Politics

Trump's GOP Critics Are Dropping Like Flies

In retirement, veritas?

|

We don't normally associate Republican lawmakers with former Mexican leaders. But similar to the way many Latin American ex-presidentes suddenly discover an interest in legalizing marijuana once safely out of office, GOP members of Congress have an uncanny way of finding reasons to oppose Donald Trump right around the time they announce retirement.

Rep. Francis Rooney (R–Fla.) on October 19 became the 21st Republican member of the 116th Congress—compared to just seven Democrats at the time and nine as of press time—to announce that he will not seek that which politicians otherwise live for: re-election. The move came precisely one day after the southwest Floridian became the first current member of the House Republican caucus to declare openness to impeaching the president over the question of whether he made delivery of authorized aid money to Ukraine contingent on the newly elected president there announcing a possible investigation into 2020 Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden.     

"It's painful to me to see this kind of amateur diplomacy, riding roughshod over our State Department apparatus," Rooney, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The New York Times. "I want to get the facts and do the right thing, because I'll be looking at my children a lot longer than I'm looking to anybody in this building."

Ten days later, Rep. Greg Walden (R–Ore.) became the 22nd Republican to announce retirement. The first Republican congressman to back an impeachment inquiry, self-described libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), became a non-Republican within two months of that announcement, and at the end of October he was the only non-Democratic member of the House to back an impeachment investigation. Meanwhile, the growing number of premature retirees have been among the loudest in expressing alarm at the murky Ukraine-related behavior first made public by a CIA whistle-blower.

"There is a lot in the whistleblower complaint that is concerning," Rep. Will Hurd (R–Texas), a former rising GOP star, tweeted September 26, seven weeks after announcing his own non-re-election. "We need to fully investigate all of the allegations addressed in the letter."

It's not just on substance that self-liberated Republicans dissent from a president who is often more popular among their constituents. They also tend to object much more bluntly than their remaining colleagues to Trump's style, such as his statement that four House Democratic women of color should "go back" to their home countries, even though three of them were born in the United States.

"We're here for a purpose—and it's not this petty, childish bullshit," Rep. Paul Mitchell (R–Mich.), prompted by the "go back" episode, told The Washington Post six weeks after his own surprise decision not to run again.

In one sense, the spike in Republican self-deportations—44 and counting in the House alone since Trump's inauguration, compared to 25 Democrats during Barack Obama's entire first term—is a boon to Trump, since it helps him shape the party more in his idiosyncratic image. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.), the former vice chair of the president's transition team, is a good deal more Trumpy than the man she replaced in the upper chamber, frequent presidential critic Bob Corker.

But retiring Republicans in swing districts and states also have a tendency to be replaced by Democrats, as happened in Arizona after Sen. Jeff Flake left Capitol Hill. And that might be the vulnerability most likely to sink this presidency. Trump's fate seems likely to be in the hands of the Senate, presuming the Democrat-run House approves articles of impeachment. Support for the president in the 53-member Senate GOP caucus has been wide but not deep, with Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) in particular criticizing Trump's Ukraine gambits. And another three Republican senators will not be seeking re-election in 2020, freeing them up to speak openly if they choose.

Anyone who has bet on GOP lawmakers to meaningfully oppose the president has already lost a lot of money. And there is one anti-impeachment argument that may persuade even the most ardent anti-Trump Republicans: Removing a president in an election year seems much less politically wise than letting voters decide for themselves how his first term should be rewarded.

Republican senators may be damned either way. As of press time, public support for impeachment and disapproval of Trump's presidency were reaching all-time highs. Sometimes the safest place to be in a firefight is far away from the front lines.

NEXT: Brickbat: Ain't That a Kick

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. We’re here for a purpose—and it’s not this petty, childish bullshit – Rep. Paul Mitchell (R–Mich.)

    This guy nailed it.

    Is it really so bad that 10% of Team R self-selects out and new people come in, independent of their motivation to leave? I tend to think not.

    1. If the aim is to have one of our political parties shrink and be populated entirely by amoral, downscale, stale-thinking sycophants, it’s a great idea!

      1. “If the aim is to have one of our political parties shrink and be populated entirely by amoral, downscale, stale-thinking sycophants, it’s a great idea!”

        I do too, and the Ds are well on their way, asshole bigot.

        1. Everyone in a position of influence should certainly encourage the young upstarts who have foolishly railed against social order and advocated for so-called “free speech” to stay very far from the front-lines as we work together with prosecutors and criminal courts here at NYU to curtail some of the unlawful rubbish, including the most outrageous “parodies,” that some of our most distinguished faculty members have had to deal with. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        2. You do what too?

          1. Thinks it’s a great idea to see the D party, populated entirely by amoral, downscale, stale-thinking sycophants, shrink.

      2. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗
        ╚═╗╔═╝───────────────╚══╗║╔═╗╠══╗║╔═╗║─║║║║║║
        ──║║─╔══╦╗╔╦════╦══╗─╔══╝║║─║╠══╝║║─║║─║║║║║║
        ──║║─║╔═╣║║║╔╗╔╗║╔╗║─║╔══╣║─║║╔══╣║─║║─╚╝╚╝╚╝
        ──║║─║║─║╚╝║║║║║║╚╝║─║╚══╣╚═╝║╚══╣╚═╝║─╔╗╔╗╔╗
        ──╚╝─╚╝─╚══╩╝╚╝╚╣╔═╝─╚═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╝─╚╝╚╝╚╝
        ────────────────║║
        ────────────────╚╝
        ____________________________________________________

        Best President in US History!!!!

        Even the Founding Fathers never had to endure coup attempts.

        1. It’s pure insanity that we aren’t executing these people

          1. Open wider, you bigoted loser. You’ll be swallowing the progress shaped by your betters regardless of how you prepare, but if you open wider there’s less chance you’ll lose a few teeth in the process.

            Either way, thank you for your continuing obsequious compliance.

            1. Right but you lost though.

            2. I can’t see what your impotent rage serves up after Trumpslide2020 crushes your wet dreams of Progressive totalitarianism.

              Cry more!

            3. Haha. Delusions of grandeur and compliance. Nobody cares, old man. But you fight on if it makes you feel important.

          2. I’d pay money to see the FBI file on you, Last of the Shitferbrains.
            I assume it’s under T for terrorist.

            1. “Last of the Shitferbrains.”

              AHAHAHAH THAT WAS THE BEST YOU HAD AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

              1. Yeah, pretty weak, isn’t it?

            2. No faggot, I’m a patriot. The only people that are worried are communist traitors, like you.

              And yes, you should be executed. Unlike you though, I believe in using due process to kill you. So many of you should be lined up and shot for your treason.

        2. An attempted coup that would place Mike Pence in the seat of power. What a coup!

          1. Democrats will make up nonsense to get rid of Pence too.

            Then Pelosi can be President and Hillary as Vice president.

            It was her turn after all!

            1. To get to President Pelosi, we’d have to first get to the step where there’s a President Pence, which would require the Senate to remove Trump from office. That seems very unlikely to happen.

              1. Hey remember when I caught you lying about Azathoth and WCR being Trump supporters? Today I mean. When you posted links and then lied about what they said

                1. Senate is going to acquit Trump,, regardless. Most likely there’s not a single Senator that even knows that I jumped the gun on accusing them of being Trump supporters, apologized for doing it, then discovered they are indeed Trump supporters. I still was wrong in assuming they were just because they were both accusing anyone who criticizes Trump of being on Team Blue.

                  1. Right we were talking about you getting caught lying.

          2. Pence wouldn’t rock the boat in the Globalist Deep State.

        3. My goodness you’re a childish retard, LC69.

          1. AHAHAHAHHA LOOK AT YOU CRY TONY AHAHAHAHAHA

          2. The no yards penalty sock troll is back?

      3. Seems to me, the aim is to shrink the “amoral … stale-thinking sycophants” RINO part of the GOP and replace it with fiscally conservative limited government types.

        Note the big government RINOs criticize Trump, only AFTER they’ve decided to not run again. They know the voters won’t support them being in the GOP and criticizing Trump. Look at the NTU ratings of Walden, Hurd, and Mitchell – they might as well be Democrats.

        The exceptions being Amash (is he trying to position himself as the Libertarian nominee and needs Trump out of the way?) and Flake seems to be opposed to Trump’s style more than his policies. Or maybe Obama’s NSA/CIA spied upon Flake, found some dirt and got him to resign (it wouldn’t surprise me – they spied on Senators and Trump).

        1. Limited government? What would the defense budget be under a limited government? Or would your limited government still be limited as to how limited it could be – limited by the vital needs of national security, I mean?

    2. Political axes are realigning, and the Globalists are losing control.

      Trump took the leadership of the Republican Party away from the right wing of the Globalist Uniparty. It’s not their party anymore, and it’s increasingly difficult for them to retain their seats. So they’re retiring before they’re primaried.

      You know they’re controlled opposition when they have no problem with Democrats calling Republicans deplorable and irredeemable Nazi White Supremacist Klansmen 24/7, all the while whinging about Trump’s “tone”.

      Republican Globalists are getting out of the Republican Party because the Left Right axis is aligning to the Globalist Nationalist axis, leaving them in the *wrong* party.

      Globalists to the Left.
      Nationalists to the Right.

      That’s why Reason is busy blowing Neocons and Socialists. They’re all Globalists. They’re on the Left now.

      Nick knows. He declared Open Borders Uber Alles Reason’s official “core value”, and signaled his Invasion USA inspired chumminess with socialists:

      In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

      Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.

      https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

      1. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three rights make a left.

      2. The thing about globalism, as opposed to nationalism, is it is inherently incompatible with the small and limited government fundamental to libertarianism.
        As globalism has grown, so has government. That is not coincidental. Globalism requires centralization of power and extensive reach of government in the form of rules and regulations (at the very least).

        1. Inherently incompatible with self-government.

          1. WELL SAID!

        2. Seems like nationalism also has aspects that are an ill fit for libertarianism: making mass decisions based on demographic groups rather considering people as individuals, restricting freedom of movement, and eschewing the benefits of global trade.

          Also, I’m not convinced that global trade and freedom of movement necessarily HAS TO go hand in hand with lots centralization of power and lots of rules and regulations.

          1. Well, you’re a fucking moron.
            Who resolves trade or property disputes? Gotta have a centralized body for thst.
            Who sets standards for behavior to try to avoid disputes? Gotta have a centralized body for that.
            Who protects individuals’ rights as they move across the world? Gotta have a centralized body for that.
            Nationalism can yield an overbearing and restrictive government.
            Globalism requires it.

    3. Weld 2020: a 2016 Lbertarian Veep candidate is a terrible thing to lose.

  2. Good! Both parties need to kick out their relics and renew themselves. The Republican Party has been full of war mongers, crony capitalists, nanny staters, authoritarians, and religious nuts, people like McCain, for example. Let’s hope they leave through resignations or, if necessary, attrition. The sooner the better.

    1. All true – but they’re being replaced with xenophobes and protectionists. That’s an upgrade?

      1. All true – but they’re being replaced with xenophobes and protectionists. That’s an upgrade?

        Not one of these guys is going to get replaced by a Democrat, so you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        The party of racists, xenophobes and economic illiterates is on the ropes, prog–and it’s yours.

        1. Wow! Four comments in and a Trump supporter is already committing a fallacy of the excluded middle.

          1. Neutral mike missed the fallacy that all trump supporters are xenophobic… and instead went after the response to that comment.

            Neutral mike proving he is forever neutral.

            1. Good point. If you are a Trunp supporters, it doesn’t mean you are xenophobic.

              1. The Democrat Party though…that’s a Party of slavery.

                1. Oh, please. They may have misguided ideas about how to help the poor and disadvantaged, and a lot of self-congratulatory snobbery about it.

                  But they ain’t the “party of slavery”. That’s a gross exaggeration, and it belittles the terrible history of actual slavery.

                  1. Actually, they are the historical party that supported slavery and segregation. They are literally the party of slavery.

                    1. Historically. Decades ago.

                    2. So you were wrong. Totally. Say it you fucking sack of shit.

                    3. Because the Democratic party being the *Conservative* party back then had nothing to do with it? Around the 1960s, the conservative and liberal parties swapped places and the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Republicans railed against it.

                      And now we’ve got a guy in the White House who thinks white power morons are “good people” and he’s most definitely not a Democrat.

                    4. “Around the 1960s, the conservative and liberal parties swapped places”

                      That’s ahistorical bullshit, shawn_dude, and you know it. Don’t assume we’re all as gullible as your fellow travelers.

                    5. Hey look, rando sock pops up to butt fuck Mike. Lol

                    6. Because the Democratic party being the *Conservative* party back then had nothing to do with it?

                      No. Just because they have swapped positions on some things does not mean the 19th century Republicans were “liberal” and the Democrats were “conservative.” Those are modern categories you’re projecting onto them.

                      In the 19th century the Republicans were the “Eastern Establishment” party and the Democrats were the “Southern/Western Populist” party. Democrats tended toward laissez-faire capitalism and low tariffs while Republicans tended toward protectionism/high tariffs. Democrats tended to want to aid and participate in foreign revolutions (like in Texas and Cuba), while Republicans tended to be more isolationist. The Democrats were deeply divided over slavery, while the Republicans were defined by Abolitionism.

                      “The Swap” to which you refer didn’t happen in the 1960s – it happened in the 1910-20s at the height of the Progressive Era. Progressivism starts with Republicans like McKinley and Roosevelt just as the populism of the Democrats takes a distinctly socialist turn with Bryant. Wilson fused the two into the Progressivism we know and love today, inspiring the laissez-faire Republican counter-movement of the 1920s, which really has its roots in W. H. Taft, who came to be skeptical of Roosevelt’s Progressive tendencies and embraced free market economics.

                      the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Republicans railed against it

                      Did they? I suggest you look up who led the charge against the CRA and get back to us. Also look up who proposed the original 1957 version and who shot it down.

                      And now we’ve got a guy in the White House who thinks white power morons are “good people” and he’s most definitely not a Democrat

                      1) he specifically didn’t say the white power guys were “good people.” He said not everyone at Charlottesville was a white power guy. But you knew that.

                      2) He has, in fact, been a Democrat through most of his adult life.

                    7. I am proud that my party has long repudiated a sordid history on racial matters. Are you proud of how eagerly your party stepped into the breach?

                    8. Fuck off sock.

                    9. Gosh Shawn, funny how your evil party still has pretty much the same evil platform all these years. Just more communistic now.

                  2. LC69 is a Trump-sucking moron. Don’t try to teach him history.

                    1. Cry more Tony.

                    2. This sock troll no hards penalty so funny.

                      Never refutes that the Democrat Party is the Party of slavery.

            2. Now, can all the Trump supporters here stop accusing anyone who criticizes Trump of being a Democrat.

              1. That depends cytotoxic, can you stop white knighting for Democrats every time they are criticized for anything while hurling invective at Republicans and accusing anyone who points your idiocy of being a Trump supporter?

                1. Please call me out if I call anyone a Trump supporter who hasn’t clearly demonstrated himself to be one. If I have done so in the past, I apologize.

                  The one regular commenter who is clearly a self-professed Trump supporter is lc1789. I do feel that I am justified in referring to lc1789 as a Trump fan, Trump supporter, Trump apologist. Exhibition A, just a few comments above on this page: https://reason.com/2019/12/23/trumps-gop-critics-are-dropping-like-flies/#comment-8062306

                  I believe I have never hurled invective. I do point out whenever someone has said something untrue in defense of Trump, and I will continue to do so. I always refrain from behavior like calling people idiots or swearing at them.

                  As a libertarian and a fan of Reason, I hate seeing the comment section dominated by President worshipers, and will continue to be an active voice against any President worship here in the commentariat.

                  1. “Mike Laursen
                    December.23.2019 at 9:56 am
                    Wow! Four comments in and a Trump supporter”

                    This is me calling you out.

                    ” I apologize”

                    No one cares Jeff.

                    1. I apologize to Azatoth! for assuming he is a Trump supporter.

                    2. You shouldn’t have lied.

                      “Azathoth!!
                      December.18.2019 at 4:45 pm
                      This is Trump hamstrung?

                      Record market, record employment, illegal immigration down, SJW foolishness being dismantled, regulations being repealed.

                      Gods help us if we can nuke the Dems”

                      You literally just said that comment makes him a Trump supporter. You’re an imbecile.

                    3. Azathoth!! is clearly praising Trump in that comment.

                    4. First of all no he isn’t, second, that doesn’t make him a Trump supporter.

                      You got caught liar.

                  2. “Mike Laursen
                    December.23.2019 at 9:57 am
                    Five comments in and we have another Trump supporter”

                    And again. Jeff.

                    1. And to Weigel’s [Not Finishing His Handle]. I apologize.

                    2. “Weigel’s Cock Ring
                      December.19.2019 at 10:00 am
                      Well, we all know that at Reason DC headquarters the Pink Pussies, the Billy Bunions, the butt-boys, and the Blocko Mofos (note that these are all the same people) were up all night long celebrating.

                      It’s going to be a very short-lived celebration indeed though. Soon the senate will dispense with this absurd charade and they’ll all be back to the cold realities that their democratic candidates all suck, the markets are performing at record levels, and that has Trump has achieved a full economic recovery in three years, which their Obamessiah couldn’t do in eight.”

                      So when you post links that don’t say what you claim, you do know people read them and know you’re lying right?

                    3. And he was clearly praising Trump in that comment.

                    4. And here you get caught lying again.

                      Acknowledging the success or failure of a policy doesn’t make someone a supporter you sad lying fuck.

                    5. Here Mike, because you knowcyou got caught lying, and will go down with this sad lying ship of yours.

                      Obama showed tremendous restraint in the initiatives he chose to get the economy moving in 2009. The public would have allowed him great leeway and he chose not to exercise it fully, for the better of the country.

                      Now CALL ME AN OBAMA SUPPORTER YOU STUPID FUCK. I DARE YOU.

                    6. It went beyond acknowledging success to unqualified fawning over Trump.

                    7. Except it didint because I put the quote right there. WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT LOLOL

                      He STILL thinks he can Jefflight people lololol

                  3. Azathoth!! is clearly praising Trump in that comment.

                    I am?

                    Because to anyone with reading comprehension, it looks a whole lot like I’m pointing out how much crap he’s gotten done while you and your prog brethren have been harassing his every move.

                    As I noted then, “Gods help us if we can nuke the dems.”

                    For the record, pseudo-OBL, I don’t support politicians. I support ideas and will vote for those who will implement the ideas I like.

                  4. Reason comment threads have been infected with Trumptards for several years now. The libertarians have all been shouted down.

                    1. Yeah, seems so.

                    2. Awww lol at you obviously crying to yourself because I caught you lying lololo

                    3. Yet, you progtarded faggots still manage to yell your shrill Marxist message.

                    4. You wack-jobs make me laugh… 25-Comments on deciding who to Chicken-peck as being a “Trump Worshiper” while simultaneously pretending not to be Chicken-peckers.

                      Then pretending that Trump and his deregulation is completely out of line with the Libertarian-ism platform while offering absolutely no point what-so-ever.

                      You get called “Democrats” EXACTLY because of the “Trump Worshiping” mentality you have just dispersed and all other examples. You either support Limited Government or you don’t; but only Democrats make the whole argument a gangster-color issue all on its own with nothing left to discus. “Trump Haters!!!” – see how that works.

            3. No JesseAz, Neutral Mike has transformed and renamed himself to Non-Partisan Mike. We have to respect how Mike self-identifies now. At least, that is what we are told these days…

            4. He might really be chaotic evil though.

          2. Wow! Four comments in and cytotoxic is already using terms he doesn’t understand.

            1. Understand it perfectly. For anyone who doesn’t understand why assuming anyone who criticizes Trump is a Democrat/liberal/progressive, it is explained here:

              https://www.thoughtco.com/false-dilemma-fallacy-250338

              “This is sometimes referred to as the ‘Fallacy of the Excluded Middle’ because it can occur as a misapplication of the Law of the Excluded Middle.“

              And stop calling me, Shirley.

              1. That’s funny coming from the idiot who labels anybody who disagrees with Democrats a Trump supporter.

                1. I believe I have referred to Trump supporters here in the comment section generally, but have never made the claim that anyone who disagrees with Democrats is a Trump supporter.

                  I have individually called out lc1789, and possibly others as Trump supporters, but only when they have clearly made statements supporting Trump. When it comes to lc1789, specifically, he proclaims his support for Trump all the time. Example: https://reason.com/2019/12/23/trumps-gop-critics-are-dropping-like-flies/#comment-8062306

                  1. I believe I have referred to Trump supporters here in the comment section generally, but have never made the claim that anyone who disagrees with Democrats is a Trump supporter.

                    Bullshit. You regularly lump anybody who disagrees with your dumb comments as a “Trump supporter”. Now you try to wiggle out of it now by saying that you “never made the claim”.

                    1. I quoted him doing it TWICE.IN THIS THREAD.

                    2. And I apologized. Then I looked and it turned out they ARE Trump supporters. I still shouldn’t have assumed, but it turns out I was correct. Whereas, you will not find a single comment anywhere in the history of the Reason comments section where I have said anything indicating I am a liberal, a progressive, a supporter of Obama, Hillary, etc.

                    3. And I apologized.

                      Yeah, when you get caught you occasionally “apologize”. Then you go right on doing it again. Face the reality of it: you’re a partisan jerk.

                    4. “Then I looked and it turned out they ARE Trump supporters”

                      Except I posted the actual quotes which prove they aren’t and that you were lying.

                    5. Wow! Talk about trying to gaslight someone.

                    6. Yes, I’m talking about you and what you do. So what?

                      The quote is RIGHT THERE. Why are you insisting on your interpretation while I’m simply saying “read it and decide”.

                      Oh right. You do that to gaslight people. Constantly.

                    7. “Why are you insisting on your interpretation while I’m simply saying “read it and decide”.”

                      Because that is what progressive do.
                      It’s a pathological defense mechanism.
                      Mike Laursen consistently behaves as a progressive, yet he still pretends to not understand why he is identified as one.
                      It is sad, hilarious, and quite typical

                    8. Wow! Talk about trying to gaslight someone.

                      Yup, that’s what you do: lying and gaslighting people.

                  2. It only makes sense to support Trump. The only current alternative is lire evil: the democrat party.

                    So Liarson is not true neutral, but in fact neutral evil.

                  3. “As a libertarian and a fan of Reason, I hate seeing the comment section dominated by President worshipers, and will continue to be an active voice against any President worship here in the commentariat.”

                    Where the fuck were you during the Obama Administration?

                    1. Running a different sock

                    2. Right here, criticizing Obama. I don’t do much criticizing of Obama currently because he is off windsurfing in the Bahamas or giving speeches or something, and not Presidenting.

                    3. “Right here, criticizing Obama.”

                      Nonstop from 9 am until 10pm? Timestamps don’t lie like you do.

                      Right. Post the links then, and we will all see for ourselves.

                    4. You’ll notice, Jeff has no links handy to prove his 100 plus comments about Obama’s failures actually exist. One time he actually needs links, and they don’t appear. Weird.

                  4. This neutral mikey sock troll is funny.

                    Trump is the most Libertarian-ish President in over 80+ years. Of course Libertarians should praise his strategies that forward Libertarian ideals and criticize strategies that dont.

                    Reason is a tool of Lefties so I am happy be a counter to their nonsense.

          3. Fallacy?

            The left is the side of the political spectrum that supported slavery, practiced racial, ideological, ethnic, religious and eugenic genocide and believes in Marxism.

            There’s no fallacy–of any type in what I wrote, prog.

            But, then again, I think you’re another OBL.

            Because no one could have their head as far up their own ass as you without poking back out your mouth and getting just a bit of light.

            1. I mean, LOOK at this fercrissakes–

              Mike Laursen
              December.23.2019 at 11:22 am

              Oh, please. They may have misguided ideas about how to help the poor and disadvantaged, and a lot of self-congratulatory snobbery about it.

              But they ain’t the “party of slavery”. That’s a gross exaggeration, and it belittles the terrible history of actual slavery.

              That’s just too far.

              You didn’t even attempt to call out the ‘switch’ or suggest that early Republicans were actually progs.

              1. “Oh, please. They may have misguided ideas about how to help the poor and disadvantaged, and a lot of self congratulatory snobbery about it…..”

                I actually think that’s a pretty good assessment of the true ugliness of prog ideology, and reason enough to reject them entirely, regardless of who is on the “other side”.

                Probably not how he meant it to be taken, but still honest.

                Haha.

                1. And honest from him is hard to come by lolol

      2. You know you’re fucking retarded when you declare anyone who thinks a cap of 1 million immigrants a year is xenophobic

        1. I think he’s too retarded to know he’s retarded.

      3. “being replaced with xenophobes and protectionists”

        Hey slaver, as the current alternative is oikophobes and international corporatists, I don’t have a problem with this.

        1. The xenophobes that will continue to let a million foreigners a year immigrate here.

      4. Opposing excessive immigration doesn’t make one a xenophobe.

        Favoring punitive tariffs with hostile regimes doesn’t make one a protectionist.

        But using your confused terminology, yes, that’s who they will be replaced with and that will be an improvement.

        1. It isn’t being widely reported (big surprise) but for the first time ever, the US is selling rice to China.

          I’ll bet Boehm does NOT write about that.

    2. How about both (all) parties not renew themselves, or even better, just disband? Its bad enough when insane, power-hungry individuals fuck up politics. Why institutionalize the process?

      1. How about Americans realize that the two party system is actually a pretty good system?

        1. Sacrilege!
          Declaration of Independents! Libertarian Moment!

  3. Welchie Boy sure is in a bad mood. Probably because he wakes up every day realizing that his democratic party candidates all absolutely suck, just like they did yesterday.

    1. Five comments in and we have another Trump supporter committing the fallacy of excluded middle.

      1. Neutral mike makes another appearance!

      2. Btw… you know else often misuses whatever fallacy they learned about that week? His name starts with J. And it isnt me

          1. Hihn?

            1. Hihn starts with J?

              1. Hihn is a Jackhole, so yeah, Hihn starts with a “J”.

      3. “fallacy of excluded middle”

        That wasn’t a false dilemma you pseudo-intellectual poseur.

        1. “his democratic party candidates”, was based on what evidence?

          1. His writing.
            Now fuck off and die

      4. Nothing funnier than a liberal democrat Reason staff member using a sockpuppet account to claim he’s in the “excluded middle”, though it’s not surprising because it’s what you’re already getting paid to do here every day!

        1. I am totally not Matt Welch, although I gotta say he is a super cool guy who makes witty remarks on the Reason Podcast, used to play in bands, was in Czechoslovakia personally witnessing the fall of Communism, and wears cool ties.

          1. And lets his kids get treated like cattle because he’s a pussy who is afraid of being labeled racist.

            So, all that other shit is pretty fucking meaningless when the threat of a baseless accusation cowers him into submission. And he dresses like his wife picks his clothes.

            1. Since when is it an insult to let someone with better taste then you help you with your wardrobe? What’s the point of having a spouse if you don’t complement each other.

              1. Hi jeffmike.

          2. I have to give you some credit: this is one of the funnier non-denials I’ve seen in a while.

      5. Well, hun, you jerk excluding the middle. And while you may not identify as a Democrat, you certainly identify as an imbecile.

      6. So ‘Mike’, now criticism of Welch and the democrat primary field is automatically ‘pro Trump’?

  4. January 2020?
    A lot of future watching has been wrong where Trump is concerned.

    1. True. Acquittal in the Senate and re-election should be a foregone conclusion, but two guys at the heart of this, Trump and Giuliani, have a history of random behavior that could see them snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

      1. Wow! 15 comments in and TDS is rampant!

        1. These guys are fifty-centers, they’re paid to push corporatist ideology and a bien-pensant worldview.

      2. Not so sure about “foregone conclusion.” You’d have to have a pretty terrible view of the average voter to believe that or maybe an over-inflated view of Russian operatives. Regardless, his tampering with the economy to try and ensure there’s a boom right before the election could work for him provided the Chinese play nice and let him end the trade war he started.

        1. Hi Mike.

        2. You may be right, but my guess is that Trump will be more popular with his base after Senate acquittal. Then add that the Democrats are having trouble finding an appealing candidate and rallying behind that person.

          1. Why are you talking to yourself like we don’t know you are talking to yourself

      3. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/a-conversation-with-rudy-giuliani-over-bloody-marys.html?utm_source=undefined&utm_medium=undefined&utm_campaign=feed-part

        This New York Magazine interview that just came out is a bit of a hit piece, but it doesn’t help that Giuliani showed up stumbling drunk. That’s an example of what I mean about his random behavior.

  5. “It’s not just on substance that self-liberated Republicans dissent from a president who is often more popular among their constituents. They also tend to object much more bluntly than their remaining colleagues to Trump’s style, such as his statement that four House Democratic women of color should “go back” to their home countries, even though three of them were born in the United States.”

    It’s funny how we can be so right about something–and get it so wrong, both at the same time.

    On one hand, you’re correct about the fact that some of them oppose Trump’s style rather than the substance of his policies. On the other hand, the example you give is an excellent example of people getting upset over the way he made a point–rather than the point itself. This is what he actually tweeted in its entirety (bold added):

    So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

    —-@realDonaldTrump

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    The point he was making is that Somalia is a shithole, and Ms. Talib’s open hostility to the United States and the American people was entirely inappropriate. President Trump not only told Ms. Talib to go back to the country she came from but also told her to come back! The point President Trump was making wasn’t any more racist than it would have been if he had told Matt Welch to go back to Long Beach and tell us how wonderful the murder gallery that makes up the worst part of that town is–and come back and tell the rest of the country why we should want to be more like that part of southern California. 90813 is a murderous shit-hole–no matter Matt Welch’s race. If the United States had granted Matt Welch asylum so that he could escape the worst part of Long Beach as a child–only to have Matt Welch to become a public politician and savage the U.S. and the American people the way Representative Talib did–he’d make himself a legitimate target for the charge of ingratitude in the court of public opinion.

    1. Thanks for reminding me how much Welch has succumbed to the hysterical-but-incorrect reporting style of the day.

      1. Over the last year it had become evident that Reason doesnt actually go to primary sources (despite it being easier than ever to find them) but will instead just cite whatever narrative was put into one of the D.C./NY papers they enjoy. You see it all the time with Reason producing the paraphrase (often wrong) instead of the quote.

        1. Reason magazine regularly features long-form, investigative journalism. The blog, on the other hand, is mostly quickly-written posts referencing some (not all) things going on in the news.

          1. This piece is from the magazine, and it does not feature long-form, investigative journalism. It seems quick-written and refers to trite, leftist narrative.

            This is another post of yours that is in error. How many in this string alone?

            1. I know that this piece is from the magazine. It doesn’t negate what I said, which is still true: “Reason magazine regularly features long-form, investigative journalism.”

              1. It completely negates what you said.

                1. No, giving one example of one article does not negate my claim. It would be like picking one green sock out of a sock drawer and saying the drawer contains no white socks.

                  1. Hey remember when I caught you lying about Azathoth and WCR being Trump supporters? Today I mean. When you posted links and then lied about what they said. Like you did there.

              2. And you clearly DIDN’T know.

          2. Hahaha. Thanks Neutral Mikey.

            I needed another good laugh like that impeachment process. Hahaha.

          3. It stopped doing that years ago.

            1. https://reason.com/2019/12/01/climate-change-how-lucky-do-you-feel/

              “I have spent the last several months revisiting the question, trying to figure out if the current level of “climate panic” is scientifically justified.” Looks like Ron Bailey spent several months on the article. That’s “long-form”.

              1. Oh, it’s “long form” alright, it just isn’t journalism.

              1. Hey remember when I caught you lying about Azathoth and WCR being Trump supporters? Today I mean. When you posted links and then lied about what they said. Like you did there.

              1. Hey remember ber when I caught you lying about Azathoth and WCR being Trump supporters? Today I mean. When you posted links and then lied about what they said. Like you did there.

    2. Of course, you are right that the actual point made is more important than communication style, but should a President’s communication style be overlooked when it indulges in divisiveness and vilification of the opposition?

      1. “Of course, you are right that the actual point made is more important than communication style, but should a President’s communication style be overlooked when it indulges in divisiveness and vilification of the opposition?”

        Absolutely not! Why forgetting to close a parenthetical should be grounds for impeachment, right TDS victim?

      2. At the ballot box? Take whatever you want into consideration. It’s a free country.

        Personally, I think we should also take what and whom Trump was responding to into consideration, as well.

        https://www.thedailybeast.com/rep-ilhan-omar-condemned-by-pelosi-democratic-leaders-for-using-anti-semitic-tropes

        1. “Miftah’s website has featured praise for Palestinian suicide bombers that have indiscriminately murdered civilians, an anti-Semitic treatise lifted from an American neo-Nazi website, and an article which claimed that the Jews use the blood of Christians during Passover — the eternally deployed “blood libel” against Jews. Miftah promptly apologized for the blood libel post, and blamed its publication on a junior staffer.

          Given this history, it is worth understanding exactly what Miftah is, what role it plays in the Palestinian liberation movement, and what it means for Omar and Tlaib to be partnering with the organization on a trip to the West Bank

          https://www.businessinsider.com/rashida-tlaib-ilhan-omar-miftah-anti-semitism-israel-palestine-bds-2019-8

          1. And, by the way, thank you for actually engaging in conversation.

            1. He sometimes lowers himself like that.

            2. It’s better than you deserve Pedo Cytotoxic.

        2. Sure, it is fair to consider what he is responding to, but are you ever concerned at all about Trump’s communication style?

          1. Only grammar nazis concern themselves with that.

            1. I’m trying to figure out what you are talking about. The only thing I can come up with is the other day when John challenged me to say why I characterized Trump’s open letter to Pelosi and the House Democrats as poor writing. I don’t recall criticizing Trump’s grammar, but if I did, the vast majority of points I made were about the substance of the letter not the grammar.

              In a separate comment, I did make fun of the letter using two spaces between each sentence with a proportional font, but that was just a stupid toss-off comment about a pet peeve of mine. I don’t even know if Trump typed the letter.

              1. Hey remember when I caught you lying about Azathoth and WCR being Trump supporters? Today I mean. When you posted links and then lied about what they said.

          2. To progressives, how things are said is more important than what is actually done. This is how Obama got away with bailing out Wall Street investors with our future paychecks, murdering more children with drone strikes than Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook Elementary, entering into a war in Libya without consent from Congress, executing an American citizen, violating the Fourth Amendment rights of 300 million Americans with the NSA, raiding state legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California hundreds of times, and entering into treaties with foreign powers without any input from the Senate, etc., etc.

            To whatever extent speaking about those things in politically acceptable terms made those things possible, speaking about them in politically acceptable terms was evil. Meanwhile, to whatever extent anyone tries to restrict policy by restricting the acceptability of the speech used to describe those polices, they’re employing tactics that reek of Machiavelli and Plato’s “noble” lies. I find the whole strategy repulsive and counterproductive.

            Do you imagine the world would be a genuinely better place if people thought widely held opinions were socially unacceptable? Have you ever noticed that the countries with the strongest laws against hate speech seem to be the countries that have the largest and most successful parties devoted primarily to xenophobia? Trying to make people believe that widely held opinions are unacceptable to express–because of the way they’re expressed–doesn’t make them less common. It simply makes it appear that “respectable” opinions are unrealistic and phony.

            1. I understand your point, but you also didn’t answer my question: are you ever concerned about the effects of Trump’s divisiveness and vilification of his political opponents?

              1. He totally answered it.

            2. “I find the whole strategy repulsive and counterproductive.”

              Standing ovation.

          3. No, I am not particularly concerned with POTUS Trump’s communication style. Why do you think he was elected in the first place? Yes, the words that come out of his mouth matter. What matters infinitely even more are the actions of his hands.

          4. You know what really concerns me? When smart people use excellent style and rhetoric to manipulate people into accepting authoritarian policies. That’s when gullible fools like you make bad political decisions

            While I would certainly prefer if Trump could be as manipulative and slick as his opponents in advancing a smaller government agenda, he’s the best we have right now. And the disdain people get for politics and government from him is itself valuable. As is the fact that he manages to rip off the masks of his opponents because their slick propaganda isn’t ready for him.

      3. Mike: “Nazis like Trump and the Republicans should not vilify their opponents and take the vile insults hurled at them with grace.”

        1. Democrats are dirty hippies. It is always the right call to beat a dirty hippie. Therefore democrats require beatings.

      4. should a President’s communication style be overlooked when it indulges in divisiveness and vilification of the opposition

        If the opposition engages in divisiveness and vilification, and is doing so in cooperation with the mass media complex, than to not engage with them at their own game is conceding the battlefield.

        When Lincoln’s staff called Grant a drunkard, Lincoln responded that he should send every Union general a case of what Grant was drinking. He may or may not have liked his methods, but overall the results were more favorable for his side than that of his opponents.

        An “honorable loser” is still a loser.

        1. So, we should always lower ourselves to the level of behavior of our opponents. We should never hold ourselves to a higher standard, but instead keep contributing the deterioration of civility and growth of divisiveness in the US. Got it.

          1. Bro, you DO what we are talking about, constantly. You’re fucking gaslighting people, and it doesn’t work.

            1. “Gaslighting” means to try to use deception to convince someone they are going insane.

              I was putting words in Red Rocks mouth, casting aspersions on his character, and a few other things, and I apologize for that. I wasn’t gaslighting, though.

              1. No actually, that’s only one type of gaslighting. So, you’re lying about that too now.

                Hey remember ber when I caught you lying about Azathoth and WCR being Trump supporters? Today I mean. When you posted links and then lied about what they said.

                1. It’s more of Jeffy’s semantical bullshit where he tries to make you prove the sky is blue. Don’t waste your time with him.

          2. Why are you saying ‘we’, prog?

            You’re not ‘we’, you’re ‘they’.

            And you’re using their tactics and methods.

            You want us to stand on the high ground without defending ourselves, while you and your fellows fling shit.

            Not anymore, monkeyboy.

          3. So, we should always lower ourselves to the level of behavior of our opponents.

            The point, dumbshit, is that playing nice all the time doesn’t mean jack squat when your opponent views the game in zero-sum terms–and the Democrats have been trending this way ever since the New Left took over the party in the early 70s, with a resurgence from the Occupy movement in the early 2010s.

    3. You’ve taken a quote about “Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries” (emphasis mine) and just plucked a single congresswoman from a single country to prove your point while totally ignoring the other three women who are from the US. His comment is plural and he was referring to “The Squad,” which only has a single immigrant member. He told black and latina women born in the US to go back to their countries. There was no misunderstanding

      1. “who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all)”.

        —-President Trump

        Gillespie quoted someone once as saying that where Trump’s supporters take him seriously without taking him literally, his critics often make the mistake of taking Trump literally without taking him seriously–and you seem to have fallen into that latter trap here. At best, you’re missing the forest for the trees.

        Trump was trading on the fact that Omar wouldn’t be in this great country if not for the generosity of the United States towards asylum seekers from Somalia. If you’re confused about that because he pluralized it so as not to be criticized for singling her out specifically, then that’s your problem and no one else’s.

        P.S. The Crucible wasn’t about the Salem witch trials, and Animal Farm wasn’t about a farm.

        1. If we take away considering what a person has literally said, that leaves trying to divine what they really meant. Which leaves us open to projecting our own thoughts onto that person or excusing what they literally said.

          1. Hey Jeff, remember when I caught you lying earlier?

            Also, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST GET A LIFE YOU’VE BEEN HERE SINCE 9AM

            1. And you have been where?

              1. Pedi Jeffy, no one could ever love you. Do the smart thing for Christmas.

      2. I was called a “liar” for pointing this out.

        1. Wow, you even lie about why you were called a liar.

          But really, no one is surprised to see you agree with your new rando sockpuppet no one buys.

            1. And now Mike apes Hihn

  6. Regardless, the interesting question is why the press and Trump’s critics among politicians so often drop off the fact that Trump not only told Talib to go back to the country she came from but also to “come back” and tell us how wonderful things are in the shit-hole from which we saved her. I think part of the answer legitimately has to do with their contempt for the way Trump says things–certainly in this case–rather than for the substance of what he said. The progressive mindset is built upon certain assumptions about what is acceptable discourse in public, and it’s mostly build around assumptions about shaming average people into believing that their thoughts are unacceptable if not against the law. These assumptions have permeated the upper reaches of our society as something of a status marker, like in the UK, where certain accents are thought to mark someone as deplorable.

    Meanwhile, where are the political classes and their chattering brethren on the substance of Trump’s policies? The Democrats only criticize Trump’s trade policy with the charge that he didn’t go far enough with his trade wars. They wanted more of the same! The Democrats dare not push their case on immigration too hard for fear of alienating the voters they need to win. Part of the reason Republican dissidents are ashamed of Trump’s immigration policies is for the same reason the Democrats are embarrassed by Trump’s trade war–because he actually did what they promised for decades but failed to do. The other reason Republicans go after Trump’s style rather than his substance is because Trump has focused his policies on issues with broad support. The foreign policy adventures some Republicans crave are wildly unpopular with the American people, and they dare not advocate going to war in Syria, not when the president is up there telling the American people that doing so is not in their best interests.

    The reason Republican representatives leave the party and turn against President Trump is because they failed to inflict their unpopular desires on the American people when a president like Trump is catering to the will of the American people. That’s the definition of elitism, and whenever that kind of elitism becomes predominant, there is always a populist react to it–as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

    As elitists are dislodged in both parties, the purpose for populism dissolves. When the elitist scumbags who inflicted TARP on the rest of the party when Boehner was in charge of the House Republicans, it gave rise to the Tea Party, which was also populist. As these people are purged from the party, the chances of another populist taking power after Trump leaves go down. If the Democrats refuse to abandon the cultural elitism that makes them denounce Trump as a rapist, a xenophobe, a Russian plant, and a rapist–in an attempt to control the acceptable speech, behavior, and thought of average people–then they will lose to Trump again in 2020–as sure as sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

    1. Nobody who constantly orally pleasures a man who owns gold toilets gets to bitch about “the elites.”

      1. Poor tony, still sick as ever.

        1. Ironic that Tony’s comment made a good point, but the reply seems to be reacting to his rude communication style not the point he made.

          1. No, it was the thought behind the remark, not the style.

          2. I don’t see why equating wealth and elitism is a good point–not when a billionaire casino mogul from New York City with a foreign trophy wife is genuinely embraced by average working people as one of their own. There must be something more to it than that.

            1. “ I don’t see why equating wealth and elitism is a good point–not when a billionaire casino mogul from New York City with a foreign trophy wife…”

              I see that as Trump belonging to a certain type of elite, privileged class, but I get that you were talking about a different type of elitism. I get what Tony is saying, too, despite his communication style.

              1. Right, Tony is saying that the American people don’t embrace Trump–because he’s rich or something. Either that, or he’s saying that the American people are stupid for embracing Trump.

                Either way, it wasn’t a good point.

                1. The point is that Trump is part of an elite. He has access to privileges that poorer people do not, and it also leads to him being out of touch with common experience.

                  1. You… can’t read very well can you? Ken dealt with that already. The point was dumb.

              2. I see that as Trump belonging to a certain type of elite, privileged class

                Yes, you think like a socialist.

                I get what Tony is saying, too, despite his communication style.

                Tony is a socialist too.

                but I get that you were talking about a different type of elitism.

                Different type? Different type from what? I’ve seen no evidence of elitism on the part of Trump. Trump has money and he enjoys it; he doesn’t seem to think he is a superior human being because of it.

                I have seen plenty of evidence of elitism on the part of Democrats and academics who have stated that the American people are dumb and that they are superior.

                1. Trump eats McDonald’s in the White House. Whether or not he actually likes the stuff is one thing, but I think there’s a lot of common people that probably enjoyed that. The media trashing Trump for that kind of stuff is a near perfect encapsulation of elitism.

                  The journalists trashing trump are probably poorer than Trump.

                  Trump is rich.

                  Yet the journalists are the elitists in the room. It’s pretty obvious elitism is something other than wealth.

            2. It’s called stupid people being conned by a grifter. Happens every day, just not on this scale, either on the axis of stupidity or manipulation.

              1. No one cares how you score tricks.

          3. Tony, like you, thinks in socialist class labels: “working class”, “middle class”, and “upper class”, and you identify those class labels with net worth. And within that class-based thinking, you identify the “upper class” with “the Elite”.

            In actual fact, “the Elites” refers to what ends up the “intelligentsia” in a socialist state: it’s about status and power, not wealth. Members of that group tend to be able to translate their status and power into wealth, but that’s not what defines them.

            1. Like all fascists you want to get rid of the intellectuals first. Too inconvenient for your worldview, are they?

              Of I course I know by “elites” you people don’t mean “billionaires” whose every appliance is gold-plated. You mean people who are educated.

              1. Her remember when you did this same shit with your De Oppresso Libel sockpuppet?

              2. Poor Tony considers himself and his Lefty pals intellectuals.

                He is so stupid that he doesnt even know that Socialists, like the Nazis, off the intellectuals who dont agree with Socialism.

              3. Nothing wrong with being educated. Resenting the rich is ugly, though. A lot of “intellectuals” virtue signal in this way in order to pander to, and gain the approval of useful idiots that they would not socialize with at gun point.

              4. Which is very inconvenient for your worldview.

                Haha.

              5. Like all fascists

                Like all socialists, you accuse others of what you are.

                you want to get rid of the intellectuals first. Too inconvenient for your worldview, are they?

                You’re confusing “intellectuals” with “intelligent and educated people”.

                Of I course I know by “elites” you people don’t mean “billionaires” whose every appliance is gold-plated. You mean people who are educated

                M-W: elite: the socially superior part of society; a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence

                So, yes, the word “elite” does not refer to people who are merely wealthy.

                Nor does the word “intellectual” refer to people with high intelligence, good education, good morals, or sound understanding of how the world works. Nor, for that matter, are most people who spent a lot of years at university “educated”.

                As for what government should do about intellectuals, that’s simple: it should stop subsidizing or hiring them, and it should certainly stop giving them power over others.

      2. Damn that is a weak retort. Ken is an intellectual giant compared to you.

      3. Tony isn’t worth responding to, but for anyone else who isn’t clear about what I meant, “elitism”, as I used the term, has nothing to do with wealth.

        “The reason Republican representatives leave the party and turn against President Trump is because they failed to inflict their unpopular desires on the American people when a president like Trump is catering to the will of the American people. That’s the definition of elitism, and whenever that kind of elitism becomes predominant, there is always a populist react to it–as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

        . . . .

        If the Democrats refuse to abandon the cultural elitism that makes them denounce Trump as a rapist, a xenophobe, a Russian plant, and a rapist–in an attempt to control the acceptable speech, behavior, and thought of average people–then they will lose to Trump again in 2020–as sure as sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

        —-Ken Shultz

        The “elitism” I’m talking about is contempt for the opinions of average people–even when it comes to issues that are well within the proper purview of democracy.

        The Constitution does a pretty good job of pointing out those things that have no business being subjected to popularity contests (See “Congress shall make no law” in the First Amendment) and pointing out those things that must be subjected to popularity contests–even if the people are wrong (see Congress’ enumerated powers to declare war, ratify treaties, and set the rules of naturalization). Populism, in all its forms from left to right, is a reaction to precisely that kind of elitism. Once you convince people that elitists are ignoring their will (from the Roman Empire and the French Revolution to current Venezuela, Brexit, and Donald Trump), they turn to populism. If you convince people that elitism is so entrenched that classically liberal institutions are incapable of doing their will, they do not give up on their will. They give up on classically liberal institutions and turn to dictatorship and authoritarianism.

        Elitism is doomed to failure and the natural enemy of libertarian capitalism. Libertarian capitalism is about individuals being the ultimate authority on the their own interests and preferences through participation in markets and the market of ideas, and there is no elitism that isn’t in direct opposition to that. You cannot believe that individuals should be the ultimate arbiters of their own interest and desires–and also believe that politicians should force them to do what’s in the best interests as elitists define them.

      4. Well, the elites nowadays have composting toilets I’m told.

        1. Which still don’t stink.

          1. That’s called an “Alanis Morissette”

            1. She can handle more than 1.6 gallons per flush?

      5. Neither wealth nor intelligence makes you part of “the elites” in the US or Europe.

    2. As these people are purged from the party, the chances of another populist taking power after Trump leaves go down.

      Yes indeed – and there’s the problem for the GOP as it enthusiastically transforms itself into the Party of Trump. As I’ve said before, Trump is a pitbull leading a pack of chihuahuas and what are they going to do in 5 years when their leader is gone? The Reagan Revolution was effectively over when they elected Bush to succeed Reagan, the Trump Revolution will end the same way. All of Trump’s followers praise him for thinking outside the box when the reality they’re refusing to accept is that there is no box. Once you realize there’s no box, you’re a libertarian and libertarians will never get elected by the box-dwellers.

      1. I’ve been arguing the following for a long time, but the fact is that Trump won both the primaries and the general election by appealing to traditional and in many cases registered Democrats.

        George Meany was the head of the AFL-CIO for 40 years, and he would have recognized Trump as a Democrat in his day. Trump is a blue collar Democrat the way Ronald Reagan was a Democrat–before Reagan became a Republican. Reagan won with the support of those white, blue collar, middle class Democrats, just like Trump did, too.

        “Reagan Democrats no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos and other groups. In addition, Reagan Democrats enjoyed gains during the period of economic prosperity that coincided with the Reagan administration following the “malaise” of the Carter administration.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

        You could write the first part of that statement about Trump Democrats and their disgust with the social justice warriors in 2016.

        You could write the second part of that statement about Trump Democrats and the standard of living boost they’ve enjoyed since Trump came to power after the malaise of the Obama administration.

        Reagan won 49 of 50 states in 1984. The only thing the Republicans have to fear from former Democrats flooding the polls to pull the lever for Trump in 2020 is that the Democrats may become a regional party with little influence on national policy.

  7. The mention of Jeff Flake disgusts me. The phony libertarian deserved to lose, too bad he quit before he got humiliated in a reelection attempt.

    1. What bugs me is that Welch writes about Republicans formerly in Congress as turning against Trump only after they’re out of Congress, and that they have a tendency to be replaced by Democrats, and then mentions Flake, who turned mostly against Trump while he was still in office. If Mr. Welch is trying to infer something about cause and effect, he’s not doing it right.

      1. Matt doesn’t have much to work with. It isn’t that he is in any way right. It’s that he just hates Trump. Period.

  8. Matt, why are you misrepresenting his ‘go home’ comment?

    ‘Good people’ and ‘go home’! Yet, in full context, those words don’t seem so bad. It’s like Don Cherry up here with ‘you people’ that got him fired. People zeroed in on those two stupid words neglecting his overall point – which was valid. They did that because they wanted to ‘get him’.

    “It’s painful to me to see this kind of amateur diplomacy, riding roughshod over our State Department apparatus,”

    Ha, ha. Hoo-ey. It’s like Obama never existed.

    1. It’s like every President prior to Trump never existed.

      The quoted line from the article bothered me as well. Presidents in general make diplomatic policy decisions, often against the advice of “our State Department apparatus”. “Our State Department apparatus” is not elected, and all of its legitimate power exist as an instrument of the powers delegated to the President. Certainly many (most) Presidents are amateur diplomats. But they’re the ones *chosen* by the electorate to make those decisions.

  9. Occam’s Razor suggests that Trump is not actually a supergenius at governing.

    1. That’s probably true. But he’s not without successes that are significant.

      1. You guys are cheap fucking dates.

        He took a sharpie in his fist and scribbled a signature onto Mitch McConnell’s tax cut for rich people. It’s practically a golden age.

        1. The road to prosperity is paved with more taxes!

        2. Maybe its just because I actually earn a paycheck, but I also saw my taxes decrease too.

          Everyone is rich to a bum like Tony.

          1. Haha. You ain’t so bad sometimes. Maybe ease up on the generational collective grievance?

        3. He kept Hillary out of the Oval Office and that’s more winning than the GOP has managed to accomplish in 30 years. Beyond that, he’s a mess. Still, better than Hillary. And if you think that’s a pretty low bar keep in mind that half the voters in this country think Hillary was the best thing since sliced bread, not a low bar at all. And next year, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, he’ll be keeping somebody even worse than Hillary out of the Oval Office. (My guess is that it will be a four-years older and bitterer and vengefuller Hillary.) And then we’ll find out just how awful Trump can be.

          1. I did NOT vote for her, but in the big picture, Hillary may have been better for the cause of limited government. There would most certainly not have been a blue wave that brought all these progtards in and on top of their losses under Obama, the progs would be on the verge of extinction right now.

            1. Hillary may have been better for the cause of limited government

              maybe, but think of the body count

            2. Simply wrong. Just having the courts finally striking down some government programs, a balance shift on the ninth, etc will reign in government far more than a malcontent Republican legislature.

            3. Hillary may have been better for the cause of limited government”

              Hahahahahaha… Oh wow!

              1. It’s all fine and good for the courts to be conservative. However, progs are masters at chipping away at our rights and taxing us at the local level, through state legislatures, city and county councils, etc, with petty bans on everything from fireplaces to vaping. This is where the blue wave hit the hardest, and it’s also where the courts basically can’t do shit because these are not constitutional protected rights. Yes, they might uphold 2A, but it will be worthless if there is no freedom left to defend.

            4. “Hillary may have been better for the cause of limited government.”

              Yeh.

              No.

            5. Hillary may have been better for the cause of limited government.

              Currently, 1/4 of circuit court judges are Trump appointees. He and Cocaine Mitch have managed to flip three of these courts, including the 2nd, and the 9th is now a 16/18 split, whereas in November 2016 it was 7/13 (Obama got off his ass and actually managed to get five judges appointed there before he left office, otherwise the 9th would have flipped as well).

              Not to mention all the other Trump nominees that have been put in place on judicial benches. That’s going to have an impact long after he’s gone, even if he only does a single term, and makes it even more fortunate the Hillary never got the seat. She wouldn’t have been nearly as lazy as Obama about doing judicial appointments.

            6. My only hope for a successful Hillary administration was that, given her other health problems and her general demeanor, she would be likely to die shortly after assuming office – and my guess would be Sudden Onset Terminal Lead Poisoning would be what took her.

            7. There would most certainly not have been a blue wave that brought all these progtards

              There was no ‘Blue Wave’

              Democrats took control of the House–and Republicans further cemented control of the Senate.

              There was no wave of any kind.

              The standard thing happened–the President’s party loses seats in his first mid-term.

              No astounding losses, no astounding gains.

        4. And here I was complaining to my wife we’re essentially bon vivant, dolce-vita spendthrifts.

        5. “He took a sharpie in his fist and scribbled a signature onto Mitch McConnell’s tax cut for rich people. It’s practically a golden age.”

          He’s got you beat, shitbag. He knows how to write.

    2. Meanwhile, in the actual real world, markets are up almost 50% in the last three years, unemployment is the lowest it has been in decades, and none of your candidates are any popular because they all absolutely suck cock.

      1. Obama’s economy was better by any measure, but you people called his wife a Wookiee.

        1. Tell that to all the black men who now have jobs.

          1. LOL

            Actually, it’s the Koch / Reason economy that would most benefit African Americans. Why do you think Shikha Dalmia talks about slavery so much while promoting open borders?

            1. We know you are a parody, but if one does not believe a bit in what you are parodying why spend one’s time at this website?

              1. He is fleshing out ideas for his forthcoming book. I look forward to the day when preorder applications are accepted.

                1. He should do a kickstarter with terrible pledge incentives!

                  pledge $20 and I’ll sign your copy of the book with a custom hashtag
                  pledge $50 and I’ll give you exclusive access to a livestream of me hugging an undocumented immigrant at Home Depot
                  etc.

        2. Tony’s economic illiteracy confirmed.

        3. “Obama’s economy was better by any measure, but you people called his wife a Wookiee.”

          Two things can be true at the same time.

        4. Yo, I never liked that shit = …called his wife a Wookiee

          Families are off-limits. The candidate is the candidate, and they have to take their lumps. They put themselves out there. Their families however, should be off limits. I did not like it when Betty Ford was attacked, or Amy Carter, or Nancy Reagan, or Chelsea Clinton, or the Bush daughters, or the Obama daughters (or his wife Michelle). I don’t like what I see with Melania or Barron Trump. They should be left alone.

          Exception: When Donald Trump Jr. puts himself out there and goes on the attack, he makes himself (not his family) fair game.

          1. Fuck that. She fucked up school nutrition for decades. She’s fair game.

        5. Except for labor participation, regulation costs, a stagnant growth rate, etc. Totes all better.

        6. “Obama’s economy was better by any measure,…”
          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

        7. “Obama’s economy was better by any measure,”

          Are you sniffing glue?

          Give SPECIFICS on which measures.

          Man, already the notion Trump is benefiting from Obama is specious at best, but this assertion is waaaaay out there.

          So do pray tell. How exactly is it better? Because from where I sit it’s just not so.

        8. “by any measure”

          Unemployment rate.

          I win.

      2. Low unemployment is actually a troubling sign. It means everyone needs 2 or 3 jobs to survive.

        #LibertariansForAOC
        #DrumpfRecession

        1. Lol.

        2. Unemployment is like “bogo” when you have multiple jobs. They only count the hours you work at the job of lowest value.

    3. Occam’s Razor and history suggest that we haven’t had a supergenius at governing in government in years.

    4. Occam’s Razor suggests that Trump is not actually a supergenius at governing.

      I look at you, and the entirety of the Democrat Party and the MSM holding Occam’s razor to your own throats all ready to ‘make your point’, and I’m not so sure that’s true anymore.

      You and yours ARE the infection that must be utterly eradicated for the world to progress. Up until Trump the GOP has been offering only token resistance while slowly succumbing to the infection. Now, you guys are making suicidal gestures in the hope that some cooler head will rush in and stop you and let you get away with it again.

      But this time, no one’s coming.

      This time, it’s not going to just be a gesture.

      1. Dude….people are blaming the spike in their insurance premiums on…..Trump.

        They live in an alternate reality complete independent of facts.

    5. Nobody is a super genius at governing. Those who think they are fuck up the country more than those who dont. See obama. There are certain forces you cant control, one of which is the market. Democrats live to try to control markets as well as human impulses.

      1. The only class of persons who need to be (or even benefit much by being) super geniuses at governing are those who manage to rise to the top of authoritarian systems and then hang on by staying a step ahead of those who would knock them off.

        1. So your point is the idiot who called him that is an idiot?

          I absolutely LOVE when you fuck yourself like that.

          1. Hey EVERYONE, JEFFMIKE THINKS THAT SAYING THANK YOU BECAUSE AN IDIOT CALLED HIM A GENIUS HAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION, POINT AND LAUGH AT HIM MORE!!!!

            AHAHAHAHAHAAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    6. Well Tony, given the democrat alternatives, he doesn’t need to be. None of the DNC clown car are all that bright. Just largely over educated idiots, and Joe Biden. Who is just an idiot.

    7. Good! We want adequate, small government; we don’t want “supergeniuses” in charge.

  10. As of press time, public support for impeachment and disapproval of Trump’s presidency were reaching all-time highs.

    Stop the presses!

    Print-Reason needs an extra/late final/blue streak edition.

    1. I’m thinking their “press time” must have been months ago; A couple days ago, 538, (No bastion of Trump supporters!) had Trump’s popularity as high as it has been since early 2017, and even now it’s doing pretty good.

  11. “It’s painful to me to see this kind of amateur diplomacy, riding roughshod over our State Department apparatus,”

    There’s your problem right there. You elect temps for the boss position instead of letting the permanent staff run the show and you’re going to get bad results. This is why democracy just does not work and we need a return to the monarchy. None of this “we the people” crap when the people keep meddling in the affairs of state about which they know nothing, it’s none of their damn business how government operates and they should just butt out.

    1. I caught this too. I think we can all be happy that jackass is retiring.

      1. Every single person voted into office should be retired every time they come up for re-election.

    2. Well said, Jerryskids

  12. premature retirees

    An obsolete notion after President Steyer implements term limits.

    1. Even if they don’t want it, “too bad”.
      Spoken like a true nazi.

  13. Funny how we all know RINOs deserve criticism, yet somehow its bad that they’re retiring because OMB.

    1. Without RINOs, how are Lefties supposed to control the GOP?

      1. Politics with an actual party on the Right, instead of controlled opposition.

        The God Emperor is good to us!

      2. The problem is that the alternative to the RINO is all too often the de or at progtard. For example, I hate Jeff Flake, it I would pull the lever for him over someone like Liz Warren, or AOC.

  14. I’m not a big fan of Trump’s, but you have to admit that he’s gotten more Republican objectives across the finish line than most modern Republican presidents. It’s not that surprising that RINOs don’t like him because he doesn’t talk like a statesman (or rather, he talks a lot like the unwashed common people).

    Is anyone really caught off guard that Republicans that haven’t achieved anything of note are upset that a former Democrat that shit talks career politicians is better at getting Republican policy passed than career Republicans?

    1. It comes down to the myth of the noble statesman, where attitude and exterior visage is more important than functional work.

      1. Even worse, getting things done is an existential threat to the statesman. If the statesman actually gets something done, they have to answer to the voting public about the failures of their policy rather than just blaming the other party for “obstructionism.”

    2. i think it’s lovely

  15. “Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.), the former vice chair of the president’s transition team, is a good deal more Trumpy than the man she replaced in the upper chamber, frequent presidential critic Bob Corker.”

    Not long into the Obama administration I saw Corker give a presentation on ‘entitlement reform’ in Bristol, TN. He laid out the current state of entitlements, and the projected increases, along with some history on US taxation rates, and how no matter what the nominal rate actual receipts had never exceed a certain percentage of GDP. Then he pointed out how the projected rates of entitlement expenditures – and excluding all other Federal outlays – would soon exceed that number.

    His solution? Raise taxes.

    The jury is still out on Blackburn, but fuck Bob Corker in the ass with a red hot poker, and good riddance as well.

  16. RINOs liked getting nothing done but complaining about it. That was their job.

    But Trump has done quite a bit which means the RINOs have issues.

    And the “Tax Cuts for the Rich” schtick is stupid.

    Everyone who paid taxes got a rate cut and all got a higher standard deduction. The ONLY folks who got a tax increase were rich folks in high tax states that were affected by the SALT limit.

    Go back to Algebra ! and take a refresher course if you can’t get this,

  17. My opposition to Trump’s policies have been centered on trade and immigration.

    My views on Trump’s immigration policies, however, are different from my views on Trump’s goals. In terms of goals, I want to see more legal immigration, and I don’t believe we’ll ever see the American people get behind that until we have more control over the border. In other words, I think one of the main reasons the American people are reluctant to open our southern border to legal immigration is because they see illegal immigration as a serious problem. There’s like a paradox there, but it’s a natural one. The less people have control over something, the more they assert whatever control they have. Dogs that are abused and neglected by their owners start to bite friends and foes alike.

    From enforcing duly passed laws that require sponsors to reimburse the taxpayer if the immigrants they sponsor end up on welfare to the Safe Third Country agreements Trump has entered into with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the means by which Trump has sought to achieve control of our southern border has been libertarian and constitutional–and should be applauded. Note that these methods, along with the participation of Mexico gained by way Trump’s diplomacy, have been effective without building a wall. Regardless of how you feel about Trump’s apparent goal of reducing immigration, if we want to see a treaty with Mexico that allows Mexican citizens to come here by showing an ID without a visa (the way Americans go to Canada), then effective control of our border is almost certainly a prerequisite for that. We will probably never get two-thirds of the Senate to support a treaty like that unless and until our southern border is secure. With that perspective in mind, Trump is doing a good job on the border.

    In regards to Trump’s trade wars, I opposed them before they were launched, I opposed them while he was fighting them, and I oppose bringing them back again, but whatever my level of opposition to seeing Trump reelected, it keeps dwindling ever smaller as I read stories like this:

    “BEIJING—China will cut import tariffs for frozen pork, pharmaceuticals and some high-tech components starting from Jan. 1, a move that comes as Beijing and Washington are trying to complete a phase-one trade deal.

    The plan, approved by China’s cabinet, will lower tariffs for all trading partners on 859 types of products to below the rates that most-favored nations enjoy, the Finance Ministry said Monday. Most-favored-nation rates are the lowest possible tariffs a country offers to its trading partners.

    The lower levies will apply to frozen pork, as China aims to shore up its meat supplies amid an outbreak of swine fever, as well as semiconductor products and medicines to treat asthma and diabetes. Tariffs on some of the products will go to zero.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-lower-tariffs-on-some-imports-in-2020-11577066316?

    Some of you were asking about how we know that the deal that Trump negotiated with China will be any more than some vague promises that will never have any material benefits, and the answer is that you watch China’s behavior.

    When Trump imposes tariffs on Chinese imports, it hurts the American consumer and American companies that rely on Chinese imports, but when China’s power center imposes tariffs on American imports to China, it’s hurting itself directly. The profits from Chinese companies go to benefit powerful people in the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army. When China agreed with Trump to buy all those imports, it may have been just talk, but now they’re lowering the tariffs on those imports they promised to buy–to make it less expensive for them to do so.

    If they agreed to buy $20 billion more per year than they were buying before, they don’t want to pay tariffs on top of that $20 billion. This would seem to indicate that the deal Trump negotiated is going into effect.

    1. “In regards to Trump’s trade wars”

      Why is it wrong to tax Emperor Xi’s slave produced geegaws a penny while ok to tax your neighbor’s labor?

    2. Thank you Ken Shultz for your lucid, logical, informative and cogent replies. Makes most of the rest of this thread look like an argument with Pee Wee Herman. Matt Welch evidently was up against a holiday deadline to fill white space with things called words.

  18. Meanwhile, the growing number of premature retirees have been among the loudest in expressing alarm at the murky Ukraine-related behavior first made public by a CIA whistle-blower.

    They want to live freely as their authentic swamp critter selves without fear of the voters kicking their ass to the curb. Good for them!

  19. All you have to read into it is that the Republicans are self-serving cowards that are afraid to do their constitutional duty and act as a check on an out of control president/executive.

    They suddenly grow a pair the moment they announce resignation. For the sake of the country maybe those left can find the tiniest of scruples and act accordingly.

    1. “All you have to read into it is that the Republicans are self-serving cowards that are afraid to do their constitutional duty and act as a check on an out of control president/executive.”
      Why, gosh, this sounds ironically like what Tea Partiers were saying when Obama was President.

    2. All you have to read into it is that the Republicans are self-serving cowards that are afraid to do their constitutional duty and act as a check on an out of control president/executive.

      But enough about Republicans under Obama.

    3. Hi Tony.

    4. It’s totally out of control to roll back onerous regulations and insist on a return to the rule of law.

      Or, ‘out of control’ Means anyone not controlled by dirty progtards.

  20. >>the spike in Republican self-deportations—44 and counting in the House alone since Trump’s inauguration

    drain. the. swamp.

  21. >>replaced by Democrats, as happened in Arizona after Sen. Jeff Flake left Capitol Hill

    Arizona could have replaced Flake with an inanimate carbon rod and won.

  22. Again wilfully misconstruing “go back”, like Mr. Welch figures that by now readers will have forgotten what that was really about?

    1. Welch was focusing in on the fact that three of the women Trump told to “go back” weren’t from somewhere else. If if you interpret “go back” as “go back, then return to the US, and report on what you see”, Trump clearly assumed that all of them were immigrants.

      1. Hey look you’re lying again jeff.

      2. More horseshit from Jeff.

        That lie of an ‘explanation’ is so lame not even Welch believes.

        1. Explanation. Literally quoting what Welch wrote above:

          … such as his statement that four House Democratic women of color should “go back” to their home countries, even though three of them were born in the United States.

          1. Hey remember when I caught you lying about Azathoth and WCR being Trump supporters? Today I mean. When you posted links and then lied about what they said

          2. Jeff you mendacious twatwaffle, it has been serially pointed out that you are the one assigning specific identities to a non specific plural usage.

            And now you add the race card.

            You are so dishonest you believe your own bullshit.

      3. Given that the other three are dirty communists, it would be good if they left forever.

      4. They identify with other cultures and view themselves as distinct based on their ancestry; Omar actually is from another country; they want to remake US society in the image of socialist nations elsewhere. Yes, telling them to actually take a good hard first-hand look at the sh-thole countries, ideologies, and cultures they explicitly identify with is a reasonable thing to do.

  23. If those RINOs want to fund their retirement (assuming they’re not getting enough money from Soros or the clintoon foundation), they can cut off their noses and sell them in China as an aphrodisiac.

    This comment not approved by Silicon Valley brain slugs.

  24. President Trump will be gone in 1 year or 5 years. I can’t help but wonder what happen to the Republican party at that point. The President has demonstrated an ability to stop people in his own party from winning primaries but not to get people in his party elected in the general election. He lead by fear not by ideas or convection. I also don’t see a natural successor to Trump. So do the Republicans go back to the elder statesmen or do they thrash around with the Trumpites? Will there be a new party of the true conservatives?

    1. It is likely the Republicans will fall apart after relying so much on Trump’s popularity, just as the Democrats are so lost after Obama’s popular presidency.

      1. It is likely the Republicans will fall apart after relying so much on Trump’s popularity, just as the Democrats are so lost after Obama’s popular presidency.

        Trump is driving necessary change in the GOP. The GOP is ridding itself of war mongers and authoritarian social conservatives.

        Democrats, on the other hand, have doubled down on their ideology and put socialists, authoritarians, Wall St, and racists in charge of the party.

        1. “Trump is driving necessary change in the GOP. The GOP is ridding itself of war mongers and authoritarian social conservatives.”

          In a GOP that is ridding itself of war mongers, how the heck did John Bolton become Trump’s National Security Advisor?

          1. Hey remember ber when I caught you lying about Azathoth and WCR being Trump supporters? Today I mean.

          2. You mean the john Bolton whose already been fired for trying to ramp up forces in Syria? The john Bolton who came on late and only lasted a few months?

            That john Bolton?

            1. Mike will openly and unapologetically lie and sock puppet. Insults are the only thing he deserves.

              1. You are correct. None of Pedo Cytotoxic’s socks should be treated with respect or civility. He burned that bridge long, long ago.

          3. First, Trump didn’t have a lot of choices for his cabinet.

            Second, I don’t see the problem with hiring people with radically different views as advisors. I certainly would want to hear the opposing arguments before making decisions. Bolton has experience, that’s what matters in an advisor.

    2. I also don’t see a natural successor to Trump.

      How exactly is that a problem? You do realize that there wasn’t a “natural successor” to Obama, either? Hillary was a legacy nominee, not someone that represented the party’s future.

      There wasn’t a “natural successor” to Reagan, either, because Bush was a Rockefeller Republican who didn’t take it in the populist, nationalist, small-government direction that Reagan embodied.

      I’ll spell it out for you galaxy-brains one more time, so hopefully it sinks in–the country is in the middle of a political realignment. The old “conservative/liberal” labels as you understood them are going to be irrelevant in about 5 years, perhaps 10. The Republicans are becoming the party of nationalists, the Democrats are becoming the party of globalists, and once the independents figure out which direction they prefer, all political fights are going to be conducted through this prism.

      And that’s going to be more of an issue going forward for the Democrats than it will the Republicans. I recently attended an academic conference with a panel on the Civil War. One panelist pointed out that the general question of “civic nationalism” is one that people in academia needed to confront and figure out how to embrace from their own perspective, because a country that did not possess a sense of collective, shared identity would soon find itself torn apart. That’s the fruit of embracing an ideal of “open borders/open society” that never actually existed–because people are naturally tribal and will figure out ways to cordon themselves off, even in countries that, nominally, have similar values, history, and traditions.

      Considering the left has been actively engaging in subverting the concept of civic nationalism ever since the days of the IWW, they have a long way to go before they figure out how to get back to the “patriotic left” that existed at the turn of the 20th century.

      1. “You do realize that there wasn’t a “natural successor” to Obama, either?”

        And the Democratic Party is in a crisis, with internal fighting among factions, weak party leadership, and a weak bench full of unappealing candidates.

        1. Sure Rev.

      2. “That’s the fruit of embracing an ideal of “open borders/open society” that never actually existed–because people are naturally tribal and will figure out ways to cordon themselves off…”

        This completely blows off America’s well-documented legacy of hundreds of years of allowing immigrants from all over the world and seeing over and over that those immigrants assimilate and enhance the country’s culture.

        1. Right but youre a proven liar. I proved it in this thread.

          1. Is today your supervised internet hour, Tulpa?

            1. Cry more.

            2. Tony, I’m surprised you broke away from being serially spitroasted and DAP’d at the local bath house long enough to comment here.

              Merry Christmas buddy!

        2. There’s almost 8 billion people on the planet now.

          Funny how people who consider themselves “progressive” love to live in the past.

          50’s tax rates, anyone? Haha.

        3. This completely blows off America’s well-documented legacy of hundreds of years of allowing immigrants from all over the world

          What America has a “well-documented legacy” of is passing all kinds of immigration and naturalization laws that specifically limited how many and what kind of immigrants would be allowed in the country.

          The argument that the US let in anyone and everyone, no questions asked, at some point in its history is the false narrative.

          1. I didn’t say that the US let in anyone and everyone, no questions asked.

            It is well-documented, however, that many of those immigration laws were driven by racists scares that seem ridiculous in hindsight, such as worrying about letting damned dirty Irish Papists in the country.

            1. I didn’t say that the US let in anyone and everyone, no questions asked.

              You made a sweeping generalization that has no basis in fact.

              It is well-documented, however, that many of those immigration laws were driven by racists scares that seem ridiculous in hindsigh

              Many of those immigration laws were driven by the majority of society at the time. They were hardly supported only on the margins of the country.

              And the legacy of the Kennedys alone is argument enough that the Irish should have been shot the second they stepped off the boat.

              1. The line about the Kennedy’s is jest, right?

                1. No, the country would definitely have been better off without the Kennedys.

                  1. Especially Soviet collaborator Teddy. AKA ‘Andropov’s cockholster’.

            2. Tell me again how a bunch of trash-strewn barrios and gang-dominated ethnic enclaves have “enhanced US culture.”

              1. Street tacos? Seriously, you don’t seem like you are interested in real discussion.

                1. Why would I want a serious discussion with someone so deliberately obtuse?

        4. This completely blows off America’s well-documented legacy of hundreds of years of allowing immigrants from all over the world and seeing over and over that those immigrants assimilate and enhance the country’s culture.

          That narrative is historically false. Sorry.

  25. MAGA

    Thank you, Donald Trump, for being such a great President!

  26. “Trump’s GOP Critics Are Dropping Like Flies”

    I love the smell of #NeverTrumpers dropping like flies in the morning.

    Smells like #winning.

  27. Jeffmike has been posting in this thread continuously since 9am. No really, check. That’s 13 hours and counting.

    1. What is really pathetic is spending every day posting comments at a website where you don’t even like the writing.

      By the way, you don’t know the meaning of “continuously”.

    2. Just like you didn’t know what “gaslighting” means, even though you do it all the time.

    3. His NAMBLA meeting must have been postponed til after Christmas.

  28. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/newly-released-emails-provide-greater-details-white-house-pause-ukraine-n1106201

    “Given the sensitive nature of the request,” Duffey wrote on the afternoon of Trump’s call with Zelenskiy, “I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction.”

    1. Lol.
      Such a sad sack of shit, this Mike laursen fool, who worships unaccountable apparatchiks and despises all who oppose them.
      You’re going to die, mike.
      Just want you to know that

      1. “ You’re going to die, mike.”

        What do you mean by that?

        1. English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

      2. This is the second time you have made statements that seem to be threatening me:

        https://reason.com/2019/12/06/a-viral-video-shows-why-walls-are-ineffective/#comment-8040536

        It’s a comments section, dude. Chill out.

        1. Learn reading comprehension. It’s not a threat, just an observation. Like when I tell Arty it won’t end well for him. That isn’t a threat either. Just casual observation.

          In your case I expect you to reap the whirlwind and be mired Red by some illegal, or maybe the father of one of those A,Eric am kids you advocate that your illegal friends rape. That’s what we call kismet.

    2. NPR was whinging again yesterday about the “delay” in releasing aid, talking about how the Pentagon was supposedly freaking out because they were coming up on the deadline for when the aid was supposed to be released.

      What was notably glossed over was the fact that the aid was released on time.

      1. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/23/790702713/newly-obtained-emails-shed-light-on-u-s-aid-delay-to-ukraine

        Do you mean “whining”? “Whinging” is the high-pitched sound that a bullet makes.

        It wasn’t just NPR whining. The Pentagon officials “And right up until the 5 of September, which was six days before the aid was released, people at the Pentagon were worried that they would miss a statutory deadline which is part of the Impoundment Act’s requirement.”

        There are better articles than the NPR interview that quote directly from the Pentagon and OMB emails, with both expressing concerns about missing the deadline. I’ll try to find one of those better articles that isn’t behind a paywall.

        1. “Whinge”
          verb
          gerund or present participle: whinging
          complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.

          Figures that insecurity over your limited vocabulary would set off the autistic need to make the case that your lefty boos are arguing in good faith (they’re not, NPR uncritically swallows the DNC party line every single time) instead of the pointless lefty sour grapes that it is.

          And since the deadline wasn’t missed, your complaint is as pointless as your life.

      2. Here’s one with more details of what particular people said:

        https://fox8.com/2019/12/22/effort-to-freeze-ukraine-aid-began-about-90-minutes-after-call-between-trump-and-zelensky/amp/

        “‘Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction,’ Duffey said.”

        “On September 5, Department of Defense Comptroller Elaine McCusker mentioned the ‘increasing risk of execution,’ a nod to concerns at the Pentagon that continuing hold could prevent all the money from being spent.”

        “The first line of Duffey’s response is redacted. He goes on to say he hopes to sign the apportionment to release the money that evening and signs off, ‘Glad to have this behind us.’”

        1. Figures you’d be here whining like a bitch that your lefty boos got criticized.

  29. What a useless propaganda piece.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.