

                      Suck up to the new troll, asshole. Only confirms what has been obvious.

                    14. Your fake; what ODA(s) were you on? I can find out if your truthful in about 5 minutes.

                    15. Not very well. Not impressed at all. I too think you’re a liar. Probably because you lie so much, and democrats do like to steal valor. As they have none.

                2. A shitty soldier is called a soup sandwich or all ate up, not a blur falcon. A blue falcon is a buddy fuckers, someone who screws their buddies over for their own gain. A blue falcon is someone you will never want in your foxhole, a soup sandwich is someone you wouldn’t want to give responsibility to, but they aren’t purposely bad, just incompetent.

                  1. Didn’t know that about “soup sandwich”, as I’ve never been in the military.
                    I’m familiar enough with some who have to know “blue falcon” though.
                    And some of those I’m familiar with have a little hobby of exposing stolen valor.
                    So that set off some signals, and soldiermedic comes along and confirms my doubts.
                    I am a poker player, and de’s bluff was damn obvious when called by someone who’s actually served in the military.

          2. “no whistleblower complaint?”

            Hi Jeff, you’re doing that thing where you lie about what was said

            “1) it wasn’t a whistleblower”

            It WAS NOT a whistleblower because it didn’t follow whistleblower protocols. This isn’t news or even controversial.

            Now stop lying about what people say you sad fuck.

            1. He did follow whistleblower protocols. if you are talking about the second hand reporting nonsense, no such requirement exists in the actual statute. There was a memo that was later corrected that did mention first hand vs second hand, but it was corrected to reflect the actual law.

              Try reading more, speaking less.
              https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2087

              1. While it might not be in the statute, there are problems with second hand reporting and whistleblowing that makes it undesirable.

                1. The whistleblowers complaint is hearsay and not admissible in most trials.
                2. The person that gave the whistleblower the info is not afforded the same protections as the whistleblower.

                1. What hes doing is shifting the broad regulations allowed by the law and pretending the regulations didnt exist before. The IC is given wide latitude as to what regulations it imposes on the law. The whistleblower used the old forms which required first person evidence. De is just too fucking stupid to understand that laws give wide leverage to how agencies can interpret through regulation. The interpreted regulation was modified post complaint.

                  1. “The IC is given wide latitude as to what regulations it imposes on the law.”

                    Please cite this. I cited the actual law, you guys respond with conjecture and goal post move. This is ridiculous.

                    1. Cite what? Executive interpretation? Do you want me to link to the Chevron case?

                      God you ask for stupid thing Jeff.

                    2. Just cite anything, you mendacious troglodyte.

                    3. “”you guys respond with conjecture and goal post move. “”

                      Actually I wasn’t responding about the law. I was merely pointing out problems that would occur downrange.

                    4. Holy shit jeff. You’re actually doubling down on asking for a basic premise of our current federal government of the delegation doctrine?!? How fucking ignorant do you want to prove yourself??

                      http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/delegation-of-legislative-power.aspx

                    5. So where does your source state that an IG can alter existing legislation? Finish this sentence for me “delegation is different than legislation, in that (blank)”

                    6. God you’re retarded Jeff. Nobody is altering laws. They are altering execution through executive interpretation you ignorant fuck.

                    7. If you were real SF, you would know the IC has broad latitude to do just about anything.

                    8. My understanding is that Jeffy is in fact Cytotoxic. A Canadian college student. Not even an American.

                      This is in addition to him being a pedophilia enthusiast.

              2. Whistleblower protocols require him to report on things beholden to the agency of the IC. The president is not under the purview of the IC. The forms he used also required him to use first hand evidence (the forms were only change post his submission) and he checked the box that said he had first hand evidence despite not having any. Regulations also required him to go to the IC and the office of DNI prior to talking to any office in Congress, he talked to Congress 3 days prior to any discussion with the DNI office.

                So basically you are wrong on every point once again dumbfuck.

                1. Again, cite please. you made about 6 unsubstantiated claims.

                  We already addressed the non existent requirement for first hand info. Pretty funny how you all become experts in bureaucratic forms, but can’t perceive an obvious and fatal to our elections case of conflict of interest.

                  1. “”Pretty funny how you all become experts in bureaucratic forms, but can’t perceive an obvious and fatal to our elections case of conflict of interest.””

                    Projection your honor.

                    1. Projection? How so? Because I know how to look up law? Which conflict of interest am I endorsing, exactly?

                    2. Because you and projecting they the are “experts” and assuming their ability of perception.

                      BTW, anytime I call projection and you ask how, I will provide the reasoning.
                      I’m fair like that.

                  2. They’ve been cited over and over in these threads baby jeffry. You choose to remain ignorant.

                    1. So no sources then?

                    2. Jeff can we just agree you’re fucking retarded?

                    3. By the way, if you actually read your legal link you will see how the law is limited to administration of the IC you stupid fuck. It is in the law.

                      Try reading your own sources.

              3. “He did follow whistleblower protocols.”

                Nope. He gave it to Schiff first. Not protocol.

                “. if you are talking about the second hand reporting nonsense,”

                I wasn’t

                You know what they say about assuming.
                It makes you look lie a fucking idiot.

                So does not k owing the” whistleblower” lost protection by giving it to Schiff.

                1. Please cite your sources.

                  1. Baby jeffrey is losing so badly he is resorting to his citation cries. Despite this all being linked throughout these threads.

                    1. If you guys didn’t play politics like a team sport, we could, I dunno, debate ideas and learn stuff? I’m asking for sources, I’m genuine. I found one source for one of the claims on my own. No thanks to you guys.

                      I still have not found a source claiming he loses whistleblower protections for going to schiff first. I can cite the law for you guys again, if need be.

                    2. No you arent dumbfuck. if you were you would have read them in the other thread. You ask for citation as a form of argumentation when you cant refute anything. This is a k own trait of yours. When you are proven wrong you attempt to shit down the link as invalid such as when you discredited an article from the federalist on abortion before realizing it was written by on OBGYN. You’re a dishonest fuck and everyone recognizes this. Even the IG statement admits they changed the form after media inquiries. do I need to link the IG statement for you too retard?

                    3. Pedo Jeffy. No one will debate you because you are a disingenuous, sophist, ignorant shitsack. Your arguments are repetitively discredited, yet you make them over and over.

                      Seriously, fuck off. You should also commit suicide.

          3. De Oppresso Liber
            October.3.2019 at 1:13 pm
            “What’s the weather like in bizarro world? Seriously, no whistleblower complaint? What happened last week, then?”

            Pretty much “gossip”, but lying lefty shibags keep making up stories.

            1. Not supporting Trump /= supporting leftist policy. But I wouldn’t expect much nuance from you.

              1. De Oppresso Liber
                October.3.2019 at 1:40 pm
                “Not supporting Trump /= supporting leftist policy. But I wouldn’t expect much nuance from you.”

                I’m sure there’s a community college near you with classes in reading comprehension; take one.
                And fuck off and die.

                1. Sevo the coward spills his bile into the internet again. *Clap clap clap*

                  1. De Oppresso Liber
                    October.3.2019 at 5:36 pm
                    “Sevo the coward spills his bile into the internet again. *Clap clap clap*”

                    Lefty fucking troll still can’t read.
                    Make the world a better place: Fuck off and die

                  2. Pedo Jeffy, listen to Sevo. Commit suicide. Your life has no value.

          4. “What happened last week, then?”

            Someone relayed gossip, the media jumped on it and called the person a “whistle blower”, Trump released the transcripts which showed nothing, the media removed vast portions, focused on one area, did some inferring, and made it something.

            Oh, and Trump almost doubled Obama’s campaign funding record.

            1. Nice fan fic.

      5. Actually, it may well be.
        Trump could have set up this entire imbroglio by letting some fake details of the phone call leak, knowing that he’d done nothing wrong but that those out to get him would pounce. And they did.
        This served two purposes for Trump. It put the Biden scandal on the front page – something Trump could not have done with a straight accusation. It also got the DemonCRAPS exercised over “Russia Collusion II” – calling for impeachment before ANY facts were in, apparently colluding with the whistleblower before the report was even submitted and in the case of Schiff, presenting actual propaganda as a transcript of the call before the transcript was even released.
        The testimony today simply underscores Trump’s long-standing effort to ensure America isn’t the “sucker” in supporting other nations and utterly destroys the improper influence claim. Meanwhile, interest in a Biden investigation is increasing, and now when Trump talks about it, it shows up in the press.
        The DemonCRAPS may impeach Trump – but for what? If they do, many reps in Red states will go down. If they don’t, then they’re seen as fools – another dose of Trumpian reality.

        If you really want to see the DemonCRAPS smashed beyond all recovery, impeach Trump and watch him get re-elected, while the House and Senate both go deep red.

    5. Please explain why he should be impeached over this. I’m curious to see if you can actually explain rather than simply spew talking points.

      1. He should be impeached because he’s the sitting President.

        That is all.

        1. marshaul
          October.3.2019 at 6:10 pm
          “He should be impeached because he’s the sitting President.
          That is all.”

          So, nothing. Thanks.

      2. Trump should be investigated for 2.5 years and involve 13 other countries with faulty FISA warrants over pee tapes while Bidens son getting 50k a month from a ukranian company and 1.5 billion from china 10 days after traveling on AF2 with his dad should not. Retards like Jeff and grb believe this idiocy.

        1. According to faggot progtards like GRB, all I need to do to get hundreds of millions of dollars of investment from the Chinese is to form a company and go to China. Don’t need any track record, clients, revenue, etc.. Same with the Ukrainians. No experience in oil and gas or anything to offer, but they’ll pay a sweet stipend of $50k per month. Just because.

      3. That’s the case the DemonCRAPS cannot make.

  3. it’s much more likely that Joe Biden is the real casualty of the telephone call now at the center of the impeachment process

    And Vladimir Putin smirks and tents his fingers over the 25th dimensional chessboard.

    1. In Soviet Russia, Vladimir the Impaler tents your smirks! All Hail, Comrade!

  4. “Brutal Truths About How Power and Privilege Operate”

    They operate via a coercive monopoly government that @Reason supports in the name of being limited !

    1. What are you saying? Do you want anarchy, are you an anarchist, do you have a way to run a peaceful human society (with human nature what it is today),without ANY government? Then by all means, tell us all about it!

      Are you against the idea of a SMALL (limited) government? If so, why? What, specifically, are you criticizing “Reason” writers for?

      From the above, I really can NOT tell WHAT it is that you think, other than, perhaps, “Me smart, Reason writers stupid”.

        1. From the above, I really can NOT tell WHAT it is that you think, other than, very clearly, “Me stupid”.

          1. “From the above, I really can NOT tell WHAT it is that you think”

            Yes we are all awaee that eating shit rotted your brain, but it’s 3 words dummy

            “Fuck off slaver” means you should fuck off slaver.

            ” Me stupid”.

            Big of you to finally admit it, yes, you are. Now fuck off slaver.

            1. “Me stupid” is what YOU think (or at least subconsciously are aware of), as is clearly written above. Can you read yet? “YOU stupid”, is what ***I*** think! Are you so far gone as to not know what an “ego boundary” is? You are you; I am me… Are you holding entirely too many multiple personalities in your head, Tulpa-the-ToolPoopy, to keep all that straight?

              M. Scott Peck discussed “ego boundaries” at length, in one of his many books. Here is his ONE top-most book that I think YOU should read: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonfoundation-20/
              People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil

              I know, you won’t read it, because you are too stupid and (even more so) too evil! An honest discussion of evil might threaten Your vastly, ghastly, over-inflated ego.

              But maybe someone smarter and more humble than you, will see this, and check out this excellent book!

              1. ““Me stupid” is what YOU think”

                Not just me, everyone thinks you’re stupid.

                1. Yeah, but they think you’re stupid, too.

                  WGAF?

                  1. No, we don’t. Just you progtards.

              2. “People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil”
                Thanks for the book suggestion. Found an audiobook.

      1. Anarchy means no rule or government

        I want government but not coercive monopolies that violate freedom of association AND the free market – but which @Reason supports anyway

      2. As for @Reason being stupid, I long ago gave up my libertarian authoritarianism where Reason and other libertarian authorities were good and knew all.

        1. OK then, hpearce, carry on, you sound like a sensible person! I didn’t mean to jump your shit!

          (Some morons here on these pages would accuse me of wanting to EAT your shit, but that isn’t true either!)

            1. Your logic is impeccable! What splendid intellect! If I tag along quietly, could I be excused from having to eat them with a goat, on a boat, in a moat?

              With Your Great Intellect, as Honors our Sacred Bodily Fluids, can You find any errors in the source codes to follow:
              Exclude negligible variables, and Begin Masticate [ Interpolate ( Parameter[15:0], metric[15:0], median[15:0] ), average[15:0] ) ] ; Loop_Count <= Loop_Count + 1'b1 ;
              Invoke DisplayModule "Hillary says stop your clinging!", end; end module ;

              Master-Coder, PLEASE help me! If we can debug this code, I promise to be a very sincere good-character witness at Your upcoming trial.

  5. No, the real problem is that all of this stupidity going on now is just another layer of theatrical bullshit that’s being used to obscure what the real problems are. And it doesn’t matter anyway because those real problems are so big that no person can really fully wrap their heads around them. It’s easier to just get on with life and adjust to new bullshit than it is to do anything about existing bullshit.

    1. “…And it doesn’t matter anyway because those real problems are so big that no person can really fully wrap their heads around them…”

      Oh, yes. Sparky’s here to fill us in on the mysterious “big problems”. go ahead, Spraky, let’s hear it.

      1. You’re kidding, right? I don’t have any answers, I’m busy living my life and dealing with the random shit that occasionally rains down.

        1. You’re the one who claims this hidden knowledge; let’s see it.

          1. You’re obviously mistaken. I don’t know how you even pulled that out of what I typed.

            1. Here’s the quote:
              “…And it doesn’t matter anyway because those real problems are so big that no person can really fully wrap their heads around them…”

              Now, what are those really big problems we’re all missing which you have found?

              1. Gee, maybe there aren’t any?

                1. Or maybe you just can’t wrap your head around them and it’s so much simpler for you to believe that they therefore don’t exist.

    2. I agree with most of what you say here.

      However, a BIG problem right now is described in the link below. I think we all know that there’s a good candidate for a major fix to this problem on the table right now. It’s just that SOME of us aren’t open-minded enough to recognize the SEVERE nature of the problem!

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/

      1. The big problem is that people like the author of that article have lost their minds and think anyone who disagrees with them is insane. The even bigger problem is that such lunatics are not only allowed to wonder around in public but also are given national platforms for their lunacy.

        We have an entire media and a large part of our political class that is unfit to live unsupervised.

        1. Meaning you didn’t read the article, or you’re completely blinded by ideology. The writer lists almost 10 bazillion historical instances to demonstrate the overwhelming venal narcissism of The Donald.

          The author didn’t say it, but I will: Extreme narcissism is a very primal (and prime) ingredient of evil. Evil is a 4-letter word, I know, too judgmental, and all… but the word exists in order to describe something that is very real. And dangerous!

          1. The writer writes complete fucking nonsense. It is called confirmation bias you half wit. He assumes his premise and then puts a bunch of things in that context to make it seem like it is proof.

            Trump has been a highly effective President. Nitwits like you don’t like that so you pretend he is unfit. Yeah, anyone who doesn’t buy into your braindead ideology is according to you. Go fuck yourself.

            1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

              1. ^^The results of persistent shit consumption, folks.

                1. So then, you, too, are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic? Why isn’t your handle “Tim, the Enchanter, Reincarnated”?

                  1. Um, the fact is that you said you want to eat shit. Please lie so I can quote you.

              2. Just because I can own you in an argument doesn’t make me a great writer, although I am quite good. It is just that the task is a pretty low bar.

                1. Then WHY are you wasting your time here? Get yourself that gig at Reason, and set them all straight!

                  1. I have a weakness for torturing stupid people and a job that I can accomplish while doing other things. We all have our vices.

              3. Squirrely, your owners should be directed to take you to the vet and have you out to sleep. You are an annoyance here.

        2. “people like the author of that article have lost their minds and think anyone who disagrees with them is insane. ”

          “We have an entire media and a large part of our political class that is unfit to live unsupervised.”

          It’s as if millions of irony meters cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

          1. Hi tony.

            Is it ignorant sock day. Jeff and now tony.

            1. It really is impossible for you to accept that more than one person can see your bullshit for what it is, isn’t it?

              1. Sure tony. What time does your clock say?

              2. Tony, you are a stupid faggot. This was established long ago. Go back to servicing the other homos at your glory hole.

      2. Oh FFS. Everyone is unfit for office.

        1. Seriously. When the fuck did so-called “libertarians” start defending politicians?

          They are all scum. None of them are fit for office. Including Trump.

          FFS.

      3. George Conway is the definitive definition of a cuck.

        1. Then refute what he wrote, PLEASE, to illuminate us all!

          So far, all I see from you above, is an attempt to join the ever-growing ranks of “Tim, the Enchanter, Reincarnated”, who can summon persuasion without facts or logic.

          What I don’t get is, HOW can there be MORE than ONE “Tim, the Enchanter, Reincarnated” living at the same time! I thought that souls were indivisible! Do I have my metaphysics all WRONG!??!

          https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/

          1. Then refute what he wrote, PLEASE, to illuminate us all!

            Do you know why no one’s bothering, SQRLSY?

            Because if anyone cared to take the time to refute each self serving argument in that article–with cites and references– you’d respond with babbling idiocy and act as if they’d done nothing.

            As you always do.

            You’re useless, SQRLSY. You’re not even a decent troll.

            1. Try me. You’re too lazy and stupid. Throw up a link at least, to show me how I am ALL wrong about Trump being an evil asshole. Something other than your drunk Trump-worshipper neighbor, who lives under the bridge, and adores Trump, because of the brain waves that she’s been receiving from the Arcturians.

              In the meantime…

              Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

              1. Thanks for proving me right.

                I gotta give you that–whenever anyone calls you an asshole you make sure to show everyone that they were absolutely right.

                1. The one thing he’s actually good at. I’m sure he’s genuine. No one is that good of a performer.

      4. You use atlantic a lot. Do they give free shit for subscribers?

        1. No, not that I know of.

          For “free shit”, you have to go to Government Almighty! Government Almighty LOVES us all, Dearly and Deeply, MORE than you can EVER know!

          Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

          Government loves me, This I know,
          For the Government tells me so,
          Little ones to GAWD belong,
          We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

          GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
          Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
          Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
          And gives me all that I might need!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

          DEA, CIA, KGB,
          Our protectors, they will be,
          FBI, TSA, and FDA,
          With us, astride us, in every way!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

          1. Puking up this hackneyed old screed again. I’ll bet Squirrely is even more annoying in person.

  6. “Because Trump is cartoonishly simple, he is revealing of how things actually work; we can see in him the moves and machinations that more sophisticated and suave operators are able to mask. ”

    Agreed. I see his moves and machinations and I am not troubled. This is borderline miraculous. He might be the cleanest, least corrupted President ever. It’s a low bar, but still.

    I get the feeling Reason gets its news and opinion from the trough on the left.

    1. I can never figure out why they insist on saying Trump is stupid rather than just foolish or wrong. The guy has been running circles around them politically for going on four years now. I don’t see how calling someone who keeps besting you stupid says very good things about yourself.

      1. It’s a progressive thing: opponents cannot simply be disagreed with, they must be ignorant/stupid/evil.
        And Reason falls in line.

        1. And they are always liberal arts majors with no skills or accomplishments beyond bloviating about shit they know nothing about. But it is everyone else who is stupid.

      2. It’s because, you massive dipshit, they aren’t progressives, and beating progressives ought to be trivially simple, given that they’re the dumbest people on Earth.

        Beating progressives does not prove that Trump is smart, capable, or effective.

      3. He has never polled above 50% despite a nominally strong economy, and he’s about to be impeached because most Americans want him out of office.

        He’s a brilliant at politics as he was at business.

        Or can’t you hear be through all the Trump semen in your facial orifices?

        1. How cute. The Russian troll bot.

    2. Reason has been showing it’s anti-Trump agenda on the false belief that it is equivalent to supporting libertarianism.

      1. Opposing whoever is in power IS equivalent to libertarianism, as you’d know if you were a libertarian.

        If Murray fucking Rothbard was elected President, we’d criticize him too.

        Politicians deserve to be criticized. Even made up shit is fair game for politicians in my book. They deserve zero support. Anything worth accomplishing via government can be accomplished by politicians nobody supports.

    3. I’m sure Nick and the fang like those invites to RealTime, or the panels on MSNBC and such. Being a ‘good one’ and knowing his LP ace serves him well, I’m sure.

    4. I agree. Trump, IMHO, is the most libertarian president in my lifetime. And Reason should be celebrating. Instead it seems Dalia, Nick and others have a case of TDS. When I saw Nick had “Thank Trump” I had to read the article, I thought he finally was convinced. Yes, Trump is exposing them by being honest and speaking truth to the power of the political class who’s fighting him. I read the transcript and what I read is that Trump is investigating what happened in the Ukraine in 2016. And I’ll also say this, I wouldn’t put it past the Ukrainians to manufacture evidence for Trump, but they don’t have to, and it wasn’t Trump in Ukraine in 2016.

  7. http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/bogus-poll-supports-bogus-impeachment/

    And the polls that say the public wants impeachment are totally bogus.

    1. From the PJMedia link:

      Ipsos conducted a two-day survey, by their own admission, from “a sample of roughly 1,006 adults” who were “randomly drawn from Ipsos’ online panel,” plus “partner online panel sources, and ‘river’ sampling.” This doesn’t look like the world’s most reliable statistical universe.
      First off, that’s a small number for such a big issue. Secondly, Ipsos didn’t limit their polling, as one likes to do on weighty matters, to likely voters who actually determine elections. Ipsos didn’t even limit their polling to registered voters. For all we know, the poll wasn’t even limited to citizens — Ipsos says only that they polled “adults.” – Stephen Green – PJMedia.com

      1. It is a highly scientific poll. /s

      2. But it got the required results, so – – – – –

  8. “Let Us Now Thank Donald Trump for Revealing Brutal Truths About How Power and Privilege Operate”

    Indeed, let’s do exactly that. We Koch / Reason libertarians are consistent critics of power and privilege. Sure, our benefactor Charles Koch is a billionaire. But here’s the key difference between him and Drumpf — Charles Koch didn’t have a wealthy father. In fact, he started from humble beginnings. And purely through talent and hard work, he became one of the 10 richest people on the planet.

    1. Open border ?

      So people in military uniforms and armed crossing the border illegally will be allowed ?

      Or is control implied ?

  9. The way is simple, apply the NAP to the government. That is prohibit the government from initiating force. I’m surprised someone who works at Reason doesn’t know that…Ok I’m not surprised.

  10. “That is prohibit the government from initiating force.”

    As long as we live under a coercive monopoly government (i.e. state) , the above is impossible.

    1. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

    1. Nick is definitely showing signs of getting woke, and the assholes in the commentariat are still slagging him rather than encouraging him.

      Trump is a hemorrhoid and it’s fine to be annoyed by a hemorrhoid, but don’t let it deflect from the fact that the rest of the field are malignant tumors. There ain’t no ice cream on the menu, just hemorrhoids and malignant tumors.

      1. Agreed. This article is far, far from progressive apologia. In fact, it essentially makes the tacit argument that Trump is least offensive of the bunch.

        But all these guys can see is “didn’t constantly talk about how amazing Trump is in every way.”

        That, folks, is the real TDS.

  11. It took an orange bumbling megalomaniac.

    1. And yet, his opponents never lay a glove on him and he continues to run circles around him. At some point, the losing side calling the winner bumbling starts to get a bit suspect doesn’t it?

      1. It’s disgusting how Trump supporters are proud of him evading responsibility for his actions.

        John, Why do you hate the constitution? Impeachment and emoluments are in the document. You just like to omit the parts that would hamper a racist geriatric rich kid from trolling the libs?

        “The buck stops somewhere else”
        –Trump supporters.

        1. The tears of Trump’s opponents are lovely. When Trump wins re-election, whatever you do, do not deprive me of the pleasure of your lamentations. Please, don’t run away. I deserve the pleasure of reading posts like this one.

          1. Very patriotic of you. Is this really the attitude you think will help America? Incredibly immature. Shameless sycophants for a shameless president. Makes sense.

            1. Enjoying the pain of people like you whose backward politics have been destroying the country for the last 60 years is entirely patriotic.

              1. Which backward politics do I support? You have no idea what my politics are. You can read my opinions on taxation in an excellent exchange I had BYODC (I forget his exact handle) yesterday, if you like.

                Again, like most simpleton tribalists, you assume that if I’m not for Trump, I must be the enemy.

                1. Yeah, you shill for the Democrats and make absurd point after absurd point but everyone else is a simpleton tribalist.

                  Dude, don’t use talking points and buzz words unless you understand what they mean

                  1. Still no comment on the emoluments clause? I figured. How about that quote showing Trump currently at his all time highest approval rating? Oh, still no? Ok then.

                    1. It is absurd. No court has ever read it that way and no court ever will. There is nothing to comment on. It is just a made up interpretation of the constitution advanced by partisan shills who would never read it that way were Trump a democrat.

                      It is so stupid you might be the last person using it as a talking point.

                    2. Anyone who yells emoluments is a leftist retard. Your wish is to you broadly interpreted never used law to jail and take down your political opponents. You’re an authoritarian piece of shit proudly cheering lawfare.

                    3. John, who has never heard the term “conflicts of interest” apparently, does not like the constitution. Got it.

                    4. What about the emoluments clause? Last I checked, Trump took a pay cut to become President. Few of our past Presidents can say the same.

                      In fact, one might wonder how it is that so many of our past Presidents were ‘poor’ when they entered office yet after they leave are incredibly wealthy. Curious that no one suggested using the emoluments clause against them. In fact, Trump is one of the worst examples of using that clause one could think of.

                      Democrats don’t even acknowledge the Constitution as a limit upon government power, so it’s kind of a joke when they try and use arguments based on the Constitution.

                      You’d have a much easier time accusing globalists that became rich in office of violations of the emoluments clause rather than an anti-trade America-first type that accuses foreign powers of various unfair practices while being independently wealthy.

                    5. “while being independently wealthy.”

                      Gonna need a source for that, since many estimates of his wealth place him at less than 0. Where is that tax return he promised? We could at least substantiate his income if he would just do what he promised you all.

                      I wonder why every other president has divested or placed their assets into a blind trust…must have been just because they wanted to.

                    6. Sure, I guess it’s reasonable to pretend Trump lost 3 billion dollars in the past 3 years. I guess you missed all the media coverage about his billions of dollars. You can quibble about exactly how many billions of dollars he has, but he is indeed a billionaire. He is quite definitely the richest man ever to be elected as President.

                      So easy to find it’s a joke you couldn’t.

                      I’m sure he’s done tons of shady deals, after all New York real estate isn’t a place for clean people. That said, how large would a bribe need to be to entice Trump and how would one hide such a massive transaction?

                      Compare and contrast with, for example, Obama’s net worth before and after taking office. Bonus Question: Is a Nobel Prize a title?

                      Not that I think Obama deserved being charged under the emoluments clause, but it’s a joke to say Trump deserves it and other President’s haven’t. The only way one can make that claim is if one believes that businessmen can’t be President by default. Which, notably, seems to be what far left DNC types believe. Make a dollar in your businesses from foreign companies and you are automatically disqualified for office?

                    7. They made Jimmy sell his peanut farm dude. Trump owning businesses internationally is a far, far cry from “avoiding even the appearance of corruption.”

                      I think if you want to be president you should be willing to sacrifice whatever else you had going on previously. If his hotels are so precious to him, then he should stick with that. We have already seen many issues arise from this, from the Saudi’s renting whole floors without anyone staying in them to air force flights being suspiciously routed to support failing airports near Trump properties.

                      And do we really need to get into the Forbes wealth estimate that is partially based off of Trump org’s responses? Where are those tax returns? We could put the whole issue to bed, but for some reason the president does not want to come clean. Gee, are we noticing a pattern of behavior yet?


                    8. I think if you want to be president you should be willing to sacrifice whatever else you had going on previously.

                      Even if that was the case, just delay the payoff for 4 years? Maybe you should make the case for mandatory executions of all Presidents and their families and friends after their term is up? It’s the only way to be sure as men are not saints.

                      Jimmy Carter put his farm in a blind trust, good on him I guess. Trump didn’t use a blind trust, but he has taken actions to distance himself from potential conflicts of interest. His empire is also a lot more than a peanut farm, and is reviewed yearly by the IRS as it’s a complicated financial entity.

                      You still failed to give any good reasons why Trump is uniquely pliable to foreign interests worthy of triggering emoluments. It appears you are one of those people who don’t believe businessmen can be President. In fact, you think they should divest everything they own. Would you expect that to make them less likely to take a bribe? Why?

                      I also note you ‘refuted’ Trump being a billionaire by…claiming that Forbes (one of the top 10 best sources for finance) is wrong about his theoretical value with no particular evidence.

                    9. Nobody tell baby Jeffrey most of the early presidents were farmers and tradesmen and exported goods to europe. He may realize hes a fucking retard.

                    10. “Gonna need a source for that, since many estimates of his wealth place him at less than 0….”

                      Your cite fell off for you abysmally stupid claim.

                    11. “”since many estimates of his wealth place him at less than 0.””

                      Well if his wealth is 0, and his income is 0. Then his tax rate would be 0.

                2. “”You have no idea what my politics are.””

                  That cuts both ways champ.

                  1. did I make an assumption followed by a smear? Then I apologize.

          2. I mean, yeah, democracy is literally a popularity contest. But since when is “wait until we win the popularity contest!” a good argument?

            Popularity implies absolutely fuck all.

        2. De Oppresso Liber
          October.3.2019 at 1:00 pm
          “It’s disgusting how Trump supporters are proud of him evading responsibility for his actions….”

          It’s pathetic how lying lefty shitbags keep making up stories and hoping someone is as stupid as they are will accept them.

          1. Hey Sevo, did you go back to that thread from last night and read about Michael Cohen going to jail for actions taken at the direction of individual-1, a mysterious unindicted co conspirator who happened to be “a major political party’s presidential candidate”?

              1. No innuendo. Sevo here really was not aware that Michael Cohen is in prison for a crime he committed at the direction of Donald Trump. Hilarious stuff.

                1. OMG! My mistake! They got someone on “campaign finance” issues!
                  I guess that’s a bit worse than an unpaid parking ticket.
                  Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

                  1. There he is. I’ll take that as an apology, Sevo the coward.

                    1. Cohen is in prison for a perjury charge and pleading guilty to avoid other charges involving taxi medallions dumbfuck. There was no trial you dumb piece of shit.

                    2. De Oppresso Liber
                      October.3.2019 at 5:40 pm
                      “There he is. I’ll take that as an apology, Sevo the coward.”

                      Yes, I was bested by a fucking pedant! How………
                      Pathetic, you stinking pile of shit.

                2. Yes innuendo. God you’re a fucking child Jeff.

        3. You’re disgusted by people not wanting the IC to attempt soft coups? Sounds about right.

        4. “emoluments”

          You’re seriously going this way? For real?

          1. Yeah, I really don’t like my presidents having such blatant disregard for the constitution and blatant conflicts of interest.

            1. How old are you? I’m in my 50s I don’t know of a president that didn’t fit that description in my life time. Perhaps Carter, but that depends on how you feel about immigrants in cages. And he was a one term guy that was beat by someone with disregard for the Constitution. Who ended up serving two terms. I think that says something about citizens and their disregard for the Constitution.

              Just sayin.

              Would we like to have one that honors the constitution and has no conflicts of interest? Of course we would. I don’t see one running for the office this time around.

              1. I’m 35. I agree that most citizens are ignorant of the constitution and thus do not care.

                1. De Oppresso Liber
                  October.3.2019 at 8:29 pm
                  “I’m 35….”
                  Going on 15.

                2. You should also agree no president in your lifetime actual gave a fuck about the Constitution either.

                3. Pedo Jeffy, you are some college kid from Toronto. If you are really 35, then I’m even more embarrassed for you.

                  And a serious question for you. Is it as fun and cathartic for someone to beat the living shit out of you, as I imagine it to be? What do your attackers tell you? I’m truly interested in your feedback. In fact, feel free to provoke another savage beating upon your worthless person if more information is needed.

            2. “Yeah, I really don’t like my presidents having such blatant disregard for the constitution and blatant conflicts of interest”

              I’m sure you’re all for politicians as pure as the driven snow, so long as they are “D”, right?

              1. I’ve never voted for a D for president. Only Libertarians over here. Due to the immaculate and holy electoral college, I vote with my conscience without regard for utilitarian concerns.

                1. “I’ve never voted for a D for president. Only Libertarians over here”

                  Liar.

            3. “Yeah, I really don’t like my presidents having such blatant disregard for the constitution and blatant conflicts of interest.”

              Trump is losing money being President. Unlike others (Obama, Clinton) he isn’t using the WH as his meal ticket.

              1. Trump is losing money being Trump, as he has been doing for decades. Good thing he was born rich and immoral.

                1. Oh hey look you lost so you went “pissy bitch” Jeff. Again.

                  1. He really only has 3 modes.

            4. Nah, you’re just a liar who doesn’t like Trump and can’t admit it makes you want to take him down BAMN.

              1. It seems the world is full of people who inexplicably just don’t like Trump. Cue the massive conspiracy!

                1. “It seems the world is full of people who inexplicably just don’t like Trump. Cue the massive conspiracy!”

                  No conspiracy required; stupidity will suffice

                  1. So you’ve given up on the (((deep state))) nonsense?

                    1. De Oppresso Liber
                      October.3.2019 at 8:30 pm
                      “So you’ve given up on the (((deep state))) nonsense?”

                      So you still can’t read?
                      There must be a community college somewhere near to you, if you can read a map.

            5. Yeah, I really don’t like my presidents having such blatant disregard for the constitution and blatant conflicts of interest.

              You’ll get used to it.

      2. By way of example, HRC still believes she won the Presidency.

      3. Have you never heard of the Idiot Hero trope?

        1. Sure but they are never using that. They claim he is a bad politician, which he clearly isn’t. It is a stupid as Republicans saying Obama was a bad politician. The guy got elected twice to the Presidency. That doesn’t make him a good President but it does make him a good politician.

          1. Obama was a good politician and he was a good president for those who chose him I didn’t like his positions or actions but compared to Carter who was neither a good politician or president and was only elected because the country didn’t want another republican at the time and they soon regretted that choice, of course Ford wouldn’t have been any better. there was lack of choice for that election

            1. Obama was a good politician even while it was almost entirely scripted. That was a wise decision, too, and so too was his White House policy of keeping information in the closet and vigorously prosecuting any whistle blowers or leakers. To the point of perhaps violating journalists rights, even.

              In reality, Obama went back on most of his promises to those who elected him and was rewarded for it. Note that even Democrats are running against the ACA as if it was a Republican plan all along. That piece of legislation was even more one-sided than the Iraq war. Go figure.

            2. True. Obama was good at being evil. No question. And his evil continues, unabated, now that he’s out of office.

          2. I dunno. I think he is bad at being a politician in the traditional sense and that’s why some people like him. Maybe he’s not really bad at it but is just choosing not to play one on TV. Seems to me like he’s treating the whole experience like a reality show and occasionally getting ticked off when others won’t play along.

            But in the end, who cares? They’re all a bunch of morons bumblefucking around which wouldn’t be so bad if they could do it without ruining people’s lives.

            1. Trump’s genius is understanding that no Republican is going to succeed in the current media environment using traditional means and methods. The guy was in and around the media for decades and understands how to manipulate them and go around their gate keeping powers.

              Basically, only someone like Trump could have ever won the Presidency as it currently stands. The media pisses and moans about that but they created the situation. If they wanted nice and normal Republicans, they should have not spent 8 years calling such Republicans racists and Nazis and made it so no one who followed ordinary methods could win unless they were a Democrat.

              1. There was a good article on real clear yesterday about this idea. The never trumpers basically think they can still exist in an environment where democrats control the media, universities, and large parts of the bureaucracy. While the trump supporters see the field and realize they need someone who can play by the same rules democrats have set up.

              2. I don’t think Trump is that deep a thinker. I’d say it’s more instinct.

          3. There is no such thing as a “good politician”. Either they stand on principals, e.g. Ron Paul, and they accomplish little, or they get shit done, and have no principles.

            Trump may be a little of both, but he doesn’t disprove this contention.

    2. “It took an orange bumbling megalomaniac.”

      It’s the joooze, right Misek?

  12. POTUS Trump is no angel, that is for sure. But I have come to the conclusion that we really do not want an ‘angel’ sitting in the Oval Office. Jimmy Carter was a good and decent man (at the time), got himself elected, and was a disaster as POTUS.

    POTUS Trump exposed the corrupt aspects of the political system. And the media.

    1. …By being the most openly corrupt. I don’t think stress testing our constitution by seeing what would happen if an idiot who does not know the legal limits of his office decides to act in his own best interest instead of the country’s is a good idea.

      1. Eat my ass with jelly Jeff.

      2. “…By being the most openly corrupt”

        Such as? Every time this comes up its either innuendo and unfavorable interpretations of normal activity, or the same banal shit every politician has done forever.

        So list it. Prove it to me.

        1. If you aren’t able to acknowledge reality at this point, then you are willfully putting yourself in an imaginary world. You have not read the Mueller report, and do not trust any source of media outside the alt right bullshit-o-sphere, obviously.

          1. What corruption did Mueller find? List it if it is so obvious.

            1. Yours is the second time he has been asked to list it.

              “If you aren’t able to acknowledge reality at this point” is just an admission that he has nothing.

            2. 10 counts of obstruction. It is rather long, but I suggest you read the summaries here: https://www.justsecurity.org/65863/expert-summaries-of-mueller-report-a-collection-of-short-essays/#SettingtheStageInvestigationofaSittingPresident . It’s quite damning, if you are willing to read.

              Also from the report, more succinctly: “The Trump campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, and it welcomed this help.”

              I wish Trump would collude with America.

              1. I read it.

                It’s not 1p counts of obstruction, and you seem to keep lying otherwise, it’s ten situations that through “innuendo and unfavorable interpretations” might be considered obstruction by TDS sufferers.

                So, you failed again..

                And I didn’t ASK YOU FOR A LINK, YOU WERE ASKED FOR A LIST.

                You think no one sees your total reluctance to provide one? We know why. You have nothing.

                1. Why was trump trying to stop an investigation that was going to “totally exonerate” him? Put on your critical thinking cap!

                  1. “Why was trump”

                    Oh hey look Jeff is doing that thing he doe when he realizes he’s cornered.

                    That’s innuendo Jeff. Not evidence.

                    You failed. You lose.

                    1. You notice that too huh?

                    2. I haven’t failed at anything, and I haven’t lost. America has lost, evidenced by the incredible ignorance on display in your comments.

                    3. Here jeff admits it is him.

                    4. He stupidly forgot.

                  2. He didnt try you ever living retard. He was free to stop it at any point. It was in his power.

                    1. JesseAZ, you have the maturity of child kicking an airline seat. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

                    2. Baby jeffrey is mad at being outed. Why don’t you spend more time educating yourself instead of coming here and proving how fucking stupid you are? Start with delegation doctrine fucknut.

                    3. Jim is suddenly concerned with attacks on character.

                      How nakedly tribal can you get? We’re finding out now!

                    4. Yes Jeff you are acting stupidly tribal.

                      You belong on a douchebro’s bicep.

                  3. “”Why was trump trying to stop an investigation that was going to “totally exonerate” him? Put on your critical thinking cap!””

                    I believe the report did mention that Trump felt he was being unfairly investigated. I believe the report also mentioned that Trump had other options he could have used to stop the investigation but did not.

                    1. You mean those options he ordered his underlings to do, but they wouldn’t do it because it was illegal?

                      https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/14/trump-mcgahn-testimony-mueller-1364873

                    2. “You mean those options he ordered his underlings to do, but they wouldn’t do it because it was illegal?”

                      You mean more gossip?

                    3. Do you know the difference between someone asking and someone ordering?

                      “”McGahn said he took this to mean Trump was asking him to remove Mueller from the investigation.?

                      You’re link supports that Trump asked, not ordered. But someone people are trying to argue that it’s semantics. Those people probably have marital issues because every request is wrongly perceived as a demand.

              2. “I suggest you read the summaries”

                Why I read the document. And suddenly “summaries” are OK after the fit you pitched about transcripts? Fuck off jeff you sad fucking clown.

                1. Well, I know you aren’t going to read a 400 page report. Btw, 400 pages is an awful lot to write if there was no “there” there, doncha think?

                  1. You mean again? If you have evidence, cite it. List it. We can see you’re extremely reluctant and are relying on your feels.

                    “Btw, 400 pages is an awful lot to write if there was no “there” there, doncha think?”

                    Nope. It’s like you don’t know what innuendo means or what you’re being accused of.

                    1. I have cited it. It’s in a 400 page report I keep fucking referencing. Try to keep up.

                    2. Jim, I’m the only one citing anything around here. I cited the summaries which were made for this exact purpose. If you want to join my book club and go over the 400 page doc line by line, then let’s set something up.

                    3. you’re not citing anything you’re just throwing links around and insisting they contain the content you claim they contain that’s not citation you’re doing it wrong stop lying about what you’re doing and pretending you’re siding things when you’re not saving things you just throwing links around and insisting they contain what you claim they contain

                  2. “I have cited it. It’s in a 400 page report I keep fucking referencing. Try to keep up.”

                    So you have nothing, but you’re hoping that someone will read 400 pages before they find that out?
                    Hint:
                    If you have something in that 400 pages, copy and paste it. People who have evidence tend to make it clear, rather than whining that no one is reading 400 pages.
                    Oh, and:
                    ” Btw, 400 pages is an awful lot to write if there was no “there” there, doncha think?”
                    No. That’s what you write in the hopes no one notices you wasted years and millions of dollars on nothing.

                    1. De Oppresso Liber
                      October.3.2019 at 8:32 pm
                      Mueller report likely made money.
                      http://money.com/money/5639569/mueller-report-cost-waste-of-money-fines/

                      Bullshit, and even a lefty pedant knows it.

                  3. How many pages was the Benghazi report jeffrey? You now believe obama and Hillary are guilty.

                    What a fucking stupid question.

                    1. I think Benghazi was a major deal. There were a lot of investigations though, and I think the worst that Hillary could get from it was that she was incompetent and then tried to cover up her incompetence.

                    2. De Oppresso Liber
                      October.3.2019 at 8:49 pm
                      “I think Benghazi was a major deal. There were a lot of investigations though, and I think the worst that Hillary could get from it was that she was incompetent and then tried to cover up her incompetence.”

                      So perjury is, well, not really an issue?

              3. Those 10 counts arent obstruction dumbfuck. It is a wide interpretation of obstruction laws that would cause someone declaring their innocence publicly to be guilty of obstruction. Over half of the examples are of trump not using a constitutional power he is allowed to use. If you remember Texas vs Perry this interpretation of obstruction was struck down easily. There are no conditions on a presidents constitutional power.

                You really are just so fucking stupid I am starting to agree that you are a Jeff sock.

                1. So Mueller the life long republican and Trump’s apointed AG are part of the (((deep state)))? Okie dokie!

                  1. “”So Mueller the life long republican and Trump’s apointed AG are part of the (((deep state)))? “”

                    Where does he say that?

                    1. “”Mueller, the asshole who botched the anthrax investigation “‘

                      Well at least no one killed themselves for having their life ruined.

                      Oh wait.

                    2. He is saying that the Mueller report is a smear. And then he confirms that he thinks Mueller is (((deep state))), so I think I can rest my case, yuh honuh.

                    3. You had a case? All I saw was innuendo and unfavorable interpretations.

                    4. Jeff. Mouth my words more slowly. Took up Texas vs Perry. dumbfuck.

              4. By the way, the use of just security is a dead give away you are Jeff. It is the same link he used.

                1. just security?

                2. there goes that reptile brain pattern recognition again. Impressive!

                3. He didnt even know what link he used. My God jeff. Stop being a living embodiment of a fucking joke.

              5. So, your proof of what makes Trump “most openly corrupt” is . .

                1) Just like Bill Clinton, he engaged in obstruction of justice in a case with no underlying crime.

                2) He benefited from and welcomed foreign election interference, just like Bill Clinton and the DNC benefited from and welcomed illegal Chinese election interference in 1996.

                So your objection isn’t corruption, it’s just failing to be hypocritical about corruption. Cool. Let’s say it loud and say it proud, “Trump should be impeached because he isn’t a hypocrite.”

                1. Nobody asked me what I thought of Bill Clinton, but that was a nice strawman you made there.

          2. De Oppresso Liber
            October.3.2019 at 1:19 pm
            “If you aren’t able to acknowledge reality at this point, then you are willfully putting yourself in an imaginary world….”

            So it’s one of those ‘everybody knows it’ deals, you lying sack of shit?

            1. It’s so funny how the guys who always mock people for using their “feelz” are the ones who get so obviously upset by someone using cited arguments against their demigod.

              1. “It’s so funny how the guys who always mock people for using their “feelz” are the ones who get so obviously upset by someone using cited arguments against their demigod.”

                I’m sure there’s a community college near you with classes in reading comprehension; take one.
                And fuck off and die.

                1. “I’m sure there’s a community college near you with classes in reading comprehension; take one.
                  And fuck off and die.”

                  Ooh reusing your insults? all you have are insults, and you can’t even make up a new one? I might have to change your name from Sevo the coward to Sevo the unimaginative coward. Bit long…I’ll work on it and get back to you.

                  1. You don’t deserve fresh insults Jeff

                    1. But what about the folks reading along at home? I’m sure they’d appreciate some fresh material.

                    2. De Oppresso Liber
                      October.3.2019 at 6:46 pm
                      “But what about the folks reading along at home? I’m sure they’d appreciate some fresh material.”

                      Did your mommy think that was clever?

                  2. “Ooh reusing your insults? all you have are insults, and you can’t even make up a new one? I might have to change your name from Sevo the coward to Sevo the unimaginative coward. Bit long…I’ll work on it and get back to you.”
                    Exactly what you deserve.
                    Fuck off and die.

              2. Adding a link you haven’t read isnt site dumbfuck.

          3. “You have not read the Mueller report”

            Sure I did. It was what Boaty said

            “innuendo and unfavorable interpretations”

            List what wasn’t. Don’t dodge or deflect or act like a petulant little shit. No one is taking your word for anything.

            1. 10 counts of obstruction.

              and

              “The Trump campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, and it welcomed this help.”

              Feels traitorous to me. I dunno, I prefer presidents who don’t owe foreign governments a favor when they get elected.

              1. “Feels traitorous to me”

                Then maybe you shildnt have tried to sell that shit pile that was Russia as a scandal, so you’d have some fucking credibility.

                Because to normal people it looks like ““innuendo and unfavorable interpretations” AGAIN. Like you’ve been pushing for three years.

                ” 10 counts of obstruction.”

                That’s not a list, and it’s just another of your assertions.

                Because you know I’m right.

                1. Listen I can save you some time, you’re doubling down on innuendo and unfavorable interpretations. If you don’t have anything else, and no your “feels” isn’t something else, then don’t bother. You lost.

                  1. America lost. I’m just pointing it out to you. You didn’t win. He’s lying to you, too. Sad.

                    1. “NU UH” says the guy relying on feelz and innuendo.

                    2. You mean the guy relying on a 400 page report written by a lifelong republican?

                    3. I have been pulling quotes from the report all day long. You baboons don’t read them or bizarely claim they say the opposite of what they said. Here’s a hint, the report did not exonerate the president.

                      From the report:
                      “Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
                      clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
                      applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
                      obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
                      conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
                      not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. ”

                      And here’s a nice one from Mueller’s congressional testimony:

                      “The Republican congressman Ken Buck asked: ‘You believe that he committed … you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?’

                      Mueller replied: ‘Yes.'”

                    4. oh cool more innuendo

                    5. Lololol his big proof is that they can’t prove a negative and that Trump is a ham sandwich.

                      Nice ellipse by the way.

                    6. Good question! The ellipse is a pause, not an omission. Notice it is within the quotes.

                    7. De Oppresso Liber
                      October.3.2019 at 6:47 pm
                      “Good question! The ellipse is a pause, not an omission. Notice it is within the quotes.”

                      And irrelevant.

              2. “Feels”

                Now we’ve reached the heart of your argument.

                1. I mean, I leave a mile long trail of cites, but sure, pull one word out of context. That makes sense.

                  1. “I mean, I leave a mile long trail of cites”

                    I see a couple and nothing that was actually asked for.

                    Why are you lying when we can see you’re lying?

                    1. I do not know how to engage with your level of delusion, so I will just address you as most people must in real life:

                      Sir, you are scaring the kids in the library, again. Please move along to the YMCA for your shower.

                    2. The while thread sees the same thing I see. They’re all calling you out for lying about cites.

                      But you go with everyone else being deluded. Lol.

              3. I prefer presidents who don’t owe foreign governments a favor when they get elected.

                Which is why you stridently opposed Hillary “Clinton Foundation” Rodham, right?

                1. Part of the reason, yes. I didn’t think I’d have to explain that there are more than 2 political flavors in a libertarian rag comments section.

        2. Obama asked Medvedev ON A LIVE MIC for a personal favor that benefitted only him, and the media’s response was a collective yawn.

          1. That’s simply not true. “I’ll have more leeway after the election.” is not asking for a favor.

      3. Born after January 20, 2001 junior? Bubba and his wife Livia Drusilla Rodham stole or sold everything probably including the White House sink.

      4. You’re aware his predecessor killed Americans without due process, used the IRS to go after foes, used the IC to spy on a political opponent. Had a guy thrown in jail to try and sell an idiotic claim of a YouTube video nobody watched causing the death of an ambassador, right?

        Yes, TRUMP is the bad President.

        1. tu quoque

          they were/are both bad presidents. One made bad policy a priority, the other will destroy the republic to get what he wants.

          1. “One made bad policy a priority, the other will destroy the republic to get what he wants.”

            Drama queen speaks!

          2. “they were/are both bad presidents. One made bad policy a priority, the other will destroy the republic to get what he wants.”

            I don’t think Trump’s policies are that bad. But glad we both see the darkness that was Obama.

      5. You keep stating he is openly corrupt but your evidence is always widely twisted interpretations of law.

        1. You mean the widely accepted interpretations, as evidenced by a 400 page report on the matter made by a life long republican and war hero?

          1. “You mean the widely accepted interpretations, as evidenced by a 400 page report on the matter made by a life long republican and war hero?”

            You seem quite impressed with 400 pages, and you’ve yet to tell us what’s in there which might be relevant.
            The term for that is: Bullshit.

            1. I.Keep.Citing.and.Quoting. but you guys are willfully ignorant in the extreme. Start on page 2 where he clearly states that he would exonerate the president if he could, but he can’t.

              1. Yeah, you keep citing and not quoting actually. That you have a few quotes, which prove the charge of innuendo and unfavorable interpretations, doesn’t so what you hope it does.

                1. You keep using that word, “innuendo”. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

          2. The report you didnt read? The report written by the lawyer admonished 0-9 for his interpretation of law against Arthur Anderson? The interpretation of law that a judge just overruled from the same group regarding Flynns business partner?

            You know the report you havent read is not actual law right you fucking retard?

            1. Actual law like the whistleblower law i had to cite for you earlier?

              Might want to check this out:

              https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter73&edition=prelim

              1. It’s says you’re wrong at it’s not actual law.

              2. By the way, you did the same thing when you were wrong about the whistleblower a few days ago. You know, the one who isn’t an actual whistleblower

                1. Show me a source that says that whistleblowers lose their protection if they contact a relevant congressional committee and you win the argument. So simple, why not do it?

                  1. Who made that argument dipshit?

              3. What does this have to do with my post idiot?

  13. “As the impeachment of Donald Trump becomes increasingly popular—45 percent of Americans now support the investigation of the president over his dealings with Ukraine”

    When did impeachement become investigation? And didn’t you learn your fucking lesson with Russia you cowhide covered cretin? THAT was popular at one point too.


    1. When did impeachement become investigation?

      In at least some fairness, impeachment is actually an investigation. Conviction is something else.

      1. That’s incorrect. Impeachment is separate from the investigation. It’s why I asked.

        1. I suppose. The impeachment itself is charges that result from an investigation (usually) but they aren’t the same thing.

          It is a little odd that the Mueller report is more or less the Starr report. I’m curious to see how this shakes out. We’ve already tried to convict a President of perjury and obstruction of justice and it didn’t seem to be enough. Not sure what’s changed other than ‘but it’s Trump this time’. As far as I know, no one has managed to prove that Trump lied in sworn testimony which can’t be said of Clinton.

  14. The reality is that in a free market system like we have people, have an ability to trade on their relationships. President Trump has thrown out Hunter Biden. He has offered no proof of corruption just association as evidence of wrong doing. Hunter is hardly alone in trading on his name. If we looked at children of powerful people, Senators, Representatives, Cabinet Members, Military Leaders, and powerful business leaders, would we see similar patterns? Would we ask every corporate board to justify all their board members? Will we make it a crime to hold a corporate office if you are related to a powerful person? This is part of living in a free market system. Some will trade on their skills and other on their relationships. I do not think we can change this.

    1. He did more than trade on his name. He flew on Air Force 2 with his dad and got the Chinese government to give his investment firm a billion and a half dollars to invest on the trip. He made his money in two of the nations his father was responsible for foreign policy.

      His father got a prosecutor fired who was investigating the company he was working for. He made all that money despite being a reformed drug addict who had just been kicked out of the Navy and having no experience or known skills in either investing or in the energy industry.

      That is not just trading on his name. Becoming a rainmaker at a K street law firm is trading on his name. That is straight up banana republic corruption.

    2. So, what you are saying is, they hired Baby Biden to get favorable treatment from the US government.

      Seems like it would be a good idea to determine whether or not Papa Biden did give favorable treatment to them so Baby Biden would gain.

      We’re talking about a politician here, so the appearance of something fishy is as bad as something fishy in fact.

      1. The problem here is how broadly are you willing to apply the something fishy standard? Are you willing to apply it to the children of President Trump, to Senator’s children, and so forth down the line. I don’t think you can say lets investigate Hunter Biden unless you are willing to apply that standard across the board. Are you?

        1. The answer to that question depends on the circumstances. It is hard to give a hard and fast rule. I will say, however, that when the son of a politician accompanies his father on an official mission to the country and comes home with an enormous business deal in that country, that passes any reasonable “something fishy” standard.

          Wouldn’t you?

          1. John, I think you nailed that one = …when the son of a politician accompanies his father on an official mission to the country and comes home with an enormous business deal in that country, that passes any reasonable “something fishy” standard

            That would be true for any politician’s kid, Team R or Team D. That is just blatant corruption.

          2. So if I accept the Biden deal as fishy, would you accept the Chinese granting Trademark to Ivanka Trump as fishy? Or the Saudi Arabia relationship with Jarod Kushner as fishy?

            1. No. Not even close. Ivanka Trump ran her clothing company before her father got into politics. Getting trademarks for things in China is something you would expect a clothing company that sold clothes there or wanted to to do. There is no evidence that those trademarks are not valid or shouldn’t or wouldn’t have been granted to any other company.

              Stop lying. You are just embarrassing yourself.

              1. I am not lying to myself. I accept that privileged children have opportunities that others do not have. I think it is fair but I don’t see a way around in a free market system. That is why I would be reluctant to call out anyone no matter what their political or philosophical, or religious beliefs. If you can show a direct quid pro quo your can take action. But you cannot just use the “fishy” test because its to easy to apply.

              2. This is next level delusion here, folks.

            2. Moderation….I’d personally want a closer look at the Chinese granting a trademark to Ivanka Trump. Does it pass the initial sniff test? Yeah…..but the optics are not stellar.

              The KSA relationship with Jared is just hokey horseshit.

          3. Hey look! John wants to ban family members from traveling with their fathers on a plane. And this on a libertarian comment board. Wow John, these libertarians are going to eat you for breakfast. {checks}… or maybe not. You go, Team GOP

        2. It wouldn’t be investigating Baby Biden. Its investigating whether or not Papa Biden and his boss gave favorable treatment to that company because Baby Biden was on board with them. An important distinction.

          Don’t care that they are investigating Trump. Investigate everything he does as President. He asked for it by becoming a politician.

          What I care is that they don’t stop with him, and just as importantly don’t give others a pass (ie Hillary’s emails, Clapper lying to Congress about spying on US citizens w/o getting individualized warrants)

          1. “”What I care is that they don’t stop with him, and just as importantly don’t give others a pass (ie Hillary’s emails, Clapper lying to Congress about spying on US citizens w/o getting individualized warrants)”‘

            Just thought it was worth repeating.

        3. “”you willing to apply it to the children of President Trump,””

          They have been under a lot scrutiny from the left from day one.

          1. Agreed. But would you ask the government to investigate the business dealing of the Trump children? Can you investigate Hunter Biden and give the Trump children a pass?

            1. If Ivanka were to say, I dunno apply for a permit to build an X, but everyone who has tried to build an X for the past 10 years has taken 5 years to get a permit, but Ivanka applies and starts construction a month later I’d say that is worthy of looking into why the government actor was able to turn the application around in a month.

              The target of the investigation is of the government actors. That’s not to say that the private children won’t be implicated in any wrongdoing, they may very well be.

            2. “”Can you investigate Hunter Biden and give the Trump children a pass?””

              Well apparently we will investigate Trump for reaching out to a foreign entity but give Hillary a pass for the dossier.

              I say investigate it all. Everything.

            3. Are you arguing trump has gone easy on china?

              1. Never heard of ZTE? Pretty suspicious timing. Odd you would gloss over that.

        4. Damn straight I am. Throw all the corrupt bastards out, every single one. The Bidens, the Trumps, the Clintons, the Pelosis — drain the whole swamp.

    3. What would innocent “trading on his name” look like? Unless the folks putting him in a board position for which he’d otherwise be totally unqualified are complete fools, they put him there for the U.S. government favors he’d bring.

  15. we can see in him the moves and machinations that more sophisticated and suave operators are able to mask.

    Is it really that his predecessors, and Congresscritters, etc have all been sophisticated and suave operators?

    Or is it really that his predecessors corrupt activities were known to any who bother to look, but they were given a pass because they were part of the club.

    1. I will take the latter choice please. You know who replaced Hunter Biden on the board of the Ukrainian gas company? Some former CIA guy who was a senior adviser to Mitt Romney.

      Trump hadn’t played the game before this and thus wasn’t involved in the sort of blatant corruption both parties are involved in. And as a result, he has nothing to lose by exposing theirs.

      1. Never head of Jared Kushner or Ivanka’s Chinese patents and tariff exemptions? Obviously not, or you would change your opinion to reflect reality, right? hahahahah jk.

        1. Your cite(s) fell off.

          1. And… THAT is his big gotcha?

            “Hahahaahah” indeed.

            1. Paid troll. Do not engage. Repeat, do not engage.

              1. you really think anyone would pay trolls to target this tiny audience? You conspiracy nuts are adorable. You got me though, I’m typing this from the hollow earth.

                1. Media matters paid them plenty. Dnc pays protestors. It’s what you ignorant leftists do.

              2. “Paid troll. Do not engage. Repeat, do not engage.”

                I don’t think so; just one more TDS victim.

          2. You don’t read them anyway, but here goes. Lot’s more evidence than this Biden thing, but I’m sure your fanciful thinking will find a way out for Trump again.
            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/business/ivanka-trump-china-trademarks.html

            1. Feels like you’re desperate to me.

              1. Says the man with no argument.

            1. AHAHAHAHAHA THAT IS HIS BIG GOTCHA AHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA

              1. Unlike the Biden-Ukraine thing, this actually has a timeline that supports a case of conflict of interest. Or are you more into conspiracy theories that include wild gaps in logic?

                1. Wait, so every single person who imports shoes and clothing from China is one of Trump’s kids? Or does Ivanka own every single company that imports clothing and shoes from China?

                  Because when entire large industries are excluded from tariffs (and not only Trump’s daughter’s companies as you seem to be implying) it’s not a conflict of interest or corruption.

            2. I hate to break it to you. But your link does not imply what you think.

              “Clothing and shoes, like those imported by Ivanka Trump’s company, were spared. ”

              Clothing and shoes were spared. It affects all clothing and shoe makers not just Ivanka. This is not a case where Ivanka is receiving special treatment.

              1. Baby Jeffrey doesnt actually read his links.

              2. I’m aware of how awfully convenient the rules which Trump made are for the Trump family.

                1. It’s projection to think it’s a favor to his family when it his family represents an extremely small portion of cloth and shoe manufactures that benefit.

                  Perhaps he’s just helping Kapernick by giving Nike a pass.

        2. Here jeffrey thinks china is in Trumps pocket despite the whole trade war thing. Jeffrey is a fucking idiot.

  16. I can’t stand the guy. But my not being able to stand him is because I’m old. I’m old enough to remember laughing when they made a puppet trump named Rigel for the show FarScape and even made the puppet talk like trump. I’m not part of the hating him now magically thing. Where folks that liked his tv shows suddenly decided he was hitler in the space of a month. I was never voting for him. However…
    His “the truth is power” thing, where he just tells the truth about things nobody wants to talk about, then the media is forced to say, try to change the subject to cover for Joe Biden and try to completely ignore the truthbombs he’s dropping. Then they wind up Adam Schiff and tell him to craft some new fantasy like his fake speech. Then the media gets in lockstep behind them. Circle the wagons, protect the Biden. And it’s like, I see it absolutely horrifying Republicans still, but a lot of them are just so shellshocked from the first bunch of times he did it, it’s like they are stunned victims and just go with the motions. trump then surrounds himself with folks that will do what he wants. Not a lot of the oldschool gop crowd there anymore. Not directly talking with him. He’s literally doing his “magic deal whatever thing” with the GOP constantly. Making deals with them to get things he wants to guarantee his legacy.

    We really don’t want four more years of this crap. Even if he is honestly hurting the crap out of elite power structures, we then get the backlash from them. They’ve made our daily lives terrible the past 3 years in their efforts to end him. In the end, it would be best to be rid of him. I just think it’s too late. The Google/Media/DNC teamplay had the reverse effect. I’m almost positive they’ve already gotten him reelected. It’s like, watching an auto race and knowing they just gave him this 3 lap lead, and even though the rest of the race is rough, he can just coast and be quiet and easily get the victory now. That’s what it feels like. Let’s hope he can’t help himself.

    1. They’ve made our daily lives terrible the past 3 years in their efforts to end him.

      How have they made anyone’s daily life terrible? That makes no sense. Your case seems to be that we must get rid of Trump because if we don’t the elite will continue to cry and whine and say ridiculous and histrionic things. If that ruins your daily life, you need to rethink your life.

      1. Either Trump goes down or the republic does. Time to decide where your loyalty lies.

        1. You forgot to change to the proper sock puppet doofus. And the Republic is not going anywhere. It has survived much more than a mob of angry retards like you.

          1. This is my only account, dufus. The dunning kruger in here is thicccccc.

            1. “This is my only account”

              You have a better Chance of selling Russia than that lie Jeff.

              1. I suspect I have a better chance at many things than convincing the willfully ignorant of reality.

                1. Dont be hard on yourself Jeffrey, you’ve convinced yourself of many things.

        2. Yeah the US doesn’t work like that. If the President goes down the next guy steps in.

        3. De Oppresso Liber
          October.3.2019 at 1:21 pm
          “Either Trump goes down or the republic does….”

          I hear we only have 12 years before climate change ruins the earth also.
          Fuck off with the ‘predictions’.

        4. False dichotomy for idiot jeffrey.

      2. Specifically? We had an amazing anti-bully movement in this country prior to 2016. Suddenly, that was all gone. Now we have folks trying to destroy someone’s life over what they tweeted when they were 16. We had too suspend the anti-bully movement so folks with mental problems could call everyone russians they disagreed with. We’ve allowed mobs of folks with inferiority complexes to form on social media, and drive people to suicide. We have the military issuing a warning because of a movie. Between twitter was worried. Free Speech is under serious attack. We have a Chappelle special with a 0/99 critics/viewers rating because a failed social movement controls our movie ratings system now.

        1. People were being destroyed on Twitter long before Trump. Google Justin Sacco sometime. The Twitter mobs and cancel culture are a product of the left and have nothing to do with Trump and will continue long after Trump is gone. That is just an absurd claim.

          You seem to be complaining about the means and methods of the cultural left. Trump is the only thing fighting those things. Yet, somehow you claim he is responsible for them.

          1. We would not have to suffer through some of the worst changes to entertainment properties in history if it wasn’t for him. Thanks to him, they aren’t just making their own new cool stuff. They are taking existing stuff and ruining it. All of that is this “resist!” thing. Resisting apparently means destroying comics and movie franchises comedy. Remember comedy? What sucks the most is, typically you get amazing new punk rock when a republican is president. We got amazing punk rock under bush and reagan. The NOFX albums alone. We got totally robbed this time.

            1. That is absurd. The entertainment culture went full left with Obama. And would be just as bad had Hillary won. In fact it might have been worse.

              You are just spouting nonsense.

            2. I get it.
              You’re doing parody!
              Not bad.
              Good for OBL to have some competition

              1. Sometimes. I try to rise to the level of the material I have to work with.

        2. “Now we have folks trying to destroy someone’s life over what they tweeted when they were 16.”

          Twitter was a festering shithole before Trump. Remember the Justine Sacco nonsense that ruined that woman’s life for a joke on Twitter?

          “We’ve allowed mobs of folks with inferiority complexes to form on social media, and drive people to suicide.”

          Again, TRUMP caused this? If Hillary won, we’d have no such Twitter antics?

          “We have the military issuing a warning because of a movie. ”

          …because the elites are effete jackasses who are obsessed with this nonsense.

          “We have a Chappelle special with a 0/99 critics/viewers rating because a failed social movement controls our movie ratings system now.”

          So give them this win and they will stop?

          You cannot be serious.

          1. Yes. I’m telling you straight, if Clinton had won we would not have had this. Our economy would be in flames, we’d be mired in more wars, and corruption would be at an all time high, but a whole bunch of anti-trump movements simply would not have happened at all. Conversely, Weinstein would still be attacking young actresses. I’m not sure but I believe Epstein would never have been caught.

    2. “I’m old enough to remember laughing when they made a puppet trump named Rigel for the show FarScape and even made the puppet talk like trump.”

      I’ll go ahead and call BS on this part specifically…

      I was one of the few people who watched Farscape when it first aired. Dominar Rygel (proper spelling) XVI was based on the archetype of a minor British lord whose ego far outstripped his actual importance and power.

      Literally NO ONE was making comparisons of Rygel and Trump until three years ago.

      And I would challenge you to post just one clip – there are plenty on YouTube – of the character “talk[ing] like [T]rump”. You can’t because he didn’t. Ever.

  17. Trump’s refusal to go gentle into that good night”

    So trump is supposed to sit back and accept the lies and false accusations of the left. thats what all republicans do and the people got tired of that and that is why we voted for Trump because he has a back bone

    1. Oh look, Nicky still mad. What a pointless piece of drivel.

    2. You have a back bone same as mine. 33 vertebra on average in humans. No different than Trump. He is no better than you are.

  18. “…the challenge is to find a way to preclude the people who run the government from using it to enrich themselves long after they have left office.”

    And I want a pony, too!

  19. We are experiencing a four year press riot. The one historical precedent I can think of are the Nike riots of 532 AD. Depending on your point of view it had a happy ending.

    1. If you can call getting huffy and angry on twitter a “riot”, sure we are.

  20. We did not need Trump’s adventure with the Bidens to illustrate “how power and privilege works.” Trump himself is a perfect example – inheriting a fortune, bumbling through business, he came to win the White House only by lying constantly about what he’d do once he was there (because neither he nor any of his aides thought he’d actually win).

    If that’s not sufficient, just look at his kids. Do you think any of the Trump-kids have any demonstrated talents or abilities? That they earned their spots as close advisers to the president or heading the Trump Organization? “Foreign emoluments ho!” is practically the current business strategy for Trump’s hotels, and his kids couldn’t get the budget MAGA brand off the ground. Meanwhile Kushner has been smearing his incompetence across all the knobs of the Mideast, trying to come up with some grand peace plan for Israel.

    Anyway, while we’re on the subject, Hunter’s positions are not just typical of the political class but of the professional elite as a whole. None of the MBA bros who normally sit on half the boards of private companies have any demonstrated competence apart from a few years as an analyst.

    1. Until 2017, Trump was a private citizen. He was free to use his influence to get his kids jobs. Biden was VP. His doing that could be a crime.

      Try again.

      1. Until 2017, Trump was a private citizen. He was free to use his influence to get his kids jobs.

        You’re overlooking the fact that one of the first things he did, in 2017, was give his kids high-profile, completely undeserved positions in his own administration, and that his continued ties to the TO mean that plenty of undeserved business is going that (his sons’) way, as well.

        Anyway, don’t pretend that there’s some material difference, in terms of merit, corruption, or nepotism, between Hunter’s trading on his name vs. Eric/Donny Jr./Ivanka doing the same. None of those kids deserve their jobs, either.

        Biden was VP. His doing that could be a crime.

        It’s a good thing no one has alleged that he did!

        1. You’re overlooking the fact that one of the first things he did, in 2017, was give his kids high-profile, completely undeserved positions in his own administration, and that his continued ties to the TO mean that plenty of undeserved business is going that (his sons’) way, as well.

          He is free to hire whomever he wants. As far as business going there way, I have seen not a single bit of evidence of that. Either provide a link and details or everyone can assume you made that part up.

          Anyway, don’t pretend that there’s some material difference, in terms of merit, corruption, or nepotism, between Hunter’s trading on his name vs. Eric/Donny Jr./Ivanka doing the same. None of those kids deserve their jobs, either.

          None of them have recieved a billion and a half dollars from China to invest or sit on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company. Nor has their father ever threatened to cut off aid to a country to stop an investigation into their activities. The two situations are not the same.

          It’s a good thing no one has alleged that he did!

          Yes they have. That is the implication of all of this. Biden bragged about extorting the Ukraine into stopping the investigating into the company his son worked for. It is on video. Why do you think they gave his son all of that money if not because Biden gave them something in return?

          Try again.

          1. He is free to hire whomever he wants.

            Actually, he’s not – which is why Kushner and Ivanka both have non-paying gigs. Again, completely undeserved, non-paying gigs.

            As far as business going there way, I have seen not a single bit of evidence of that. Either provide a link and details or everyone can assume you made that part up.

            You’re not providing any links or details for any of your lies, so why should I be the only one doing any work here?

            None of them have recieved a billion and a half dollars from China to invest or sit on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company.

            Is that your defense, here? Nominalism?

            Nor has their father ever threatened to cut off aid to a country to stop an investigation into their activities.

            I assume you know that this is not true of Biden, and you have already been presented with the actual facts, so I won’t bother to repeat them. You’ll just re-assert this lie.

            Yes they have. That is the implication of all of this. Biden bragged about extorting the Ukraine into stopping the investigating into the company his son worked for. It is on video. Why do you think they gave his son all of that money if not because Biden gave them something in return?

            You are seriously confused. You alleged that Biden used his influence to get Hunter hired. I challenged this. Your response is not to cite an example of him using his influence to get Hunter hired, but rather of him using his influence to protect a job that Hunter already had. Nothing you’ve said here helps to explain how Biden helped Hunter get on to the Burisma board or attract Chinese money for investment.

            Which, by the way – you can always tell how unsophisticated the Biden critics are by what they treat as beyond the pale. There is very little interesting about China’s investing money with a shop where Hunter worked. China invests everywhere. There are very few people who haven’t taken Chinese (or Saudi Arabian, or UAE, or…) money in the investment management space.

            1. Only a moron would call unpaid jobs undeserved.

              1. Only a moron would force Jared’s security clearance through. How many “corrections” were you allowed on your sf86? I didn’t get any. 🙁

  21. Thus, Republicans are zeroing on irrelevant claims that the whistleblower may not have followed proper procedure in exposing Trump’s behavior. (Who cares, especially if the underlying documents are real?)

    Do we still care about due process for us regular schlubs, or are we throwing it out all together?

    1. There are no “underlying documents” at least not related to the whistle blower. The whistle blower had no first hand knowledge of the incident. Trump released the transcript and it didn’t match up to the account at all. Now Nick and the rest of the media are reduced to trying to gaslight the country into believing that Trump did and said things that the transcript clearly shows he didn’t.

      But somehow Trump is the dumb one not Nick who keeps trying to convince people not to believe their lying eyes.

    2. He doesnt even care about the abuse of process to declassify or get confidential documents. Hes not a libertarian.

  22. Some aspects of Hunter Biden’s career and life story are a bit extreme…but the kid who trades on family connections to make money is much more a case of business as usual than an extraordinary scandal. “Business as usual in Washington,” however, is normally the subject of scorn in American politics. Any focus on Joe Biden’s son is likely to remind people of at least some of what they don’t like about it.

    Wow Yglesias… soft-pedal much?

    1. Laundering bribes via corrupt business deals with your son while you are Vice President is just business as usual. It is how things get done in Washington. Those stupid deplorables don’t understand that.

      That is literally what Yglesias is saying. But, the fact that even a brain dead hack like Yglesias has been forced to admit that much, shows how badly this is hurting Biden.

  23. Again and again, he uses his own misdeeds as a pretext to attack his rivals.

    I would argue this isn’t an entirely accurate characterization. I would say that there’s so much dirt in DC that when Trump is attacked for misdeeds (and I’m saying nothing about the credibility of the attack), he responds by pointing out the misdeeds of his attackers.

    1. Exactly. It was his opponents who picked this fight. Trump wasn’t saying anything about Biden’s son publicly until his opponents tried to impeach him for telling the President of Ukraine he might want to look into it.

      Nick seems to grasp everything exactly backwards when it comes to Trump.

      1. For the record, I think Nick has written a good article here, but we all have blind spots.

        1. It could have been a good article if not for Nick’s compulsive need to throat clear and virtue signal regarding Trump. Take all of that out and it is a good article. But, the throat clearing and virtue signaling are a large part of it. So ignoring it is hard to do.

  24. I’m coming to the uncomfortable conclusion (uncomfortable because Trump isn’t to be liked in polite company) that while Trump certainly won’t be hailed as a Great President (quite the opposite) he is, in my opinion, turning out to be an entirely useful one.

    1. What exactly do you think Trump is going to do to make him remembered as a bad President? Seriously? He has done nothing so far that would warrant that. What do you think is going to change?

      1. I think his policy prescriptions are all over the map, he doesn’t seem to have a focused philosophy, he’s not a great public speaker, I agree that he does carry himself with a certain lack of dignity with which someone like say, The Great Satan Ronald Reagan did.

        I used to think that Trump wasn’t that bright, but I’ve backed off on that over the last three years, and I think that while he doesn’t have a deep, intellectual command of the language, I think he’s much more clever and crafty than people give him credit for, and I’ve come to believe a good portion of what he’s saying is designed to troll the media because he plays them like a fucking fiddle.

        On the other hand, I don’t have the knee-jerk reaction to every policy prescription that comes out of the administration because I think some of them are actually trying to get to the root of real problems in this country that the Democrats have whole-heartedly abandoned while claiming for decades that said issues were “theirs”.

        1. *Ronald Reagan did not

          Edit button, TReason!

        2. Have you ever considered that not having a focused philosophy is an advantage when being President of a country as large and diverse as the United States?

          Taking Trump out of it for a moment, I would say that Presidents who had rigid philosophies have all turned out to be disasters. Bush II had a rigid philosophy of preserving the international order and the need for remaking the middle east to go at the root cause of terrorism. How did that work out? Obama was maybe the most ideologically leftist President since Wilson.

          Meanwhile, Reagan, for all of his rhetoric, was very flexible and did things like slap tariffs on Japan, agree to undo a decent part of his tax cuts after the 82 midterms, and was very unwilling to go to war despite his saber rattling just to name a few things. He was hardly focused in his philosophy of actually governing. Bill Clinton was the same way. Both of them were successful Presidents and much more successful than the ones who were ideologues.

          The country elected Trump partially because after 16 years of first Bush and then Obama they were sick to death of ideology and wanted someone who would stop sacrificing their interests in the name of some philosophy.

          So, if there is anything that is going to allow Trump to be remembered as a great President, it is his lack of philosophical focus.

          1. Yup. Good politics is actually about compromise and pragmatism, not ideology. You need some core beliefs in order to be effective, but you still have to be willing to work with others who don’t agree to get things done.

            And this is why the Democrats are floundering so badly and are trying this desperate Hail Mary attempt at impeachment. Trump can work with them, but they refuse to work with him. And all of their presidential candidates are of the same ilk…which is why whoever gets their nomination is going to get crushed in 2020. Nobody wants more ineffective ideologues in office, they want a President who does what he says he’s going to do and is an advocate for the country first.

      2. “What exactly do you think Trump is going to do to make him remembered as a bad President?”

        Not to answer for Paul…but the historians are going to crucify him because they can. They will, like Zo did earlier here, blame ALL cultural problems on him.

        1. The truth has a way of winning out over time. They will do that at first for sure. But not forever.

        2. Time always helps iron things out. Obama will be hailed as the Greatest President of the Millennium where already, people are beginning to see him for what he was: a mostly empty suit.

          1. I think Obama is going to be sent down the memory hole the way Wilson was.

            1. They STILL label Coolidge as a bad one and he was, arguably, the best President of the 20th Century.

  25. Here’s a short video that the president posted the other day on Twitter, which was taken down over copyright claims and then reposted by Trump supporters.

    Lol

  26. Can we just talk about the guy in that photo?
    It’s bleached, it’s shagged, it’s goatee’d. 90s?

      1. Of all the rock bands in the world Nickleback would be the one most in need of being spotlighted by the POTUS. That song probably got more airplay from a half day of Trump’s tweet than it has in the past 10 years.

        Unless is was taken down because people complained about the song and not the supposed copyright violation.

        1. Nickleback? Well that’s worth of impeachment right there.

  27. *peruses comments for a few minutes*

    Now I remember why I no longer bother.

  28. Because Trump is cartoonishly simple, he is revealing of how things actually work

    He has a bachelors of science in economics, a degree from one of the top business schools in the country, and ran a multi-billion dollar business for decades. He also won the presidency on his first attempt at elected office against the best funded campaign in U.S. electoral history, against supposedly overwhelming odds and beat a fraudulent criminal investigation perpetrated by the CIA and FBI.

    You have an English degree and write for a glorified libertarian blog. Who’s really the simpleton between the two of you?

    1. But Nick is part of the club. Don’t you understand that?

      This is really what Nick thinks.

      1. Of course. They’re mediocre people angry that someone they see as their intellectual inferior is more successful than they are. So someone like Trump, one of the most successful human beings in the history of the planet, is obviously “cartoonishly simple” while they are merely underappreciated, despite their lack of significant accomplishment.

        It’s little wonder so many of them voted for a similar mediocrity like Hillary Clinton. They’re kindred spirits.

        1. They’re mediocre people angry that someone they see as their intellectual inferior is more successful than they are.

          That describes every armchair leftist intellectual who ever lived.

    2. I was going to focus on that line too.

      I think – just spitballing here- but I’m pretty sure Trump leads – and has led – a much more complicated and complex life than the average person and certainly the journo class.

      1. You’re right. He’s also led a far more successful life than most of them.

        I keep thinking back to an old article that Reason put out (before they went full progtard) interviewing the CEO of Whole Foods. He was saying that the reason academics and intellectuals hate businessmen so much isn’t really that complex…it’s just envy and arrogance. They believe that they are the smartest people in the room, and it rankles them that people they see as their intellectual inferiors make more money than they do. They never stop to ask themselves “Am I really as smart or talented as I think I am?”, because if they did that their whole self-image falls apart.

        This article from Gillespie is very enlightening on that subject. With that one line he’s exposed his entire mindset about why he hates Trump so much…because he simply loathes the man for achieving things that he could not and assumes it must be some kind of cosmic fluke, despite Trump being able to produce fantastic success in his life on a consistent basis.

        1. I mean, let’s face it…how much talent does it really take to write articles or get an English degree? Anyone who isn’t a gibbering idiot can do it semi-competently. They may not write anything that people will flock to, but they can make their point. It takes some degree of talent to be able to write persuasively or evocatively, but there’s not exactly a shortage of people who can do that either, and it’s a skill that can be learned.

          Now, stack that up against someone who can run a multibillion dollar business. Think of the skillsets required to do that successfully (finance, economics, negotiation, judgment). Think of the hours someone in that role has to put in. Think of the stress levels involved. How many people do you think can actually do that competently as compared to someone who can write articles for a living? Apparently Nick thinks the person who can do that is “cartoonishly simple” compared to a person like himself.

          1. A glowing hagiography, no doubt one written by one just as envious of Trump as he claims the “journo” class is.

            There are geniuses in business. Trump was not one of them. Trump was a man surrounded by capable lawyers and businesspeople who learned how to make money while placating their boss’s worst impulses and intuitions.

            If you’re familiar with the class – as I am, and you are evidently not – you can spot these types. The only talent Trump has is for oxygen-wasting spectacle, one served by his limitless narcissism. That’s why the TO is basically just a licensing company – he got out of the hard business of real estate long ago. He’s built an image. People (for some reason) buy that image.

            That’s why his foreign policy is such a failure. He can’t think strategically, and he’s systematically fired anyone who can. He keeps reaching for the next made-for-TV moment, and he gives up countless concessions to make them. That’s why he has little patience for multilateral trade deals, painstaking negotiated among multiple stakeholders. He just wants a “deal” he can wave in front of the press.

            Anyway, that’s setting aside the irony of relying on the Whole Foods CEO to give an accurate account of why journalists dislike wealthy people. Journalists do the research, dig deep to understand the facts. CEOs don’t. They trade on image and vision.

            1. “There are geniuses in business. Trump was not one of them. Trump was a man surrounded by capable lawyers and businesspeople who learned how to make money while placating their boss’s worst impulses and intuitions.”

              Yup, he just lucked into coming back from bankruptcy to make billions. Blind luck the entire time. You’d think the super genius journalist class would be able to avoid having their industry go tits up and them all lose jobs left and right. Given that they are smart and not just lucky.

              “That’s why his foreign policy is such a failure.”

              Failure being a binary “Did he send billions to Iran” and “yes” being the sign of success for you.

              “Journalists do the research, dig deep to understand the facts.”

              Journalists are no more than fucking stenographers. Stop the hagiographic bullshit.

              1. Yup, he just lucked into coming back from bankruptcy to make billions.

                Trump never declared bankruptcy. Certain of his business ventures did. Do you understand how bankruptcy works? In a large business organization, it can be a way to cut losses from a larger, more profitable conglomerate. Trump never dug his way from ground zero.

                You’d think the super genius journalist class would be able to avoid having their industry go tits up and them all lose jobs left and right.

                I suppose there’s a certain irony in that, had they been able to convince people like you to read a few newspapers every once in a while, you wouldn’t all be such incredible morons.

                Failure being a binary “Did he send billions to Iran” and “yes” being the sign of success for you.

                You’re aware that Trump was floating the idea of doing exactly this not so long ago, in order to get to a deal?

                The money that Obama “sent” to Iran was, and always was, Iran’s. The U.S. had held up the transfers in order to isolate Iran. When they agreed to the JCPA, releasing those funds was a gesture of good will and good faith.

                Try to remember this. One day, we will need to repair our politics and recall how it used to be done.

                Journalists are no more than fucking stenographers. Stop the hagiographic bullshit.

                What’s that make you, I wonder?

                1. So why send it on pallets to subsequently disappear without a trace? If it was theirs merely send them a check and write it off.

                  This reminds me, again, of Justin when he paid of Omar Khadr $10 million. He did it because it was owed to him for what we did to him. Something dubious and tenuous excuse like that.

                2. “”The money that Obama “sent” to Iran was, and always was, Iran’s. The U.S. had held up the transfers in order to isolate Iran. When they agreed to the JCPA, releasing those funds was a gesture of good will and good faith. “‘

                  The transfers would have been electronic, not cash.
                  If it was legit, the use of cash makes it look fishy.

                3. “Trump never declared bankruptcy. Certain of his business ventures did. Do you understand how bankruptcy works? In a large business organization, it can be a way to cut losses from a larger, more profitable conglomerate. Trump never dug his way from ground zero.”

                  True. Banks put him on an allowance while he was trying to dig out of debt for them to loan him more money.

                  “I suppose there’s a certain irony in that, had they been able to convince people like you to read a few newspapers every once in a while, you wouldn’t all be such incredible morons.”

                  The Murray Gell-Man Amnesia Hypothesis is a sad truth of “journalism”. Have you ever MET a reporter?

                  “You’re aware that Trump was floating the idea of doing exactly this not so long ago, in order to get to a deal?”

                  Well, according to Iran. God knows they’ve earned benefit of the doubt. You’d think that’d have been leaked before Iran said anything.

                  “The money that Obama “sent” to Iran was, and always was, Iran’s. The U.S. had held up the transfers in order to isolate Iran. When they agreed to the JCPA, releasing those funds was a gesture of good will and good faith.”

                  Iran STILL owes Americans over $50B. Today. They owed it before Obama gave them a gift as well. That money should’ve gone to Americans that the criminal regime owed damages to.

                  https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2016/05/06/iran-still-owes-53-billion-in-unpaid-u-s-court-judgments-to-american-victims-of-iranian-terrorism/

                  “Try to remember this. One day, we will need to repair our politics and recall how it used to be done.”

                  By paying off people who slaughter homosexuals and women who don’t want to wear scarves? Yeah, that is vital shit.

                4. “The money that Obama “sent” to Iran was, and always was, Iran’s. The U.S. had held up the transfers in order to isolate Iran. When they agreed to the JCPA, releasing those funds was a gesture of good will and good faith.”

                  I’ll use that defense if the gov’t ever catches me in a criminal act and confiscates my assets according to the law. Heck, El Chapo should use that defense. “That illicit cartel money is mine, and was always mine, you can’t confiscate it.”

                  A good will gesture would have been OK if all the substantive gestures didn’t come from the US side and Iran could be trusted. That wasn’t the case, and as it turned out, they continued long-range ballistic missile development (restricted under UNSC 2231 which is what legally authorized the JCPOA), and funded an expansion of IRGC presence in the ME to create a “land bridge” through Syria where they could better support Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and increased tensions and conflict in the region.

                  “That’s why he has little patience for multilateral trade deals, painstaking negotiated among multiple stakeholders. He just wants a “deal” he can wave in front of the press.”

                  The USMCA is fine, just needs to be approved by Congress.

                  Its funny, because no matter what fair criticisms you could lodge against Trump, and I’m not saying there aren’t any; your summary could better apply to Obama than Trump. The JCPOA was exactly such a “deal” he could wave in front of the press…. Obama didn’t want to get it approved by Congress or the Senate, because it was too painstaking. He didn’t get the restrictions on ballistic missiles in the deal, so he included it in the UNSC resolution instead, with intentionally ambiguous language that would allow Iran to violate it and claim they’re in the OK. The language in the JCPOA itself allowed Iran to break off any commitment only if they subjectively “felt” the rest of the powers weren’t cooperating, while it superseded previous resolutions that placed enrichment restrictions on Iran; so they could break the JCPOA without any real consequences, or with claiming all of the consequences are illegal, at any rate.

                  But because Obama really really really wanted an Iran deal, but couldn’t get a good deal through done the right way, he cheated and cut corners, and so he’s partly responsible for the current mess we’re in.

                  Oh don’t forget his funding of the Syria rebels, which just prolonged the conflict in Syria and helped create a refugee crisis, and his disastrous action in Libya.

            2. “…There are geniuses in business. Trump was not one of them. Trump was a man surrounded by capable lawyers and businesspeople who learned how to make money while placating their boss’s worst impulses and intuitions…”

              Poor Simon. The world is always unfair, and the idiot Simon makes stupid choices and then has to live with the results.
              Simon, get used to it. You’re a fucking lefty ignoramus, so the rest of your miserable existence is going to be exactly the same.
              And the rest of us will laugh at you as a result, you fucking loser.

              1. Sevo, it’s a greater giveaway than you realize when you insult me in such intemperate and nonsensical ways.

                I don’t need your approval. My life is pretty great, actually. Your insults are so meaningless to me because they are so off-base.

                But the fact that you are so persistent, and so consistent, in insulting me, suggests that you don’t really have much else going on in your life. You take some perverse joy out of attacking me for being a “lefty,” because you don’t have the quiet confidence to be able to just say to yourself, “You know what, this actually isn’t worth my time.” Because your life is apparently shit.

                That’s too bad, bro.

                1. SimonP
                  October.3.2019 at 4:03 pm
                  “Sevo, it’s a greater giveaway than you realize when you insult me in such intemperate and nonsensical ways.”

                  Oh, your passive-aggressive bullshit is always enjoyable, loser.
                  Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

          2. Absolutely. BUT EIGHT BANKRUPTCIES! HE’S NOT A GOOD BUSINESSMAN.

            This is how they delude and deceive themselves. Completely take Trump out of context and place him firmly inside the Orange Man Bad narrative and you get, well, quotes from Sad Beard.

            Yeh. I’m almost sure I’m going with Trump on that one.

            The other part I don’t like about all this is it’s insulting. It may not have hit them in the head like a V-8 yet because they’re do busy spinning their Lou Reed records but some of us are IN BUSINESS and actually know how that world operates from within day in, day out.

            I’ve met and dealt with men who operate on an entirely different level. Men – I said MEN – who would eat people like Sad Beard up not just in a business context but an intellectual level as well. I know my place even within the business realm.

            But yet I gotta read guys who never ran a payroll tell me Trump is a simpleton.

            I don’t think it’s that hard to run foreign policy to be honest. At all. If Obama can do it – and he did it mightily poorly – and Hillary can do it, that means millions of people are better suited and more capable to have a kick at that over rated can.

            Like I give a shit Trump calls shit hole countries shit holes.

            1. The bankruptcy part is funny and shows how little they actually know about the real world. Most businesses go bankrupt and every successful person who owns their own businesses has gone bankrupt and usually multiple times.

              All they have are stupid talking points. This guy takes the cake. No one thinks journalists are smart. Wow.

              1. Really? How many Buffett companies have gone bankrupt?

                One? and Buffett has far more companies and is far richer than the Con Man.

                Buffett is a real capitalist. Trump cons people with his shitty brand name he puts on water, steaks, diploma mills, airlines and buildings.

                1. “Buffett is a real capitalist.

                  “…Warren Buffett. He wrote a widely publicized, widely mocked (or praised depending on your viewpoint) op-ed in the New York Times titled “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” advocating higher taxes for people like himself–super-rich.
                  […]
                  Bufett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway
                  “has been in an almost decade-long dispute with the IRS over how much taxes it owes, these same press members couldn’t care less:
                  According to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report — see Note 15 on pp. 54-56 — the company has been in a years-long dispute over its federal tax bills.
                  According to the report, “We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years.”
                  Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, who was alerted to the controversy by a federal government lawyer, said, “The company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s company has not fully settled its tax bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he’d happily pay more. Except the IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years.” ”
                  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/warren_buffetts_irs_problems.html

                  It’s not bad enough that he claims an annual “income” of $100,000, the lefty lying hypocrite swears taxes aren’t high enough while stiffing the IRS.
                  Now cheating the IRS is noble enough, but whining that (others’ ) taxes are too low while doing so should raise some concern.
                  Not for turd; nope. At least he and turd provide the same results; bullshit.
                  Turd, if you couldn’t lie, you’d never post here. Ever pay off your bet, you stinking piece of shit?

              2. I remember during the days of Robert Campeau reading an essay in accounting class about how many times entrepreneurs declare bankruptcy. I think the average was seven or so. Part of the profile of an entrepreneur is to keep at it taking each bankruptcy as a learning experience.

  29. There is no way this stunt is becoming “increasingly popular”. There were no fence sitters. Just another hit piece from the “libertarian” truth seekers at Reason.

  30. This is why nobody like Nickleback. They are cunts.

    1. That meme was perfect.

      1. Even the lyrics fit. 🙂

      2. This is the part that blows my mind about the ‘Dotard’ moniker.

        Ignoring the fact that he’s a real estate mogul, even if not a very good one. Ignoring the fact that he then ran for President and won, even if not a very good one. A septuagenarian is trolling the media by generating a meme on twitter using a song that was popular in the 18-35 age group from a time when he was a sexagenarian. Even if it’s a group of handlers doing all the work, fuck if they don’t put meme mavens like Ben Huh to shame.

  31. “Some aspects of Hunter Biden’s career and life story are a bit extreme…but the kid who trades on family connections to make money is much more a case of business as usual than an extraordinary scandal.”

    What is Mr. Yglesias hiding? Everyone should know by now that an ellipsis can only mean that something has been redacted. The Washington Post covers this amazing discovery here.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/

    1. Hunter Biden filled the same role with MBNA in Delaware that he did in Ukraine…a funnel of money for his dad. MBNA was the biggest bankroller of Biden’s political campaigns, they hired his kid as an “executive” with undescribed responsibilities, then got rid of him and hired him as a “consultant” (getting a nice chunk of change), and in return Joe Biden bucked the Democratic party on a bankruptcy bill that MBNA wanted passed.

      Joe Biden’s been selling his office for a long time. He just went international when he became VP. The only reason he wasn’t caught before is that nobody gives a shit about Delaware.

  32. Compares Trump to a character who committed murder.

    Noice.

    And quotes fricken Sad Beard – who doesn’t disappoint.

    Yeh, business as usual with Biden. What’s the big deal? Biden committed an ACTUAL ABUSE OF POWER but Trump is making him look bad.

    I can’t follow the logic of Reason in the age of Trump anymore.

    1. I can follow their logic.

      Trump is bad for Koch Industries’ ambitions with China, therefore Trump is bad for the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine. If you go over to Cato, it’s the same thing. And both are heavily funded by the same, politically active, billionaire who just happens to be buddying up with George Soros these days.

      1. At least there’s a plausible, erm, reason.

      2. OH NO IT’S GEORGE SOROS!!!!!!!!!

        you guys are so predictable

        1. If Trump were to be the dictator you idiots claim he is, and he sent a squad of Delta Force into Soros mansion and put a bullet into his head, I’m about 99% sure that we’d suddenly see the leftist resurgence disappear overnight.

          He’s funding it because he hates this country and sees it as in his personal interest to destabilize it. That’s why he has dumped so much money into prosecutor races to fund candidates who refuse to enforce laws and who try to push his leftist drivel in the courts. If you don’t know this by now, you simply haven’t been paying attention.

  33. “….we can see in him the moves and machinations that more sophisticated and suave operators are able to mask…..”

    And this is a good thing, no?

    Maybe he’s just being….honest and is forcing people to face the damn mirror once and for all?

    Is Nick making the case it’s better to have a ‘smooth operator’ (hello facia di culo Barry!) fucking people up the ass? Is it better to be deceived and be a useful idiot than the be loved and be a useless dolt?

  34. Wow, Gillespie is the real tool here. This is the ultimate “both sides”: argument. For decades people on the left have been shouting, nay, screaming about corruption like the Bidens’. The Republicans turn it around and yell “Socialists!”. And then mock liberals when they remind everyone that rich people “did not build that”. When tax cuts for the wealthy are proposed it is the left that says, but why are they getting the cuts when much of their wealth comes from corrupt practices like sitting on fake corporate boards?”

    The Republicans shrug and then find cases of Democrats being corrupt and then scream “hypocrisy” and then move on, as if that settles the argument about corruption. It’s the proverbial yelling about liberals using straws while the planet burns. Yes, you found a case of hypocrisy, but it does not help fix the problem.

    So Trump comes along. The literal poster-child for “you didn’t build that” wealth. A silver-spooned, elite school prepster who squandered an inheritance and what money hid did make was built on lies and cheating. But he calls out all the other phonies and somehow we pay more attention to who he points at instead of his own practices and the practices of his supporters. This is the joker burning down the city. Why is Gillespie falling for this stupid logic?

    Gillespie, we should be concerned about the Bidens and the Clintons. But we are a little distracted by the fact that Trump and his corrupt cronies are in power and stacking the deck in favor of their own kind. We would gladly go after all the wealthy people who get into colleges because of connections, who get appointemed to boards of directors because of family relations and the color of their skin or thei gender. Are you not paying attention to what the left has been arguing for decades? Yea, they tend to vote for corrupt Democrats, because that is their pragmatic choice. The other side actively favors a system that allows for corruption of the Biden kind to thrive. But be careful Gillespie. If you start arguing that family members shouldn’t show off the appearance of favoritism you might get branded a Socialist.

    1. So Trump comes along. The literal poster-child for “you didn’t build that” wealth.

      That is hilarious. Trump’s money from Daddy are literally something he didn’t build.

      1. Is it as hilarious as the child porn you watch?

        1. Seriously…buttplug needs to fucking kill himself. There’s no cure for pedophilia except a bullet. Just end your misery now, buttplug…do the world a favor. Anyone who knows you will understand and get over it.

    2. A silver-spooned, elite school prepster who squandered an inheritance and what money hid did make was built on lies and cheating

      All of those hotels he owns are phantoms I guess. Potemkin Villages. (since you are a liberal and likely pig ignorant, google Potemkin Villages so you understand what I mean here.)

      Gillespie, we should be concerned about the Bidens and the Clintons. But we are a little distracted by the fact that Trump and his corrupt cronies are in power and stacking the deck in favor of their own kind.

      How? You seem to be as short on specifics as you are brain cells.

  35. Sooooo.

    Let’s see if I get this straight. Trump talks to some Ukey and says stuff that’s been said since the days of Roman generals making deals with barbarian tribes. We know this because a whistleblower (a slide whistle blower I say) decides to ‘leak’ it because, “OMFG NATIONAL SECURITY DANGER Orange Man Bad, riddled with hearsay and second hand bull shit. And this was allowed because the intelligence community lowered the standards of when and how to whistleblow as per The Federalist.

    /takes zen deep breath.

    In the process, it’s discovered Joe fricken Biden brags like a bumbling blowhard bitch about having gotten a prosecutor fired because he was investigating the company Hunter ‘Elmer Fudd’ Biden – with no practical experience in the industry to which this company operated I MIGHT ADD IN MID-AIR – was siphoning money from like a parasite.

    /Louie De Palma growl.

    And this is spun like ole poor Joe got caught in the (ahem) alleged corrupted crosshair of a simpleton President? Wow, sounds like you just made the case Trump is anything but a simpleton. He’s, like, the world’s greatest villain.

    /Cesar Romero Joker look of astonishment.

    GTFOH.

    Congratulations. TDS has robbed y’all of your principles.

    1. I should add, the mental gymnastics of trying to position Biden’s obvious corruption as ‘business as usual’ (I thought the left were sooooo against that) reminds me of the assholes defending Justin up here for having the gall to pressure the Justice Minister to back off investigating SNC-Lavalin for corruption thus DIRECTLY ABUSING HIS POWER AND ATTACKING THE RULE OF LAW.

      And he’s so retarded his excuse was he was doing it to save 9000 jobs.

      9000 lousy fricken jobs…..here take our rule of law in the trade.

      Stupendously baffling.

  36. I generally enjoy Reason.com, but occasionally (increasingly-so, since 2016) the authors appear to go out of their way to be disingenuous .

    “The real test for the country is whether we will use this moment to admit we’ve been living all sorts of lies that we choose to obscure with soaring political rhetoric and false politeness.”

    To whom are you speaking, exactly? The throngs sobbing before Obama in 2008? A symptom of TDS is dramatically overestimating how literally the people who despite progressives take Trump.

      1. I have spoken to several colleagues, Democrats, that have plainly expressed their primary objection to Trump’s presidency as being rooted in their perception that Trump takes no discernible steps to hide his “corruption.” In other words, they have no problems with the corruption itself, and generally expect all politicians to be corrupt, but would prefer – purely as a matter of form – that they, as members of the electorate, be lied to about the existence of the corruption.

        It’s a bizarre view, in my opinion. But, in my experience, a view that is genuinely held by many people.

        1. Yeah, except that after a two year criminal investigation with no apparently left or right limits, the only “corruption” they were able to come up with was “Maybe he might have obstructed justice if we totally twist the meaning of the term beyond all logical limits”.

          What really pisses them off isn’t that he’s corrupt and open about it. It’s that he’s not corrupt at all and has no problem throwing the politicians they worship under the bus for their own corruption…and they can’t do anything about it, because unlike them he didn’t commit any crimes.

          TDSers can’t even be honest with themselves about why they hate him. They hate him not because he or his supporters are immoral, dishonest, corrupt pieces of shit, but because they are.

          1. It’s that he’s not corrupt at all

            lol

  37. The Dotard has taken the Unitary Executive concept of the Bush-pigs to new power heights.

    1. IS Dotard some kind of code for a type of child porn you watch? You use that term a lot and no one but you seems to know what it means.

    2. The Dotard has taken the Unitary Executive concept of the Bush-pigs to new power heights.

      Trump’s administration has been more lawful and constitutional than either Bush’s or Obama’s.

      1. fucking hilarious. His personal lawyer, his campaign manager, and others who worked with him are in prison. No one can stand him. Tillerson called him a “fucking moron”. He is toxic and his shit is sliming up the GOP.

        1. His personal lawyer, his campaign manager, and others who worked with him are in prison.

          Half the Obama and Bush administration should be in prison, and not just of minor personal failings.

          No one can stand him. Tillerson called him a “fucking moron”.

          And any of that has to do with whether his administration has been “lawful and constitutional”… what? We’re talking about policy, not personal failings.

          He is toxic and his shit is sliming up the GOP.

          The GOP started out so slimy and disgusting that Trump is actually an improvement.

          But what Trump has revealed is that behind the veneer of respectability and reason, the Democratic party is batshit crazy, deeply corrupt, racist, socialist, war mongering, and totalitarian. And what we have also seen is that this is nothing new, but has been going for decades.

          1. You’re completely full of shit.

            The GOP is the white trash party – full of Neo-Nazi’s and other bigots. Jews hate Republicans because you are modern day Nazis.

            Democrats have lots of issues but racism isn’t one of them.

            1. “Democrats have lots of issues but racism isn’t one of them.”

              Fucking piece of shit can’t post without lying:
              “Figure 1 displays research conducted by the Pew Research Center, which shows that through time Democratic support for “improving the position of minorities”, including “the possible use of preferences”, has increased. In general, Democrats appear to be the most supportive of ideas to improve the lives of minorities. However, through time, support from Independents has seen great increases. In fact, at times support from Independents was very close to the support from Democrats as seen in 2007.
              https://lji3.wordpress.com/the-public-2/democratic-and-republican-views/

              1. which shows that through time Democratic support for “improving the position of minorities”, including “the possible use of preferences”, has increased

                I.e. racist policies, and racist policies designed to keep minorities in perpetual government dependence.

            2. Jews do not hate Republicans. They vote mostly democrat however if you look at the demographics, where most live, income, education level, they are in line with others in the same cohort.

              Actually Trump is probably the most pro Israel pro Jewish president in history. I am still not voting for him.

            3. Democrats have lots of issues but racism isn’t one of them.

              Racism is one of the main problems with the Democrats today. Their entire party program is built around special rights and privileges dispensed based on racial categories and preferences. It’s disgusting.

              Jews hate Republicans because you are modern day Nazis.

              The only party I was ever a member of was the Democratic party. As a gay immigrant, I believed they actually were trying to help me. I fell for their propaganda for many years, until I actually read up on their history and the history of minorities.

              Republicans had some nasty, authoritarian social conservatives, plus a great number of war mongers in them. But you know what? These days, a lot of those deplorable people have also become Democrats.

              The Democrats are clearly the modern day Nazis; you can see that simply by comparing their party program with that of the Nazi party.

        2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
          October.3.2019 at 3:39 pm

          “fucking hilarious. His personal lawyer, his campaign manager, and others who worked with him are in prison…”

          Yes it is fucking hilarious, you stinking piece of shit:
          Mueller went on a fishing expedition, caught one guy for tax evasion long before he had anything to do with Trump, got a couple of guys for returning library books late, unpaid parking tickets and 35 in a 25 zone, and pathetic lefty liars like you try to claim that has something to do with Trump.
          Go fuck your daddy and your 5yo nephew, you pathetic piece of shit.

          1. Oh, and I was corrected above; one guy on ‘campaign finance’ stuff.

    3. And here we must sit, twiddling our thumbs, until the Trump supporters decide he was a RINO all along.

      Oh why must we live according to their schedule?

  38. Nick is right on this. Trump wears his indiscretions on his sleeve, whereas all the other Washington and media power brokers are more sly about hiding them. However, they are all fundamentally the same. Making people less starry eyed regarding the office of the President is a good thing as we should be more skeptical of the person who can send our citizens off to war to die. I’m frankly kind of surprised by the libertarians on this board who seem to think otherwise.

    1. “Making people less starry eyed regarding the office of the President is a good thing as we should be more skeptical of the person who can send our citizens off to war to die. I’m frankly kind of surprised by the libertarians on this board who seem to think otherwise.”

      +1

    2. Biden didn’t hide anything. He is juts counting on the Nick Gillespies of the world to ignore the fucking obvious.

  39. The real test for the country is whether we will use this moment to admit we’ve been living all sorts of lies that we choose to obscure with soaring political rhetoric and false politeness.

    Well, it’s good that you show an inkling of self-reflection.

    I’ll respect you as a libertarian when you don’t only “admit” this but actually start drawing libertarian policy conclusions. See, that doesn’t just take admitting your mistakes, it means actually thinking and having real discussions.

    Hint: “open borders/free trade uber alles” is not a libertarian policy position per se. Nor is “impeach every crook” a libertarian policy position per se.

  40. “In the already endlessly dissected call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, it’s patently clear what Trump is up to. He’s asking for dirt on Joe Biden, a domestic political opponent.”

    Patently – “Clearly; without doubt.”

    Is there really no doubt at all? I don’t understand how such proclamations of certainty can be bandied about with a straight face. If there is actual wrongdoing on Biden’s part, it isn’t “dirt,” it’s reality. If there is no wrongdoing, then there is no “dirt.” An investigation, in and itself, is not “dirt” either.

    I don’t get it. Does Gillespie really believe nobody is going to ask these question and, perhaps, scratch their heads in disbelief?

  41. Who killed the Kennedys?

    We know the answer. It was you and me.

    People look the other way not wanting to see the bloated corrupt pile of garbage that is government. They steal our money. They send our best to die or return shattered in useless wars. They use the power we foolishly give them to enrich themselves and their cronies.

    Yet we do nothing. Trading blue hats for red ones as if it matters. What a sham show it is. That’s ok because there is always Dancing With the Stars on another channel.

    So long as there is something to drink or smoke to soothe our pain at the end of the day, leftover meatloaf in the fridge and an F-150 in the driveway so we can do it again tomorrow, we pretend it is alright.

    Why has the libertarian moment slipped by? Because people don’t want to hear it. It is too hard. It takes courage and sacrifice to live with personal responsibility. Like the characters in O’Niel’s play it is more comforting to live the lie.

    Deep in the human soul there is sympathy for the devil because we know it is in all of us.

  42. This is, frankly, unbelievably silly.
    We have thousands of years of recorded history of rulers of people slaughtering, imprisoning and enslaving their enemies but Trump’s sordid narcissistic use of the powers of the presidency where he wants a foreign government (not him and his government, but a foreign one) to investigate one of his adversaries reveals how “men are not angels”?
    Trump should be impeached; and probably convicted. But to cite these penny ante abuses as a great example in history of human beings misusing their power is simply hysteria.

    1. I think this is by far the most reasonable response to this piece. It’s easy to forget how terrible human beings can be when we live such pampered Western lives.

  43. I don’t visit Reason as much as I used to. Now I remember why.

  44. I’m sorry, but Trump asking for the resumption of an investigation that was cancelled into suspicious circumstances cannot be considered corrupt without making far, FAR too much out of bounds. It would essentially make anyone who is a candidate for presidency immune from prosecution.

    It is a clear abuse of power to launch an investigation into a political opponent. Unless there is probable cause. I do not see any rational argument that there was not probable cause. In fact, if this was fiction, I would say that it was far too obvious and needs a layer of obfuscation. There is the counterpoint that others were calling for the prosecutor’s firing, and thus Biden’s claim that he was doing his duty and his son’s involvement was incidental. However, even that does not answer why the investigation was dropped.

  45. Frankly, I don’t think there was anything wrong with what Trump did. If Biden was up to shenanigans in Ukraine, it’s the President’s job to investigate.

    1. If Trump did it, it was wrong; and if it was wrong, that is – a wrong arising from conduct uniquely attributable to Donald Trump – such conduct is, by definition, impeachable.

      I have had colleagues and friends tell me, without any hint of sarcasm, that allegations of Biden’s transgressions in Ukraine, whether proven or suspected, are completely irrelevant. An investigation of *any* nature into Biden’s conduct *by Trump* is inherently wrong, because Trump is an inherently evil man that is not to be trusted and, therefore, his actions are, ipso faco, a violation of the public trust, even if, in any other circumstances, similar actions would be justifiable.

      How does one even begin to reason with someone beholden to such selective certainties?

  46. “… we need to restructure the size, scope, and spending of government so the political class isn’t able to wield so much power.”

    Yeah, sure. Had Her Thighness, Queen Hillary of Payoffs, been elected every scandal, lie and hypocrisy would have been buried, on the subject of her corruption the press would be moot, and the public rendered mute. The government would have been massively expanded and politicians, bureaucrats, and the press would have celebrated comfortably corrupt business as usual.

    Many talk about how the political system needs to be shaken up. Well, here it is. I, for one, appreciate the system being exposed to bright light. YMMV

  47. “”No, Trump was strong-arming Zelenskiy “”

    Show us the evidence of strong arming. There is none in the transcript. Unless the call got really ugly at the end, the two sound very cordial.
    مشاوره قبل از ازدواج

    1. Well of course they sound cordial. Everybody knows the score here. Zelensky needs US military aid or he will have Russian tanks in his backyard in no time. When the US president asks for a “favor” he knows exactly what that means.

      “Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me.” Don Corleone

      1. Echospinner
        October.3.2019 at 10:19 pm
        “Well of course they sound cordial. Everybody knows the score here. Zelensky needs US military aid or he will have Russian tanks in his backyard in no time. When the US president asks for a “favor” he knows exactly what that means.”

        See, it’s like Hitler and Nixon in Paraguay in ’56, ya know? They…
        Hint, idiot: No one buys ‘they hide it so well, that’s evidence of the crime…’
        Go team up with Misek to tell us how the joooze started WWII; you’ll look smarter than this…

      2. Christ, you are an idiot

  48. Seriously Nick!?!?!?

    I never took you for a moron. It is obvious that Russia-gate was a fraud. Hillary and Obama spied on a rival campaign and then used the FBI and CIA to frame Trump. Trump calls Ukraine and asks them to help in the investigation. Did you know that we have a cooperation treaty with Ukraine?

    Ukraine raises the question about Biden’s corruption and Trump agrees that it needs investigating too.

    This is perfectly legitimate.

    Stop reading into everything Trump does with a conspiratorial mind. He has been the most honest and open President in a lifetime.

    On the other hand, Obama and Hillary have done everything possible to obstruct.

    I am done with Reason, you lying lefty mother f’ers. You were never libertarian. You are just controlled opposition.

  49. The transcript shows him asking for investigation into 2016 election interference. I wonder why he’s asking Ukraine?
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

  50. As the impeachment of Donald Trump becomes increasingly popular—45 percent of Americans now support the investigation of the president over his dealings with Ukraine

    I wonder if there’s a poll showing the percentage of people who support the investigation of Joe Biden and his actions vis-a-vis using the power of his office to strong-arm the head-of-state of a foreign nation to fire a prosecutor he disliked.

    Oh, and that fired prosecutor was investigation the company that Biden’s son is, despite knowing nothing of Ukraine or gas/oil exploration – and of which none of the Biden’s own an equity stake in – on the board of.

    1. I wonder if a poll exists that shows what percentage of Americans support forcing – somehow, even if it means changing the law, hell even if it means *ignoring the law* – Joe Biden to drop his presidential candidacy.

  51. The real test for the country is whether we will use this moment to admit we’ve been living all sorts of lies that we choose to obscure with soaring political rhetoric and false politeness. Whether Trump is removed by the Senate, fails to be reelected in 2020, or serves a second term, we need to restructure the size, scope, and spending of government so the political class isn’t able to wield so much power.

    Hallelujah Gillespie. I knew there was a reason (drink!) they kept The Jacket around.

  52. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have both now admitted to pressuring the Ukrainian govt into investigating Biden. I wonder when they decided to start this pressure campaign? Who decided to use the defense money? The questions I have for those two.

    1. “Donald Trump and Mike Pence have both now admitted to pressuring the Ukrainian govt into investigating Biden.”

      Lefty ignoramuses continue to fantasize that lefty claims constitute argument and/or evidence. They don’t.
      Fuck off, Pod

      1. If you were to have information that your political opponent had committed a criminal offense then you would bring that information to the attention of the FBI. You are not supposed to use a public office to gin up a criminal investigation of your opponent using a foreign govt. This shit is becoming clearer everyday. Trump and Pence were scheming to circumvent the FBI and destroy their chief political rival by getting the govt of Ukraine to initiate a criminal investigation. The Ukrainians were supposed to then contact the FBI. If the FBI had received an official notice of a criminal investigation they would have given more weight and may have opened their own investigation not realizing that Trump and Pence were behind it all and believing that the Ukrainians were acting in good faith.

        1. The media would have gone wild over the criminal investigation of Joe Biden. No one would have known Trump and Pence were behind the scheme. They would have believed the Ukrainians had acted independently. It would have been a scheme worthy of Putin. Joe Biden under investigation.

        2. “Pod
          October.3.2019 at 10:07 pm
          “If you were to have information that your political opponent had committed a criminal offense then you would bring that information to the attention of the FBI.”

          Lefty ignoramuses continue to fantasize that lefty claims constitute argument and/or evidence. They don’t.
          Fuck off, Pod

          1. Nothing he has said was evidence of pressure being applied. I have seen no evidence of pressure to date. Period. I have seen a shitload of people inferring pressure and can’t seem to understand that they are doing such.

            1. Yep; they claim it is ‘pressure’ simply because they want it to be seen that way.
              If Trump gets impeached, it will be a triumph of ‘feelz’ over facts.

    2. Wait a minute. Are you unable to see that the FBI and the CIA are the Deep State. Pull your head out of your ass!

      1. most of the words of .this article are the .exact opposite of reality

  53. I have no problem with the observation that executive privilege can be and has been abused by various presidents. I might even agree that this happens more often than not.

    That being said, executive privilege legitimately arises from the separation of powers. Because congress isn’t actively involved in foreign diplomacy, for instance, letting them look over the president’s shoulder every time he makes a phone call to foreign head of state would effectively be giving them the power of the executive.

    Generally speaking, when we’re worried about the separation of powers, we’re talking about Congress abdicating their powers and leaving them to the president’s discretion, but it is entirely possible for Congress to overstep their proper bounds as well. Someone needs to keep an eye on the courts not “legislating from the bench” either. That’s another way the separation of powers can be violated.

    1. I feel like I need a shower after reading your posts.

      1. You need a shower after every one of your shitty posts.
        Fuck off and die.

  54. Come on Gillespie. Cheer leading for the impeachment of Trump by the Deep State is beyond the pale. I regret subscribing to your rag.
    Fuck off!

  55. Don’t forget this fucking scheme was stopped by a whistleblower. It doesn’t take much to imagine the way Trump and Pence would have used the official criminal investigations for the campaign. They never would have bever divulged that they were behind it all. It’s just sickening to think about.

    1. Pod
      October.3.2019 at 10:33 pm
      “Don’t forget this fucking scheme was stopped by a whistleblower…”

      Lefty fucking shitbags misspell “gossip” as “whistleblower”. They think that fools people as stupid as they are.

  56. Trump is uniquely corrupt, but he’s not the only corrupt Republican. Each successive Republican president has set all new standards of corruption. Give it to Trump, he didn’t start a war in the wrong country based on lies for the benefit of the vice president’s company. But really, that’s only because Trump Hotels, University, Steak, Inc., etc., aren’t quite the operation that Halliburton is.

    But let’s focus on the present. Trump is stupiding his way into exposing the status quo. Nope, that lets Trump off the hook. That’s the only possible reason to write this crap.

    1. Tony
      October.3.2019 at 11:18 pm
      “Trump is uniquely corrupt,..”

      Shitbag here, is not uniquely stooooopid; it’s a common symptom of TDS.
      I can only hope that it becomes far more fatal than has yet been evident; that would reduce shitbag’s maniac comments.

      1. I know, I know, I’m an AIDS-ridden faggot who should kill himself. And that’s why Trump is the greatest president.
        Talk about tedious repetition.

        1. I have no idea regarding your medical issues. I know you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus who posts lies here constantly.
          Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

          1. Am I way off the mark when I imagine you both masturbating and crying every time you type a post?

            1. “Am I way off the mark when I imagine you both masturbating and crying every time you type a post?”

              Yes, you pathetic piece of shit, you are.
              Fuck off and die.

  57. De Oppresso Liber
    October.3.2019 at 3:43 pm
    “tu quoque
    they were/are both bad presidents. One made bad policy a priority, the other will destroy the republic to get what he wants.”

    Took a while to find this, but I just checked.
    Trump is still POTUS, and the republic has not collapsed.
    Perhaps our newest fucking troll can give us a deadline for his ‘prediction’.
    I doubt it; s/hes but one more TDS victim for whom we can wish it was both fatal and painfully so.

    1. Only the name is new. Can’t even find something original, had to swipe it from some war movie he saw.

  58. For a brief second, I thought this might be how Trump was exposing the unearned sinecures of the relatives of politicians, like Crack-head Hunter Biden, funded by companies or governments, like The Ukraine and China, in attempts to curry the favor of said politician, to obtain US taxpayers’ dollars, while demonstrating clear conflicts of interest.
    But I guess the Trump derangement just won’t let REASON go there.

  59. Lovely idea, Nick. I think this comments section is gonna give you another reminder of why the business is usual, though.

  60. More convoluted shit from Gillespie, who stupidly soldiers on in his pathetic efforts to prove he’s an “intellectual.” He’s not; he’s a delusional cretin.

    Trump is the most honest, open president in American history and proves it daily. Only a complete partisan idiot couldn’t see that or simply would refuse to admit it.

  61. I don’t know if Trump is engineering half of what goes his way, but Gillespie isn’t wrong. Trump may well wind up being the correction the country needed. It’s a long shot, but who knows.

  62. Dumb as fuck article
    Reason writers seem to compete for this award daily

  63. So the rebuttal to charges that Trump misused the office is….’But Biden!!!’?
    I don’t care if Biden killed his own mother; the American president doesn’t call for an investigation on a private phone call.
    If there was nothing wrong with it, why didn’t he do it publicly?

    1. “If there was nothing wrong with it, why didn’t he do it publicly?”

      If you’re not guilty, why don’t you let the cops ransack your house?
      Fucking lefty imbeciles…

    2. Gregdn
      October.4.2019 at 2:00 pm
      “So the rebuttal to charges that Trump misused the office is….’But Biden!!!’?”

      Let’s add one more fucking lefty. Here, shitbag:
      It’s not that Trump should be excused, since crazy uncle Joe did it. It’s ‘why is Trump investigated while Biden did what Trump is accused (but not shown) of doing, while Biden suffered none of that?’
      Try real hard; maybe the cave man can explain it to you.

  64. “…we need to restructure the size, scope, and spending of government…”

    Oh, Gillespie: you are *adorably* cute, son.

  65. De Oppresso Liber
    October.3.2019 at 3:43 pm
    “tu quoque
    they were/are both bad presidents. One made bad policy a priority, the other will destroy the republic to get what he wants.”

    Yet one more day and Trump is still POTUS and the republic has yet to expire.
    Do you think that our newest TDS victim might be full of shit?
    I do.

    1. Oh, and our newest TDS victim seems confused:
      This is not tu quoque. The question here is not hard for those with a reasonable IQ to understand:
      It’s not that Trump should be excused, since crazy uncle Joe did it. It’s ‘why is Trump investigated while Biden did what Trump is accused (but not shown) of doing, while Biden suffered none of that.

  66. “We need to restructure…government…”?? And who is this “we”? The same clueless majority who supports (self-enslaves) to a ruling elite in every govt. the world over? This is the same as restructuring the deck chairs on the Titanic to avoid sinking. Rearranging a coercive govt. system still leaves us with authoritarianism. Accountability is impossible to achieve where the initiation of violence trumps reason, rights, and voluntary political interaction.
    Only a new, non-violent politics will create peace, prosperity, and freedom. Of course, that will require political maturity, self-responsibility, and a civil society. Could people choose that?

  67. “cartoonishly simple” should never be said against another by any Reason writer, that is just precious

  68. Hmmm… I’m sure there’s no harm here. Hunter is set to be a law professor next year. I bet that is just due to how damned qualified he is.

  69. The money that Obama “sent” to Iran was, and always was, Iran’s. The U.S. had held up the transfers in order to isolate Iran. When they agreed to the JCPA, releasing those funds was a gesture of good will and good faith
    https://jant-mamlka.com/%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%ae%d8%b5-%d8%b4%d8%b1%d9%83%d8%a9-%d8%aa%d9%86%d8%b8%d9%8a%d9%81-%d9%85%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%b2%d9%84-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%b6/

  70. I had to read Nick thanking Trump for “Revealing Brutal Truths About How Power and Privilege Operate”, but alas, Nick accuses Trump of operating like that with little to support it (the transcript of the meeting doesn’t prove any quid-pro-quo of looking for dirt on Biden – and Trump is duty bound to investigate corruption).

    When will the Reason staff appreciate the most libertarian president we’ve had in our lifetimes (even more so than Reagan IMHO)? They are right to thank him, because Trump is exposing them and their dirty practices. It’s not that Trump is “cartoonishly simple”, it’s that he’s been an honest president working for the people instead of the political class, and speaks truth to power (funny a president isn’t the power in government, but we can see that based on all the fake attacks and unprecedented leaks from inside the government). As Trump has said “Truth is a beautiful thing”, and that includes the truth of him revealing how they operate, by showing the political class is already doing everything they accuse Trump of.

Please to post comments