George Floyd

Conservative Intellectuals Took a Calculated Risk on Trump and Won, but It Has Become a Pyrrhic Victory

Donald Trump didn't start the protests, but the fires he's stoking will scorch the nation and discredit the conservative movement.


As America sees its biggest wave of street protests since the Vietnam War, Donald Trump has done little to tamp down the anger fueling the sometimes-violent demonstrations. But he's done plenty to widen the divisions on display, whether he's trying to discredit those protesting George Floyd's murder as "thugs" or fantasizing about unleashing the "most vicious dogs and most ominous weapons" on protesters outside the White House.

The conservatives who made the case for Trump in 2016 understood the risk that this might happen. Yet many of them refuse to face up to it now.

Shortly after Donald Trump won the GOP's presidential nomination, The Claremont Review of Books, a conservative publication that has preached endlessly over the years about the need for "prudence," "virtue," and "statesmanship" in politics, ran its infamous Flight 93 essay. A bouillabaisse of metaphors, the article hectored the still shell-shocked conservative establishment to snap out of it and line up behind its man. The pseudonymous author argued that a Hillary Clinton presidency posed an existential threat to conservatives and their agenda. If a "vulgarian" like Trump charged the cockpit—as the passengers of the ill-fated Flight 93 did on 9/11—he might very well crash it, but there would at least be a chance for a safe landing. With Clinton's liberal "pedal-to-the-metal" presidency, on the other hand, conservative culture warriors would be playing "Russian roulette with a semi-auto." And so, the author concluded, conservatives must use the passions that Trump was unleashing to their advantage. (The article's author was later revealed to be Mike Anton, a former Rudy Guiliani speechwriter who went on to do a stint in the Trump administration.)

Anton's argument jolted many conservatives out of their misgivings about Trump. The prospect of winning the culture war by having a leader who played by his rules, not the liberals', was too tantalizing to give up. Only preening "moralists" would reject him, argued Bill Bennett, President Ronald Reagan's secretary of education (and the author, ironically, of The Book of Virtues). Columnist Mona Charen, one of the few right-wing holdouts, lamented at the time that conservatives had talked themselves into believing that if they were serious about achieving their ends, they were required to vote for Trump. The means he'd deploy didn't matter.

The last few weeks have exposed the perils of this thinking. To the extent that Trump delivers Claremont conservatives a victory, it will be a pyrrhic one; the fires he's stoking will scorch the nation and discredit their movement.

After the killing of George Floyd, long-simmering tensions about police brutality and race boiled over into the streets. Most presidents would have responded by dishing out soothing platitudes pleading for calm, national healing, and the need to bring the culprits to justice. It wouldn't have ended the turmoil, but it wouldn't have exacerbated it either.

Trump took a different approach. At first, he didn't say anything. Or rather, he didn't say anything about Floyd. In the 48 hours after Floyd's death, Trump twice tweeted about bringing an alleged murderer to justice—not the cop who killed Floyd, but MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, who Trump suggested had bumped off an employee 18 years ago. (There is no evidence for this.) He also boasted about the stock market rally, accused Barack Obama of spying on his campaign, castigated Democrats' "close relationship with Fake News Media," and complained that Twitter had an anti-conservative bias.

When he finally broke his silence, Trump issued a pro forma statement about how "sad and tragic" Floyd's death was—then quickly moved on to denounce the "radical mayor" of Minneapolis who couldn't "get his act together." He threatened to use the military to control rioters and ominously warned on Twitter that "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

Things only deteriorated thereafter, as Trump tried to discredit those protesting Floyd's murder as "thugs" (a contrast with his claim that there were some "very fine people" at the Charlottesville white nationalist rally that left a woman dead); fantasized about unleashing the "most vicious dogs and most ominous weapons" on demonstrators outside the White House; had a peacefully assembled crowd tear-gassed to clear his way to a local church for a cheap photo-op; retweeted TV host Glenn Beck's clip questioning Floyd's character; threatened to invoke powers he does not have to declare antifa a domestic terrorist outfit; and pledged that the police would once again "dominate the streets."

None of this was out of character.

During his campaign, Trump notoriously promised to pay the medical bills of supporters who "knocked the crap" out of protesters. At a Florida rally last year, he went on a tirade against Central American asylum seekers, calling them "invaders" and "thugs." And when someone in the audience advised him to "shoot" migrants to stop them from coming, Trump quipped, "Only in the Panhandle can you get away with that statement." Trump also advised Long Island cops three years ago that they shouldn't be "too nice" to suspects when they arrest them, relishing the thought of "these thugs" being "thrown into the back of a paddy wagon" in a "rough" fashion—never mind that it was precisely such practices that had resulted in 25-year-old Freddie Gray's death at the hands of Baltimore police.

Given mounting nationwide concerns about police brutality, Floyd's murder would have generated unrest under any president, especially since it came so close on the heels of Ahmaud Arbery's brutal lynching while he was jogging and Breonna Taylor's shooting death in a no-knock raid. After all, riots also broke out under Obama after the deaths of Gray and Michael Brown.

But Trump has poured gasoline on an already explosive situation by acting as though the heavy-handed use of police violence isn't the cause of the growing social unrest, but the solution.

Unsurprisingly, 80 percent of the respondents in a recent poll—including 66 percent of Republicans—believe that the country is spinning out of control. Are folks at Claremont having any second thoughts?

No. They're circling the wagons.

Claremont's top brass last week issued a statement rejecting out of hand the possibility that the protests are legitimate grassroots uprising triggered by genuine concerns. It declared the notion of systematic racism in American law enforcement a "reckless" and "destructive myth" peddled by liberal elites who believe that "America is evil." Those elites, the statement insists, are the true instigators of the riots. The statement also demands that "those in power be held to account"—meaning not Trump, but those governors and mayors who they feel didn't use enough force to smash the movement. Berating "leaders on the Right" for not doing enough to refute such "untruths," the statement tells them that the next election, like the last one, is about "preserving" America from those who seek to "destroy it"—basically a call to arms to vehemently defend and re-elect Trump.

With some exceptions—most notably Rush Limbaugh, who expressed horror at Floyd's death and called for first-degree murder charges against the cop who killed him—right-wing talk show hosts have peddled some version of the Claremont line. Mark Levin declared, "The Democratic Party is at war internally with the United States." Tucker Carlson called Minnesota protesters "criminal mobs" and castigated Republicans for not reacting more intensely against the violence. His Fox colleagues Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have trained their ire primarily at the demonstrators who, Hannity says, are "exploiting" Floyd's death. Even the more sober conservatives at the Wall Street Journal editorial page, late-comers to the Trump bandwagon, are claiming that "liberal cities" who refuse to control "radical mayhem" are the real problem.

But it is not plausible to put all the blame on them. Nearly four years of confrontations with political opponents and attacks on disfavored groups by the most powerful man on the top have fueled the anger now on display in the streets.

Trump is intensifying the warfare, but he's not winning conservatives the culture war. They made a bet when they installed him in the cockpit, but now the engines are on fire and they can't jump out.

NEXT: 'Without Police, There Is Chaos': Trump Signs Police Reform Executive Order

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

      1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

        This is what I do………Money80

    1. NBC the Karen of networks

      1. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.NXz I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

        For more details visit……….Read More

    2. Sounds like Google is exercising its freedom of association.

      1. So nothing to see here!

        1. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website.. Reading Articles

      2. A freedom that was upturned yesterday.

    3. The conservative movement already discredited itself by failing to stand up for, you know, conservatism, and letting liberal orthodoxy win the day in every avenue of society. “Oh, that’s just college kids, that won’t leak out into the wide world.” Then they sat down and watched city after city turn into a festering cesspool for decades. Then they watched neoliberalism gut the manufacturing class. Conservatives just tried to be slightly-more-centrist liberals.

      If the conservative movement didn’t want to be discredited it probably should have tried to win. It didn’t. So Trump did instead.

      1. Remember when Mitt Romney was Hitler? Good times.

      2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks…… SeeMore here

    4. Now fewer people will visit The Federalist site. They and Google will lose ad revenue. Obviously ad revenue is not the motivation for de-monetization.

  1. >>The conservatives who made the case for Trump in 2016

    was like 1.7 people dude. National Review destroyed itself and everyone who’s ever written for it over T

    1. Pretty nifty. Like 1.7 people, but about a dozen of them hang out here.

      I know. I used to be one of them.

      1. you were the 1. also where you been at?

        1. I’m pretty sure it’s just Jeff using a stolen nick.

          1. aw. i liked that other guy. enthusiastic.

        2. Been soul searching about my support for Trump. Realized he really is a cretin, and I shouldn’t support him just because he’s not a Democrat.

          It was like a light came on one day, and I realized that maybe Democrats and Republicans both contribute to this country’s problems.

          1. It was like a light came on one day, and I realized that maybe Democrats and Republicans both contribute to this country’s problems.

            Welcome to the party, pal! That light went on for me in 2006.

          2. And yet you keep pushing one of the sides talking points almost exclusively. Weird.

          3. LC-
            If your post above is in fact serious and not sarcasm (which I honestly am legitimately trying to believe) then I am publicly admitting that I will also reconsider some of the things I have thought and said about you in these forum arguments. It doesn’t mean we might see eye to eye on everything and it doesn’t mean Hillary is the answer either but if you mean what you just said then I have to adjust my views on you and maybe it’s step one toward people finding solutions to problems which we all face. I don’t know if it comes across but I am not trying to pander. I really mean it. To be honest this really gets at the core of how many feel…there are, believe it or not, several positions traditionally taken by conservatives that I can agree with but acceptance and/or outright worship of Trump and his, um, methods as a standard bearer turns me off and makes it hard to see the good in them sometimes. I’m willing to kinda hit the reset button on several things (not on how I feel about him but on how I feel about you) when I see a statement like the above. I hope this comes across ok.

  2. I might ask the question, “what conservative intellectuals?”, but let’s go with it.

    With all these victories where abortion has been outlawed, where there are no more Mexicans immigrating to the United States, and there are no more Islamics being allowed to build an Islamic State in Dearborn, Michigan what is there left to win? We could, I suppose, bring back the stockades for adultery and the burning of the homosexual and the witch, but hasn’t that ship really already sailed in favor of the tolerance of Pat Robertson and the 700 Club?

    1. I might ask the question, “what conservative intellectuals?”, but let’s go with it.

      “I only hang out with intellectuals that agree with me!” – AmSoc

      1. AmSoc thinks ‘intellectual’ and ‘progressive zealot’ are synonymous.

        1. “AmSoc thinks…”

          Pretty sure that’s a conjecture.

    2. In worker’s paradise, all intellectuals universally agree that worker’s paradise is flawless utopia. Anyone who disagrees is clearly not smart enough to know what’s good for them and must be placed in re-education camps where they can learn why true intellectuals love worker’s paradise by swinging pick axe for 18 hours a day.

      1. To much Robert Conquest? That guy was an M-5 operative. You know that, right? He managed to publish all this bullshit propaganda from emigres from Russia that might have an axe to grind all the while advocating for the carpet bombing of North Vietnam. Some hero.

        1. No Alexander Solznitzen. I know you are functionally retarded. But, spare us the defenses of the old USSR you miserable fuck.

          1. Ah, you take your cues from a reactionary bigot and monarchist pining for the days of the peon and surf in the 19th century? Check it, John, he didn’t believe in the Holomodor either.

            1. So it’s a given that everyone is better off being a communist serf in the 20th century following a reactionary bigot and totalitarian with power that monarchies could only dream of? Is that the inference? I would say we should take a poll of people that lived under each system, but everyone that ever lived under your preferred system and disagreed with it was murdered. It skews the data a bit.

              1. They’ve done those polls. The Soviet Union wins in a landslide.


                1. Good find! A couple of questions for you.
                  1) Why would I take such a poll seriously? Are they limiting this exclusively to the remaining ex party members still alive?
                  2) If I can construct a poll that shows the majority of Cambodians pine for the halcyon days of 1975,does that mean Pol Pot wasn’t such a bad guy? How about deep southerners who think Jim Crow laws were swell?
                  3) How do you dress yourself if you’re this stupid?

                  1. In worker’s paradise, State dress you

                2. “They’ve done those polls. The Soviet Union wins in a landslide.

                  And it takes a lefty piece of shit like you to buy that horseshit.

                3. Same poll that gives Putin high marks for respecting human rights. If you actually knew any escapees from the Soviet block you’d understand how ludicrous these polls are.

                4. And Saddam Hussein won re-election with 100.0% of the vote, too. Just as meaningless as that shit you posted.

                5. 60 million Russians were unavailable for this poll because their own government murdered them.

            2. Ah, you take your cues from a reactionary bigot and monarchist pining for the days of the peon and surf in the 19th century?

              And you take your cues from several of history’s greatest mass murderers.
              Fuck off, you pathetic piece of septic-tank scum.

          2. Who the fuck white-knights for GULAG?

            What a contemptible piece of shit you are, American Socialist.

            1. All the while he sponges off capitalists.

        2. So he personally built the Gulags in the middle of the Soviet Union, rounded up political dissidents to fill them with and worked or starved them to death all by himself? Here I was, blaming the communist party this whole time when it was just one really evil (and industrious!) British historian. How have we gotten it so wrong for so long?

          1. In worker’s paradise, double consonants will be strictly banned

            1. Oops, wrong place

              1. In worker’s paradise, all who post in wrong place will be sent to gulag.

          2. Nah, he was taking money from the British military and then pressing CTRL-C and CTRL-V on what MI6 was feeding him so that he could write a book. That took real guts! I mean, to be an anti-communist in the West in the 60s while the Americans were carpet bombing North Vietnam. What a hero!

            Most of the people opposing Stalinism in the 1930s and 40s were themselves communists. George Orwell didn’t get shot in Catalonia because he was supporting Stalin’s stooges. It was something else.

            1. I’m not really sure why you want to go on some Robert Conquest strawman journey. I don’t know much about him, but from what I know I wouldn’t have a single nice thing to say about him.

              Why is it so hard for you jackasses to understand that to support your system is to support Stalinism. A Stalin is always the logical conclusion of massive central governments that have a monopoly on EVERYTHING. When you figure out a way to stop people from being impossibly corrupt and drunk on power, maybe we’ll talk. Until then, you got a century to test out your dipshit theory and all that happened was death and misery.

              1. He also supports Hitler so everyone knows amsoc is a dick

            2. “Nah, he was taking money from the British military and then pressing CTRL-C and CTRL-V on what MI6 was feeding him so that he could write a book.”

              And I’ll bet you can quote something from one of his books where he is wrong, correct?

      2. ah, I see you’ve been listening to Palmer’s twitter too, huh? Apparently all non-believers should be removed from power, and there’s literally no difference between a conservative and a Klansman.

        1. That Palmer jackass needs to be beaten within an inch of his life and dropped in the middle of Afghanistan in his underwear.

          1. You’re a far kinder man than I am.

    3. “what conservative intellectuals?”

      That’s pretty rich coming from a leftard. The closest thing your side has to an intellectual is Noam Chomsky.


      1. Do you know what percentage of scientists are Republican? 6%.

        1. Well judging by the past 3 months most scientists are retards, which means most retarded scientists aren’t republican.

          1. Most scientists haven’t made any public statements.

            1. You responded to me seriously. You’re even dumber than i thought.

        2. It’s alot more than 6%. The difference is that when lefty shit bags in science find out there are Republicans, or anyone to the right of Mao, the behave like lefty socialist shit heads and yell at/assault other scientists. And they get away with it because they are lefty shitheads

        3. Do you know that statistic includes social sciences and other soft sciences. Things that arent actually science?

          1. This exactly. I know and work with thousands of fellow hard scientists in physics, chem, bio, and computers. The split is about 3:1 conservative: liberal ; only the IT folks are more socialist, largely because they are young and naive.

  3. ” the fires he’s stoking will scorch the nation and discredit their movement.”

    The left is literally setting fires, and you’ve got the obscene gall to talk about TRUMP stoking fires? Is there no crime the left can commit that you won’t blame on Trump?

    1. Once words are violence and rioting is not, any conclusions you want can be made.

      1. Definitions of words are all part of the patriarchy’s plot! Defund the English language!

        1. #cancelgramer!

          1. Looks like you already #cancelledspelling bud.

            1. Thanks for ruining my joke.

              1. Always happy to help!

              2. I don’t think it was intentional, he just didn’t get it.

    2. In one case, Trump, Dalmia is discussing the behavior of a particular individual, the President of our country. In the other, you are a collective condemnation of “the left” literally setting fires, even though no specific political figure on the left is literally setting fires.

      As libertarians, we judge people as individuals. Most people on the left are not literally setting fires, and no elected leaders at all are literally setting fires.

      1. So the many individuals that have set actual fires are still better than the one who has set figurative fires?

        1. Words matter, too, especially coming from the President, in a time of crisis.

          And you are being purposely dense. Brett wrote, “The left is literally setting fires…” That is an attempt to paint an entire group of people with a broad brush based on the actions of a few members of the group. We libertarians are individualists; we don’t judge people collectively.

          1. The left is explicitly collectivist.
            They are being judged according to their own standards.

            1. So, you are saying you are a leftist?

              1. Just taking them at face value

          2. Have you been entirely on HnR for this whole thing?

            Watch CNN for 5 minutes.

            Catch Today on NBC.

            Look at anything NPR is covering.

            Anywhere you go, they have been pushing hard for unrest and riots. They have been providing cover for anyone who is on their side. How many stories has the New York Times done about how Antifa is just a myth?

            CNN was showing me video of the shooting of Brooks in Atlanta, and as I am watching him resist arrest, they literally say “it is unclear why officers began struggling with him.” Then, as I watch him grab the taser, they say “It is hard to tell what happens next, but the Georgia Bureau of Investigation alleges…”

            They have all been pushing hard for riots this entire time. They have not been entirely subtle about it either.

            The country was unanimous about the killing of Floyd. Not one person, from the President down said anything different.

            But NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, The NYT, WaPo… all of them pretended that there was a white nationalist, republican-lead opposition that wanted him dead. Despite the fact that the people in this drama are all democrats: The mayor, the governor, the chief of police, the prosecutor…. the media covered it as if it were Trump who was not providing justice in Minneapolis. This is an abject lie. There is no other way to put it.

            Despite what our libertarian voice has written here, Trump didn’t fail to act. He immediately sent the DOJ to Minneapolis to see if federal charges were warranted.

            Yet the media (and now Reason) played it as if Trump were somehow protecting the police and opposing the outrage.

            We have entered some alternate reality where people cannot remember something that happened 2 weeks ago. Or even 2 days ago. Hell, they cannot even watch a video and see that what the announcer is saying about it doesn’t match the video.

            TV networks and print media kept pretending that there was some controversy about Antifa being at protests and doing violence. That’s insane. CNN showed me live video of people who were obviously associating themselves with Antifa smashing police vehicles and tagging them with Antifa slogans. Those Antifa people blocked cameras from CNN as Antifa folk are wont to do, while shouting Antifa slogans. And then CNN says “The Trump administration alleges, without evidence, that Antfia was behind some of the violence at protests”

            That’s nuts. I watched them do it right along with the announcer who’s telling me that there’s no evidence that they did it.

            Then, CNN and all the others started telling me that Alt-right activists from white supremacist groups were infiltrating protests and starting violence in order to discredit them. They all said the same thing – not only without any evidence at all, but without even bothering to come up with a story that made sense.

            Then, finally, they found a tweet. A single tweet from what they claimed was a fake Antifa account that was run by some alt-right group that neither they nor anyone else had ever heard of before. But they presented it as the proof that Trump and his supporters were the cause of all violence and anything attributing it to Antifa was fake news spread by Trump. It was the dumbest story you’ll ever hear. But they all ran with it, and every one of them presented it as proof positive that that massive and powerful white nationalist subculture was really behind any negative story about the protests.

            Attempt to paint an entire group with a broad brush?

            Good lord.

            You have to be mentally ill to present that as an argument. After watching what has transpired over the last couple of weeks… that’s your conclusion? That it is crazy conservatives who are falsely attributing motives to a group based on the actions of a few? That is utterly insane.

            The meme for the last 5 years or more has been “it is all projection with these people”. If you were ever confused as to why… look no further.

            The level of “doublethink” involved in this has been way beyond Orwellian. To be able to watch a video and simply deny that you see what you see is bizarre. People on this very board claimed to have watched the shooting of Brooks over and over and never once could see him pointing a taser at anyone. That’s either a total fabrication, or just some form of severe mental illness.

            I watched Anderson Cooper watch Trump make a statement (in typical Trump 2nd grade vocabulary fashion – “Tragic.. sad..”) and the very next word out of his mouth was “Why have we not heard anything from Trump on this horrific killing?” I don’t mean later that day… I mean: play the video, cut to Anderson Cooper who says the exact opposite of what we saw, then throw it to another CNN talking head who expounds on how we need a leader who can bring people together.

            4 years ago I started posting things here that began with “Trump is an idiot. Stop making me defend Trump”.

            That idiocy is in large measure what got the guy elected. It is like he made a deal with the devil. The devil promised that he’d always be smarter than his opposition, so he’s always win.

            Then the evil genie plot twist comes… he stays a moron and all of his opponents are suddenly just way dumber than he is.

            1. You actually watch news instead of reading? Like TV news? Why would you do that? It’s been idiotic since, like, the 1970s.

              1. Well, that explains it.

                Only someone who declined to actually watch the footage from the protests would accept the stupidly obvious lie that “Antifa played no role”.

                1. How did we get from Dalmia’s awful because she said mean things about Trump, why doesn’t she talk about how all Democrats go around literally setting fires! to LC1789 says that there are no Antifa at riots.

                  Meanwhile, all I’m saying is judge people individually not collectively. That shouldn’t be a controversial thing to say among supposed libertarians.

                  1. ^still doesn’t get it

                  2. Meanwhile, all I’m saying is judge people individually not collectively.

                    Fine–individually, lefties are shit and their apologists are worse.

                  3. Go whine at the leftists, who are the ones that are CONSTANTLY judging collectively. Once you take care of that, then taking care of both people on the right that judge collectively should be easy.

                  4. “Judge people individually, not collectively”. Except cops. And victims of cops. Then it’s about race, not an individual.

                    If people thought like that we wouldn’t have righteous rage mobs, now would we?

          3. Lol. God you’re a joke.

    3. Yep, my thoughts too. Also loved how they tried to paint Trump as mercilessly going after “peaceful protestors” when he has made multiple statements supporting and agreeing with actual peaceful protests, while at the same time denouncing the rioting animals that Reason and their cockmongering friends refuse to report on.

    4. It’s Shrieking Shikha. Would you expect anything less stupid?

  4. So now Tulpa has hacked Reason and is socking a Shreeka parody?

    1. If it were Tulpa, there would be more talk about breaking people and HAHAAHAHAAHAs.

  5. This started with pussyhats and resist movements BEFORE Trump was elected. Lets also just ignore the multiple fake hate crimes that were attempted. Lets also just ignore that what is happening is exactly what the Left wants.

    Post reality is quite the trip.

    1. Trump’s divisive language started with pussycats and resist movements?

      1. Nobody ever used devisive language prior to trump.

        1. Well, there’s some avoidance of the subject.

          1. The subject is that you are trolling with trolls that are in opposition to reality. Simply ignoring what is being said and pretending you are right isn’t argument. It’s abuse.. You want 12-A next door.

      2. All political rhetoric is divisive

        1. No it isn’t!

  6. …I meant write inaugurated.

  7. Donald Trump didn’t start the protests, but the fires he’s stoking will scorch the nation and discredit the conservative movement.

    He didn’t start the fire…

    1. Leonard Bernstein! oh wait wrong song.

      1. Both songs work.

  8. What a silly notion! Both parties are morally bankrupt, without principles of any sort, intent only on being in power and growing the State. Pyrrhic victory pshaw! They won the election. They stand a good chance of winning again. Compared to most politicians, Trump is a pillar of transparency and keeping his promises. How far in advance does the payback have to be to make his win Pyrrhic?

    1. How far in advance does the payback have to be to make his win Pyrrhic?

      The only three things we can know for sure:
      Obama’s victories weren’t Pyrrhic.
      Clinton’s victory wouldn’t have been Pyrrhic.
      Biden’s victory won’t by Pyrrhic.

  9. Apparently some posters here miss it but it bears repeating for her continued embarassment: Honest condemnation of #Berkley violence must also condemn those who invited him.What’s point except baiting n inciting in Trump’s America?

    Antifa riots at Berkeley? Blame Trump.
    BLM protests (which they’ve been doing since before Trump announced his candidacy) because MPD kneeled George Floyd to death? Blame Trump.

    I’d say she’s a one trick pony but blaming Trump isn’t really a trick.

    1. So she should just stick to the same open borders article repeatedly after all.

  10. Just. Ugh.

  11. Shikha didn’t notice, but what is burning are almost always the Bituminous Democrats who let off an acrid acidity, poisoning the land around them. Kind of like acid rain. Trump may have been the spark but it’s the fatty Democrats that are burning. The Democrats are busy trying make sure as many people are as miserable as possible, as they farm it for political gain.

    1. JSinAZ? What’s that about?

    2. Those darn Democrats! Trump is so innocent, and it’s all their fault!

      1. There is a straw shortage. Please slow down.

      2. Yes. Left wingers burning shit in Democrat run cities because of the actions of police who are members of Democrat controlled unions who negotiate deals with Democrat politicians is Democrat’s fault. Unless you have TDS.

        1. Or unless you are an impartial, non-partisan observer, in which case you see there is plenty of blame to go around for the Democratic and the Republican Party.

          1. On some issues, yes. But my statement above is accurate in this particular case.

            If you were impartial and non-partisan you would be able to look at each particular issue and judge accordingly.

            1. who is he and what did he do with the real LC1789?

          2. Let’s see…a state with a dem governor, a dem majority voter registration, a dem controlled city council, a dem mayor, and a police union that has almost unanimously donated to dem candidates.

            But let’s blame republicans and trump for what happened in Minneapolis…

            That’s why you’re a retard jeff

            1. Not just a Democrat-controlled city council, a city council that hasn’t even had a Republican member in over 20 years.

      3. How many major US cities are NOT run by Democrats, fuckwit?

    3. Haha. Yup. Grievance mining. It’s simple math. If they convince enough people that they are victims they might out vote the people who are happy.

  12. If I were as conspiratorially minded as is Trump; I would think that the lifetime Democrat, Democrat donor, and Democrat crony switched and ran as a Republican as a Trojan Horse to so discredit Republicans that the Democrats could regain all that they had lost.

    Pre-Trump Democrats had been, all but, chased from electoral power; and the national debate had shifted to one, mostly, between conservatives and libertarians in the “Libertarian Moment.” Under Trump Republicans, once desperate to appear “conservatarian,” have fully joined Democrats in an all out assault on libertarians and libertarian ideals. Under this combined assault libertarians, even liberty itself, have been pushed to a far margin of national debate. Trump personifies the Democrats worst caricature of Republicans, and this living caricature has given back to Democrats nearly all of the (over 1000 seats and offices under Obama) electoral power that they had lost.

    Trump the Trojan Horse that invaded America?

    1. If I were as conspiratorially minded as is Trump;

      Again, it’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s paying attention that Trump isn’t playing 12 dimensional chess as much as his opposition has trouble with doing anything in dimensions deeper than 1.

      1. That’s the real point. As I said elsewhere… I suspect that he made a deal with the devil that he’d always outsmart his enemies… and under the “evil genie” twist rule, he didn’t get smarter – his enemies were magically stupid whenever they engaged him.

        It surprisingly makes more sense than anything I can imagine as actually being true.

        1. I think it’s also partly because Trump doesn’t think like a politician, and that’s throwing them off. He’s a salesman and a businessman, he’s had to always be improving the company to satisfy board members and others. Not doing anything is a death sentence for a company, look at how brick and mortars are doing against Amazon.

          Politicians, on the other hand, don’t want change, they want to rock the boat as little as possible usually unless they get elected on change, then they make the one big change they promised and cool their heels.

          Trump’s also used to dirty fighting, blackmail, etc, even if he’s not familiar with how politicians in particular do it, meaning unlike most republicans, who tend to come from more quiet areas, and less corrupt ones, he knows what the best way to defend himself is, which isn’t to lie down and take it. Democrats are left trying to fight a politician who doesn’t act like a politician and isn’t afraid to fight back, something they’re not used to. Just like their soyboy voterbase, they’ve always expected to be throwing the punches, not taking them

        2. Trump is like the political version of Inspector Clouseau.

    2. If the dems weren’t so retarded that plan is so crazy it just might’ve worked.

      If it wasn’t for those meddling kids……


  13. And you’re gettin’ four more years of him because no one in the media learned the lessons.

    1. LOL

      I have a flawless track record with my major predictions, and I’m even more confident in a Biden victory than I was about 2018’s #BlueWave or 2019’s impeachment prediction.


  14. For rational, fact-based analysis of Drumpf’s Presidency, there’s literally no better writer than Shikha Dalmia. This piece ranks right up there with her best work, along with October 2016’s classic Trump Will Torch the Supreme Court.


    1. Why are right-wing dicks like you so easily triggered? When Biden wins in November are you going to continue to bitch and moan and cry like you do now?

      1. In worker’s paradise, triggered will revert to original meeting. Correction for wrong think at the end of firing squad! Bitching, moaning and crying will not buy you mercy, but it does provide entertainment for glorious worker’s paradise soldiers.

      2. American Socialist
        June.16.2020 at 5:46 pm
        Why are…dicks like you so easily triggered?

        This is how it’s done folks.

      3. That whoosh sound going over your head– you should be used to it by now.

      4. This is how retarded progs are. Light hearted parody and mockery looks like “bitch and moan and cry”. While calling people dicks. Which sounds like bitching, moaning and crying.

        Haha. Stay miserable amsoc. And remember, everything is so terrible and unfair.

  15. Record unemployment numbers of minorities, rising earning power, an economy on the rebound, occasional but meaningful deregulation, a secretary of education friendly to school choice and title 9 reform.

    Obviously Trump did galvanize the modern day Jacobins who were already resorting to violence in response to any reform, including many libertarian ones. Trump is the result of the mob, he didn’t create one. As recently as 2012 the GOP voters nominated white bread Mitt Romney.

    I’m going to laugh so hard when Google demonetizes Reason for random crap left in their comment section. The Koch industry isn’t exactly a darling on the left and are a prime candidate for cancellation.

    You’ll have your immigration and drugs. The price for that is a crumbling society and an already out of control spending hyper boosted by racial mandates – free college, healthcare, further centralization of police and schools. Expression will be policed and stifled all over in the name of BLM. Keep telling yourselves that “gun control died this year”. One unarmed minority “civilian police” get shot by one white guy and the dem majority will come for your guns.

    Quick – when was the last time a marxist revolution resulted in a peaceful, prosperous society? None? Well ok if you say so. But you keep undercutting police reform by standing by BLM.

    1. I’ll note that immediately prior to this #BLM stuff, Trump was polling at 40% approval among likely black voters.

      40% approval.

      Now, that doesn’t mean he was going to get their votes.

      But is it entirely a coincidence that there was a full court press on race-based violence within a week of that poll coming out?


      1. I’ve been seeing (and this didn’t necessarily start after the riots either) more and more blacks who are willing to talk about politics, and question the community groupthink that anyone who doesn’t vote democrat is an uncle tom. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll vote Trump, but there’s a very large chunk that’s woken up to the fact that the democrats just see them as suckers and easy marks to be buttered up during an election year and ignored the rest of the time.

  16. Guys,

    Why are there anarchists on the street wielding guns when a great American alpha-male like Dear Leader is President and not when some socialist asshole like Obama was President? Isn’t this situation supposed to be reversed?

    1. Your kind’s bad behavior is not our failing.

    2. Glorious worker’s paradise continues to thank you for your support of roaming street gangs of worker’s justice. Your name will not be forgotten among the gun wielding “anarchists” when the revolution is complete and every last man, woman and child who thinks they get to (without being party leadership) have private property, free speech or funny ideas about how glorious worker’s paradise should handle equality lie face down in pool of their own blood. Onward comrades!!!

    3. “Why are there anarchists on the street wielding guns…”

      Because you’re still butthurt Hillary lost and this is just the lefts latest tantrum since you’re afraid you’ll lose in November.

    4. Because leftist pussies run the cities where it happens.

  17. 4 more years of Dear Leader and they’ll probably have 50 CHAZs in America. I honestly can’t decide on what old fart on his last leg to get behind. The guy loosing his marbles or the guy who can’t make it down a ramp properly and is, what, a year or so from blowing out one of this arteries. So far according to most polls the guy who can barely remember his wife’s name and who likes to smell hair is 8 points ahead of the other guy. That other guy must suck pretty bad!

    1. We can put them down, one after another.

      Your kind should have been dealt with from the start. Joe McCarthy had it right.

      1. I don’t think anyone else is going to let a CHAZ pop up in their city after watching the shit show in Seattle. From what Tim Pool’s been saying there’s rapes going on, the people who actually live/work there are living in terror, and you have people stealing everything that isn’t nailed down and on fire. Nashville and Ashville have already made it clear they won’t stand for it, (and Ashville is pretty fucking far from Rightwing, or moderate). Even if the cops meekly stand aside, locals won’t. You might get one or two more in the most far left (and lawless) cities like New York, but if they try that shit in Chicago, there’s gonna be some dead antifa. Gangs won’t mess around with them.

        1. Nashville and Asheville have already put a stop to the CHAZdiots.

          1. I’m well aware, I live in Nashville. I’m keeping a close eye on the shit here.

    2. In glorious worker’s paradise, we will have 1000 year reign (after we finally pass legislation to lengthen human life) of brilliant, wise, altruistic leader who is incapable of being corrupted and wants only to make sure equality is absolute in all aspects of life. Xer will personally grow enough soy and kale to support 100,000 CHAZs. Xer will never lose xer’s marbles and will always remember both xer’s life partner’s name and the smell of the hair of each and every cherished worker.

      1. So… the Kwisatz Haderach?

  18. The alternative was to let the Left win a lot more, with a lot less resistance, and… how is that better?

    Calling Trump “divisive” for resisting the Left is like calling Jews “divisive” for resisting the Holocaust. You’re attacking the wrong camp.

    1. great line mind if I use it?

    2. Was going to comment but JD nailed it. We have one side laying waste to logic, fairness, reason, statues, history….America itself. And on the other side we have a vulgarian who doesn’t know how to control his diarrhea mouth. So the fires are being stoked by HIM…..god what world do you live in.

    3. Sure, when he was tweeting murder accusations about Scarborough he was “resisting the Left”. When he mused about the beauty of choke holds, he was “resisting the Left”. When he bragged about the $4 trillion stimulus, he was “resisting the Left”.

      1. No not Joe Scarborough!!

      2. Go fuck yourself, retard.

  19. Meanwhile China is invading India, but it’s dalamia, so 1 too local and 2 its Indias fault

    1. Are you sure you remembered this morning to telepathically instruct Dalmia on what subjects she is required to blog on today?

      1. “ Are you sure you remembered this morning to telepathically instruct Dalmia on what subjects she is required to blog on today?”

        Of course he did, don’t you remember? It was right after Dalmia dropped trou and dumped a Cleveland Steamer on your giant sloped forehead, you annoying bitchy fuck.

    2. Also Dijon, France, has either a race or a gang war going on between the North Africans and the Chechyans.

    3. Q: If China and India go to war, who will win?
      A: Everyone else.

      1. In all seriousness, I think India would lose, and that it would be a bad thing for us if we let it play out without doing anything. China’s a serious enough threat that if we have the chance to dogpile on, we should take it. And we have plenty of reason to go to war at the moment, between the virus, the constant pushing of drugs and counterfeits into the country, the spying, and the bribery of US media, academics, and scientists. They are actively trying to destabilize us.

  20. I said it when he was elected, and I’ll say it again. Trump is the death of the Republican Party. The party has turned into cult of the personality, and they have nothing left after that personality is gone. They have burned all their bridges to civilization.

    It’s one thing to pretend that it’s a Manichean world with ultimate evil Democrats one side and only Trump on the other. But that’s not true. Not even close. Nearly half the voting populace didn’t even bother to vote in 2016. There’s a huge swath in the middle, and to blithely call them all deluded traitors isn’t winning any points.

    What will the GOP do in 2024 when there is no more Trump? Do they really think that Pence can lead the mob? Is there anyone out there who can replace the personality? The Republican Party without Trump is like the Reform Party without Perot. Oh sure they will find a Buchanan to fill the slot, but the party will be dead.

    The GOP stormed the cockpit and put Trump in the pilot’s seat when the plane wasn’t even hijacked. Fighting fire with fire only ensures that you burn down the house.

    1. So you are doubling down on saying stupid shit?

      1. There’s that patented JesseAz anger.

        1. Not angry at all. Just calling put his logic for what it is. If I was angry I would resort to trying to steal other people’s handles. So much easier than providing logical perspectives. So I get why you do it.

        2. Hi Jeff.

          Glad that you can add Jesse to the long list of things that trigger you!


        3. Go die in a fire, fucko.

    2. Yeah. The GOP was much better off unloading one Bush after another on the American public. Gee and there’s another Bush coming down the pike, just in time to take on another Kennedy or are you still going with Rodham again?.

    3. You’re completely wrong here.

      Did you forget the GOP did not put trump in the pilots seat? They did everything they could to keep him from it. Including having McCain try spreading the discredited Steele dossier amongst the party.

      Republican voters in the primary chose trump, not the GOP. And that’s why your premise is completely flawed.

      Trump has money, and he still has lots of voters. If anything he showed its ok for republicans to have balls again and use their middle finger. Moving forward voters won’t accept cucks like romney, which will strengthen the Republicans not weaken them.

      Watch out for folks like Dan Crenshaw to pick up the mantle.

      1. You mean voters chose Trump just like they have chosen every candidate since the primaries stopped happening in smoke-filled rooms? Okay, so the voters are retards and the party bosses are afraid of them in large numbers.

    4. That’s stupid.

      Cult of personality?

      You really think Trump is the Republican party? That’s crazy. They hate Trump. All of the Republican power structure were in the NeverTrump gang.

      There is an order to things. A certain way that things are done. A way that allows the right companies to get the big contracts, and a way that allows the right people to get a slice of that pie. Trump endangers that way of doing things.

      Either by design or through incompetence, he threatens hundreds of billions in revenue streams. Neither party establishment does that. They simply rearrange who is getting the bigger slice of the commission checks and maybe slide a little money in one direction or the other. Trump cannot be trusted to do any of that. He doesn’t hire the right people. He doesn’t care if the right sorts get paid. He doesn’t care if carefully crafted trade deals that advantage certain companies get destroyed. I don’t know if there’s a real plan to it or not, but either way it is a threat.

      Those who are in congress now are in “team” mode. That is all. There is no Trump agenda for them to get behind. None of them understand what he is doing. But he has shown that he does have the ability to strike back at enemies who come after him through his support among the working class. So they rally behind the team flag for the moment.

      But don’t pretend for a second that it is anything more than a marriage of convenience. And calling it a cult of personality is just stupid. Trump has none of the hallmarks of a cult of personality.

      Obama on the other hand.. with the carefully crafted image, posters, victory celebrations reminiscent of Hitler’s speeches… and completely vacuous messages that bore no resemblance at all to the actual actions of his administration…

    5. Nikki Haley comes to mind. She was well-liked when she was in the public eye, even by democrats. She’s accomplished, competent, she hits the checkboxes the lefties like (female, minority) and is one of the few individuals that were part of the Trump establishment that managed to part ways with Trump without getting into a big public smear fest, meaning Trump supporters won’t see her as a RINO.

      1. Nikki Haley is the conventional favorite, but I dunno. Seems a bit too establishment-y
        Ron DeSantis is looking real strong these days

        1. I used to live in SC when she was in charge, I’d vote for her. I have no doubt that we’ll have a crowded Republican field in 2024 though, because Brandybuck is partly right in that Trump is stealing the limelight away from a lot of the Republicans in the house/senate/governor seats.

      2. Cruz/Haley 2024.

  21. Shikha, please find your nearest plant, shrub or tree and apologize to it for stealing oxygen.

    This is absolute drivel.

    1. Oxygen is a plants waste, so ‘stealing’ it would be doing the plant a favor.

      1. Not when Shikha does it.

  22. Good article, Dalmia.

    1. So, Trump is responsible for the actions of AntiFa and BLM?

    2. Shithead poster likes shithead writer.

      1. That doesn’t sound like past postings from “Ioveconstitution1789”. Maybe his account got compromised.

  23. The only fires I see being stoked (both literally and metaphorically) got there because of leftists. There is no new racism on the right. There is no new extremism on the right. All media accounts saying so are lies. Any alleged right winger leading these movements is a false flag operative working on behalf of the leftists and media.

    I never heard of these extremists until CNN put them on tv, which is saying something because I literally grew up in the militia movement. I am a subject matter expert and am on a first name basis with several real militia people. These people never heard of Dickie Spencer et. al, for instance, before the media invented him.

    1. So, Trump is a false flag operative on behalf of the left?

      1. Again, running low on straw.

  24. Donald Trump didn’t start the protests, but the fires he’s stoking will scorch the nation and discredit the conservative movement.

    Trump is not going to discredit the conservative movement, Trump is the result of the conservative movement so thoroughly discrediting itself. Remember when that evil rich vulture capitalist Mitt Romney ran for President? The one who was accused of giving a woman cancer, torturing his dog, not paying his taxes in years, lying about Obama refusing to call Benghazi a terrorist attack, keeping women in binders, being a literal right-wing extremist Hitler – and he never once fought back at that long list of vile slanders? Yeah, you bet your ass he wouldn’t be as divisive as Trump, and that’s why he never became President. Who needs another Republican squish lamely whining about the Left and at the same time rolling right over and plaintively begging “please don’t rape me so roughly next time” like all the rest of them? It’s bad enough that Trump’s a loud-mouthed braggart and a thin-skinned egotist and a moron too stupid to know how ignorant he is who spends most of his time on Twitter whining about how the mean girls are always picking on him and how terribly unffffffaaaaiiiirrrrr it all is that people are so mean to him – it’s a million times worse that this pathetic loser wussy is considered a brave and fearless manly man amongst the GOP. Look, if a fat Andy Dick impersonator is the undisputed head of your rebel outlaw biker gang, you ain’t got much of gang there, nancy boy.

    1. Let’s see….

      When Trump was running for president the CIA, FBI, NSA and DOJ had his campaign under surveillance and were infiltrating his campaign. There were last minute attempts to tie his campaign to Putin and portray him as a Russian stooge.

      Prior to that, the IRS was investigating conservative non-profit organizations and holding up their non-profit approval for years.

      It is in that environment that Mitt Romney ran for president. So, in the unprecedented 4th year without an economic recovery, and after Romney completely destroyed Obama in the first debate…. Suddenly he goes silent and refuses to engage. He meekly accepts defeat without much of a whimper over the last months of the campaign. Why? Why did he suddenly shift his entire campaign persona?

      Could there be a parallel between these campaigns?

      1. I don’t know, but it sure sounds like it. Obama changed the DNC for the worst, of that I have no doubt.

      2. Romney has a wet noodle for a backbone.

        Except where Trump is concerned. Insult Mitt and he gets real angry.

  25. Most of the fires that are being set are from BLM and Antifa supporters not Trump.

  26. Shikha could more convincingly write to suggest giving the entire population of India sanctuary from Chinese communist bullies in California.

  27. Shreika’s baaaaaaack……..

  28. He also boasted about the stock market rally, accused Barack Obama of spying on his campaign, castigated Democrats’ “close relationship with Fake News Media,” and complained that Twitter had an anti-conservative bias.

    Is there one syllable of that that is untrue? Or even unimportant?

    Obama spying on Trump’s campaign is certainly much more important than any tweet (or non-tweet). It is much, much bigger than anything from Watergate. But if we ignore it, did it really happen?

    I’m not sure why we’d complain about a president who wants to tout the performance of the economy. There were tons of entire books written on the topic after Bill Clinton’s second campaign, for example.

    Is there any reason that Trump should not castigate the Democrats and the Media for their “close relationship”? It isn’t like they bother to hide it. They openly coordinate “news” coverage among the various news outlets and the DNC. The examples are numerous… but just pick one. How about the Kavanaugh hearings? Schumer had folks from the senate and from major news outlets in his New York apartment in the middle of the night planning their strategy the night before the letter from Ford was leaked. Savannah Guthrie from the Today show was there, among others, underscoring how important the meeting was to all concerned. The source of that leak became an issue… and not one of those outlets let on that they were in on the leak with Schumer’s office – even though they did not get to be the official recipient of the leak. This was an example of the media and democrats conspiring to spin lies in order to harm 1 specific individual .. all for a political victory. Not one single person involved didn’t know that they were lying. Not one single person involved could have possibly believed that they were simply being journalists. So no, I don’t think you can honestly cast aspersions on that assertion by Trump.

    And lastly.. twitter. Twitter, who have been shutting down conservative voices for the last several years. Twitter, who “fact checked” Trump, calling his opinion that switching to all mail-in ballots would lead to fraud a lie. A “fact check” that is completely unsupportable. First, it was a statement of opinion. An opinion is something that cannot be “fact checked” by definition. Beyond that, it is demonstrably true… mail in ballots are more susceptible to fraud than in-person ballots at polling places. You might as well fact check “water poses a drowning hazard”. You can argue over the level of the hazard, but not over its existence.

    So there we go…. every single one of your derisive points, explored in some detail. Every one seems fully supported and important enough that they deserve the attention of someone in Trump’s position. Every one seems like something that an honest 4th estate would deem important and worthy of some level of investigation and exploration.

    So what, in your mind, makes those things somehow “wrong”? Is it simply that Trump wanted to talk about them? It seems that the underlying thrust was that Trump had the temerity to decline to play the progressive’s game by their own rules. Of course, that would rest on the premise that in doing so, Trump would have somehow been portrayed as “uniting” the country.

    So, I’ll take it one further. Is there any possible thing that Trump could have said or done that you personally would not have condemned. I sincerely doubt it.

    He could have pointed to his record on criminal justice reform and asked that others join him in expanding that work. Are you deluded enough to claim that Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of #BLM would come forward and praise him for his enlightened stance and offer their support?

    We have seen far-left progressive politicians being attacked by the mob in recent days for saying things like “I support #BLM and I support criminal justice reforms, but I will not commit to defunding the police”. We’ve seen them have their houses vandalized for simply being the white mayor of a white, liberal town.

    But you’d have Trump say…… well, what? Would anything short of “I resign and I hereby name Nancy Pelosi as acting president. Joe Biden will be running unopposed because I’m totally a racist and the world needs someone who would never say anything racially insensitive.. like Joe Biden” do the trick? Somehow I doubt it.

    1. Saw an interview with Rep Clyburn.
      The interviewer mentioned Tim Scott’s compliments for Trump on getting the First Step act done, funding HBCs, creating opportunity zones in inner cities, low black unemployment, (and something else that I’m forgetting), then asked Clyburn what he thought.
      Clyburn’s response: “that’s all lies”.

      1. Clyburn is one of the biggest racists in Congress today.

  29. The only reason I have to respond to anything this moronic woman ever writes is to ask why she still has a job at this site.

    1. She must have photos of KMW with a horse.

  30. Well when the other side thinks the Declaration of Independence and Bill or Rights is “hate speech” where do you go?

  31. Shitcan Dalmia already.

  32. I would suggest the Republican’s problem is that they failed to hold Trump accountable once he was President. The Republican have a responsibility to support their President but they simply rolled over and let him walk all over them. Ryan and McConnell should have used the opportunity to pull back some of the Presidential powers given away by Congress. McConnell should have told the President that the Senate will be approving his appointment and that his team wanted a say in who was being appointed. Had Ryan and McConnell showed some backbone at the start they could have held President Trump in check and we would all be a lot happier.

    1. What has he done that needed checking?

      90% of the complaints are about what he tweets. Nobody needs to check that.

      About the only other thing is trade policy. And if they tried to check him on that, his trade policy unquestionably wouldn’t work.

      1. Ryan and McConnell controlled Congress and they could have done a number of things to check President Trump. First would be to rescind decades old war powers act to limit his foreign actions. Ryan and McConnell should have moved immigration reform through and in doing so stopped the President’s messed up handling of the border. Your right they should have gone to the President explained the problem with tariffs and warned him that any proposed tariff needs to be run by them first. Ryan and McConnell should have done more to control spending and address the national debt. By giving the President so much leeway in the face of his inability to handle the job of the Presidency, they created a problem for their Party.

        1. First would be to rescind decades old war powers act to limit his foreign actions.

          And what conservative or libertarian objective would that have served? How would US foreign policy been improved? What specific policies are you objecting to?

          Ryan and McConnell should have moved immigration reform through and in doing so stopped the President’s messed up handling of the border.

          Given the current political situation, immigration reform in Congress would have required compromises legalizing millions of illegals, encouraging more illegal migration, and opening up borders to more foreign workers. Why would the GOP want that?

          to control spending and address the national debt

          Spending is not a “check on the president” and are not due to presidential leeway; the spending and the debt are squarely the creation and responsibility of Congress.

          By giving the President so much leeway in the face of his inability to handle the job of the Presidency, they created a problem for their Party.

          To the contrary, the GOP avoided a bunch of political hot potatoes for themselves.

          1. The GOP did not avoid hot potatoes, they moved them down the road, they lost the House in 2018, and they might lose the Senate in 2020. The problem was that Trump made the hot potatoes all that much hotter. Better to have address them early and reestablish the powers of the Congress while they controlled them.

    2. I am happy. Why are you unhappy, mod?

  33. Shiksa you ignorant slut…

  34. This fire was lit, stoked and had gas thrown upon it by Eric Holder during the “Ferguson incident. The hands up don’t shoot was false and the officer shooting ruled justified. Then Holder reopened it did his own investigation stirring riots only to very quietly come to the conclusion that hands up don’t shoot was a lie, the officer acted properly in self defense.
    The victim that day was the officer who for his own safety needed to resign and move in spite of 2 investigations showing he acted properly. Trump had nothing to do with it.

  35. I don’t think pyrrhic means what the author think it means, much less have the same view of what victory is. You know what was pyrrhic? The Obama Presidency for liberals.

    Trumps’ presidency a Pyrrhic victory? I think not. President Hillary Trump would have been a disaster of biblical proportions. Would any of the current events in the Chinese Communist Virus Pandemic or George Floyd Killed by Blue City Cops in Blue State with Blue Govenor and Blue AG and Blue Senators and Blue Conressperson of questionable marital choices been handled better by her highness, HRC? Would the foreign policy have been better? Would the judicial appointments and cases have been better for liberty?

    Oh, sure, you liberals posing as libertarians would have just as much to whine about (just different stuff mostly), so you’d be fine. But the rest of us who want less government and less intrusion on our lives by servants thinking they are masters would be way worse off.

    1. Considering the US has objectively the worst virus response among all countries in the world, odds are a person actually interested in governing and not her giant naked emperor ridiculous ego daddy issues could have done better.

      And red states are increasing virus cases faster than blue states now, so fuck your stupid partisan bullshit. You’re the one who’s not a libertarian. You don’t get to be a libertarian and support this shitshow.

      1. The Corona Virus knows Black Lives Matter you stupid partisan fuckers and therefore will not infect the truly devout!!! I Fucking Love Science you dumb primitive right wing bastards!

  36. Why is this pile of trash still writing for Reason? It is one dumb ass take after another.

    Trump is there to destroy the GOP establishment. He has completely succeeded in that endeavor. Bill Kristol and George Will will never have the pleasure of supporting a GOP nominee to anything important. If Trump loses, it doesn’t matter, he created an opening for non-sellouts. Ron DeSantis would not have been elected in FL without Trump and he is going to be President in 2024.

    Trump also had the job of blocking Hillary. Hillary is a highly competent, highly evil person. He did it by expanding the GOP into the Midwest. Much like Boris did in the UK. That is permanent. Expect MN to come into the GOP camp going forward.

    Trump had the job to get us out of foreign entanglements, push back on China, and the EU, and get us out of shitty agreements (Paris, TPP). He has shifted US policy on the first to some degree, and succeeded on the latter.

    Trump’s failures are largely the result of him having no bench of appointees and getting suckered by Reince in the beginning. He is still paying for those guys undermining him.

    But that all said, win or lose, at this point, it’s gravy. The GOP is now a nationalist party that puts the goals of the USA first, whether some of the remaining Senators like or not. That’s what the GOP base has wanted but simply was blocked from getting.

    I would like Trump to win and get a 2nd term with the current roster he has now, without the fake Russian bullshit, and with 50+ senators to replace Ginsburg when she croaks out.

    But if he were to lose, Biden will be run roughshod over and the American people will realize that they were scammed with a Weekend at Bernie clown, and 2022 and 2024 will be very good years. Yes, 2 SCOTUS spots will open up. But so long as Roberts stays, once he is replaced, it will be all good.

    The “intellectuals” brought you George W Bush. An incompetent on virtually every level. So, they can go fuck themselves.

    1. But Trump is making the Bush assholes look like wise statesmen by comparison. Do you honestly not see that this country is a laughingstock? That Trump has serious mental health problems? What do you think he’s succeeding at, exactly? I’m obviously no fan of the Republican establishment, but their incompetence and maliciousness doesn’t excuse the same coming from Trump but ten times worse.

  37. [Shikha Dalmia]: “Donald Trump didn’t start the protests, but the fires he’s stoking will scorch the nation and discredit the conservative movement.”

    Let’s be clear here: it’s progressives and socialists that are scorching the nation. Conservatives have two options: to give up and give in, or to stand up and fight back.

    What Shikha is telling us is that progressives will continue to engage in violence, destruction, character assassination, and lying until all dissenting voices are silenced and people comply with their demands.

    And because Shikha is a progressive herself, she’s fine with that.

  38. Yes, let’s give the communists everything they’ve ever wanted, just to make sure they don’t throw a tantrum

  39. Yes, Shikha, we know you are too dumb to understand the difference between protestors and rioters/looters, but that doesn’t mean that everyone is. It’s not surprising, though, coming from someone who is still insisting that Trump was definitely really just calling white supremacists “very fine people” when he said “and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”, and in a speech where he explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists… Because orange man bad.

  40. So Trump has fucked this country in more ways than I even imagined possible, is about to destroy the Republican party in the election, but the real problem is Shikha is criticizing him. You people are terrible libertarians. This Dear Leader crap would be bad enough if he weren’t a giant fat orange retarded head case.



Please to post comments

Comments are closed.