Federalism

Trump's Political Opportunism Has Shredded Federalism

Thanks to him, there will be no escaping accusations by the left that states' rights are merely a ruse to protect white power.

|

The left has long regarded federalism as a total sham whose real purpose, since slavery, has been to maintain white dominance, not limit federal power over states. And President Donald Trump—aided by his administration's enablers—is doing everything in his power to prove leftists right. Even before the pandemic, but certainly after it, Trump has toggled between invoking and dissing states rights depending on what would go down best with his predominantly white base.

Trump got elected on an anti-immigration platform that played on nativist fears. Its central pillar consisted of attacks on so-called sanctuary cities that don't fully cooperate with federal efforts to eject undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom happen to be Latino. And true to his word, Trump has left no stone unturned to go after these jurisdictions in his four years in office. He has made multiple attempts, including via executive order, to strip federal aid from such cities. Courts have repeatedly rebuffed his efforts—but that didn't stop him from threatening again in April to even deny pandemic-related aid to these cities if they didn't fall in line with his immigration enforcement priorities.

Nor has President Trump shown much appreciation for state autonomy when it comes to reopening the economy in the midst of the pandemic. He claims to have "ultimate authority" to force states to end their lockdown. If a liberal president made such statements to, say, deal with a climate emergency, Republicans would have conniptions. Yet when Trump invoked it, Vice President Mike Pence, a religious conservative who built an abandoned run for the presidency in 2016 around a "renewed vision of federalism" to push back against federal diktats on gay marriage and other cultural issues, insisted that there was a "long history" demonstrating that "the authority of the president of the United States during national emergencies is unquestionably plenary."*(Plenary power means that the president can act without regard to constitutional constraints.) To be sure, governors who are prolonging the lockdowns without factoring in economic costs deserve pushback. But that hardly means that a president lacking granular knowledge of local disease spread should usurp local control, something that Pence of all people ought to understand.

Likewise, Trump wants to withhold federal education dollars from school districts that are reluctant to physically reopen. He was originally proposing to strip them of existing federal funds but that is unlikely to pass legal muster. Hence, as with sanctuary cities, he is now is toying with tying new coronavirus relief funding to the reopening of schools. Trump hasn't ruled out a veto on the trillion-dollar "stimulus" package currently in the works if it fails to make school aid conditional.

Does Pence, who, as governor of Indiana, refused the Obama administration's $80 million federal pre-school grant, claiming it would result in "federal intrusion," have any qualms about Trump's intrusions? Nope! He's all on board and has pledged to explore ways to "give states a strong incentive and encouragement to get kids back to school."

But such soft extensions of Uncle Sam's powers of the purse in violation of principles of federalism pale in comparison with the hard police power that Trump is deploying in cities experiencing protests against police brutality.

To burnish his bona fides as a "law and order" president, Trump dispatched federal agents wearing tactical gear driving unmarked vehicles to scoop up and detain protesters in Portland, Oregon, who Trump has branded as "violent anarchists." His initial pretext was to safeguard federal buildings from "vandalism" (which initially mostly consisted of graffiti). But on July 11, as per The Dispatch's Charlotte Lawson, a "rapid deployment team" cracked down on a largely peaceful crowd with "brutal" force deploying tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets—cracking the skull of one protester. This has only escalated the situation, inciting even more—and less peaceful—protests, prompting local and state lawmakers to plead with Trump to call off his troops and to sue him.

The leader of a party that champions federalism and respect for states' rights would listen to them. Trump, however, is doubling down. He is threatening to send more federal forces to Chicago and other cities "run by very liberal Democrats."

This is reminiscent of the tactics that President Richard Nixon, another law and order president whose political strategy Trump seems to be channeling, deployed to court his Southern white base. In fact, notes Foundation for Research and Equal Opportunity's Jonathan Blanks, federal SWAT teams are a 1970s invention whose express purpose was to quell white fear of racial unrest.

But its not just Trump's assaults on federalism that are calculated to rally his base, his invocations of it are too.

Masks are deeply unpopular with Trump supporters and have become yet another flashpoint in the culture wars. Until recently, Trump was refusing to wear one himself much less use the bully pulpit to encourage their use despite their widely accepted efficacy in stopping the spread of the disease. So when asked why he didn't support a national mask mandate he said he wants to "leave it up to the governors" and that "people need a certain freedom."

This would of course be a perfectly respectable answer—just because something is desirable does not mean it should be imposed!— if Trump weren't simultaneously cracking heads of protesters in violation of their freedoms and strong-arming states to do his bidding on other issues. Under the circumstances, however, it is not just hypocritical but a dangerous mockery of individual freedom and states' rights.

Liberals never had any use for federalism and have always been perfectly willing to deploy federal power to advance their tyranny of good intention. But Trump's brazen and self-serving inconsistency will make it all but impossible for genuine federalists to rely on this principle to push back against such tyranny.

They can blame Trump when the left turns around and accuses them of being mere protectors of white power.

*CORRECTION: Vice President Pence abandoned the run for presidency, contrary to what this line originally suggested.

NEXT: The Missouri A.G. Is Advocating for the McCloskeys' Civil Liberties. What About Lamar Johnson's?

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. Most of conservatism has been distilled to bigotry, backwardness, and childish superstition.

    This is unpleasant but it likely will have the benefit of expediting the resolution of our settled-but-not-yet-over culture war.

    1. conservatism is your windmill.

      1. >conservatives are bad therefore accept Marx as your lord and savior.
        I don’t have too much enmity toward Soros bots. Many are furloughed from their barista jobs, so they have to make ends meet somehow.

        1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work on my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home.SQa Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and Follow instructions on this page…

          ►══════► Online Income Websites

    2. It does appear that conservativism is having a rough time. You have correctly identified Trump Conservatism. Much of standard conservatism is sitting on the sidelines. What interest me is what will post conservative Trump look like. Will conservatives move toward a consistent philosophy and away from identity politics it has drifted towards. Will it reach out to a broader and a younger constituency.

      1. Identity politics have been pretty much forced on Republicans by the progressives, who have been pushing it for 30 years. You know this but choose to ignore it because of your intellectual dishonesty.

        1. Identity politics is the stick of the democrat party

        2. To be fair, “identity politics” in modern times began with the Republicans shift to the south when they made an alliance with racists to win the southern vote and convert fdr democrats

          1. Thanks for this comment. Identity politics was not forced on the Republicans, they took it up. In 2013 an after election report suggested broadening the Party, instead they doubled down.

      2. I’m a social conservative and a political and economic liberal. I see no issue with any of this.

        1. My philosophy is fairly Wilsonian.

      3. “Will conservatives move toward a consistent philosophy and away from identity politics?”

        Outside of a mind stuck on social justice narratives, that doesn’t make any sense, at all.

        1. Leftists Always Project.

          Intersectionality is systemic methodological identity politics.

    3. “Most of conservatism has been distilled to bigotry, backwardness, and childish superstition.”

      Demonstrating once again that Leftists Always Project.

      Now that the Marxists have exposed themselves, the Silent Majority is going to come out and curb stomp them. It’s McGovern all over again.

      Morning in America, coming soon.

      I’m so looking forward to Kirkland’s weeping and gnashing of teeth come November.

    4. Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥Click for full Details

    5. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning 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…………..Join Here

  2. You’re over a century late.

    Federalism disappeared when the Progressives killed it in the late 1800s. The Civil War hadn’t helped matters any. Neither had canal and road building projects.

    1. Federalism has it’s limits. And one of the indisputable limits is when a state refuses to respect the federal rights of it’s citizens. And that is what is happening here. Idiots like Dalmia only recognize the rights of the rioters. It would never occur to her that the people’s whose property are being destroyed and lives are being disrupted have rights too. And the city governments in places like Portland and Chicago are refusing to protect those people’s rights. It is absolutely right and proper for the federal government step and do so where the state and local governments will not.

      Dalmia is of course a thoroughly disgusting person. This, however, might be a new low for even her. Dalmia is claiming in this article that the federal government protecting the property and in some cases lives of American citizens where their state and local governments refuse to do so and meet the most basic standard of governing (maintaining law and order) is “white supremacy”.

      In an odd way this article is incredibly racist. Dalmia seems to think that only white people value law and order and want a stop to rioting and black people see rioting and lawlessness as normal. You really can’t get a more insulting and racist premise than that.

      1. “It is absolutely right and proper for the federal government step and do so where the state and local governments will not.”

        I agree, but is that what is actually happening?

        1. I agree, but is that what is actually happening?

          I would expand John’s statement from just ‘will not’ to ‘will not and conditionally cannot’.

          Between the Mayor and the police the motivation one way or the other is not clear, the active ability is self-evident.

          1. Both Lightfoot and Wheeler should be arrested for civil rights violations.
            It’s beyond absurd

        2. I think so. The mayor is on the side of the rioters. He refuses to enforce law and order and have allowed the rioters to terrorize the city for more than 50 days. You can’t go to the center of Portland after dark safely. The businesses in the center of town can’t operate. The city government is refusing to enforce the law such that chaos has ensued and those people’s rights are being violated. If the local police were even trying to control this and not being told to stand down by the mayor, I would object to the feds showing up. But that is not what is happening.

          1. You didn’t answer my question. Are the feds protecting citizens and private property? My understanding is that they’re going after people who are vandalizing federal buildings, and that’s about it. Fuck everyone else.

            1. That is their first step. Read up on Operation LeGend which does the second part you are asking about.

            2. They are protecting federal property, which they have even more standing to do than protect citizens’ rights.

              In a sane world, Trump would have invoked the insurrection act and used federal forces to put a stop this stuff entirely. But since we don’t live in a sane world, the politics make it impossible for Trump to do that. So, instead Trump is defending federal property and in the process hopefully arresting a good number of the violent idiots and restoring order.

              I think that is entirely legal and proper. To the extent is is bootstraping what should be an invocation of the Insurrection Act on the defense of federal property, well that is only possible because the violent retards in Portland were stupid enough to attack the federal court house. Had they been smart enough to leave the court house and the other federal buildings alone, Trump wouldn’t be able to do that. But, life is really hard when you are stupid.

              1. Is it an insurrection, or a bunch of unemployed people who found something to get angry about?

                I seriously believe that none of these protests, riots, or whatever you want to call them would have happened without the lock down. Working people don’t have time for that shit.

                1. It is an insurrection because the local authorities are on their side and refuse to enforce the law. If the local authorities were not standing down, it would be as you describe it. The problem is the authorities support of it. That is what makes it an insurrection act issue.

                  1. I still disagree. Are the protesters seeking to topple or replace the current government? I suppose some are, but I doubt that applies to the majority. The majority is there because it’s cool and interesting and fun and because they don’t have anyplace better (like a job) to be.

                    1. So they’re just accidental terrorists/traitors

                      Aka useful idiots

                    2. You’re telling me that if you were young and dumb (redundant I know) and unemployed thanks to the lock downs, that you would be staying at home while all the cool kids were going to the protests? C’mon dude. You wouldn’t go and check it out?

                    3. Sure, and if I joined in at the point we’re at now, I’d be an idiot and either an intentional or accidental traitor/terrorist by doing so

                  2. BLM Inc has $1 billion in the bank

                2. I don’t know about none, but I certainly do think the lockdowns are a major contributing factor to the riots and looting. Protests? Lockdowns are a factor, but the root cause of that is the George Floyd matter, which coincided with the pandemic/lockdowns. Pretty much everybody rational agrees it’s been a bad, and in some cases unforeseen and impossible to stop (virus) compilation of events that got us here.

                  1. Lockdowns are a factor, but the root cause of that is the George Floyd matter, which coincided with the pandemic/lockdowns.

                    That’s more than co-inky-dink. There have been callous killings by cops in the past that didn’t get this kind of reaction. What was the difference? People having nothing better to do and being rather pissed off about it.

                    1. You act as if this is organic, because that’s what you want to believe.
                      But the past few years of coordination and psyops makes that unlikely.
                      Everyone agreed Floyd was murdered.
                      The cops were arrested and charged within a week.
                      Everyone was open to police reform.
                      But that wouldn’t get the left what it wants…

                    2. Yes I’m putting forth a counterfactual that cannot be proven. I can’t prove that these protests wouldn’t have occurred, or would have occurred on a much smaller scale, if people hadn’t had their jobs destroyed by the government. But you can’t prove me wrong either.

                    3. No I can’t prove you wrong, but I can present something for you and others to think about

                  2. Bullshit.
                    George Floyd is an excuse.
                    The lockdowns are conditioning.
                    The actual cause is quite different.

                    Why are the Ds, Tech, and Corporate America so desperate to change governments?

                    1. Tough to know for sure either way, but it’s a fair point.

                3. There are people protesting because they are bored and angry. And there are thugs with pretensions to leading the dictatorship of the proletariat. The thugs are burning and destroying but many of the protesters are dumb enough to claim these actions are extreme protesting, not hijacking the cause.

                  I would say that 90% of the people at the protests, and 99% of the people at the protests who actually live in the area, are either protesting or blowing off steam. The people tossing molotov cocktails and lighting buildings on fire, though, do feature a large number of idiots who think they’re leading the revolution. If they have crossed state lines to get to the protests or had people send them supplies from across state lines, the feds ought to be going after them.
                  Would the protests have happened without the lockdowns? Obviously not; there wouldn’t have been enough people for the thugs to lose themselves in. But that would suggest that 1) the lockdowns were having a worse effect on the populace than the pro-lockdown people have been willing to acknowledge and 2) a large part of the protest movement is getting out of the house, not actually supporting the protest leaders’ agenda.

          2. It is funny that the mayors who are enabling this anarchist riots are finding out that the mob doesn’t care for them either. Wheeler went down to one of the “peaceful” protests last night for a “listening session” and was verbally assaulted and nearly physically assaulted. His security team had to force their way through the “peaceful protestors” to evacuate him.

            1. The silver lining to this cloud is that it is going to end badly for Antifa no matter what happens. If Trump, wins, he will no longer have to worry about re-election and will be free to prosecute them on federal charges. If Biden wins, he will not want to be held responsible for the violence and will want Antifa to stop rioting. But Antifa is retarded and won’t do that. They rioted when Obama was President. Biden will have the full cover of the national media to do whatever he wants. If Trump were a Democrat, he could drop napalm on these people and the media either would ignore it or cheer him on. So when Antifa continues to retard under a Biden Presidency, and they will, Biden will stomp them harder than Trump ever dreamed of stomping them.

              So, no matter what happens in the election, the Antifa retards are going to end up dead or in federal prison doing mind boggling sentences. If that thought doesn’t brighten your day, nothing will.

              1. There’s also the unlisted 3rd possibility: if Biden wins he just lets them keep doing it because the left is rabid and honestly just wants mayhem and destruction, as long as it’s directed against the wealthy. If Antifa can keep away from the mayor’s house (big ask, I know) and just keep burning down Targets and Amazon stores, Biden might just let them do it.

                That will result in people taking matters into their own hands, which might be worse for Antifa than any of the alternatives. Federal prison is probably preferable to a bullet to the back of the skull and a shallow grave in flyover country.

                1. That is possible. If that happens, people will start taking matters into their own hands. Also, the resulting backlash would produce a Republican nominee in 24 that would be all of the things Trump isn’t but the left pretends he is and then some. I think it was lap that said, very wisely I think, that this kind of shit (the rioting and such) is not how you get more Trump, it is how you get Pinochet.

                  1. If Trump doesn’t win, it’s either war or submission to leftist totalitarianism.
                    That is the fucking choice.
                    There is no middle ground.
                    We’ve seen this story play out a dozen times over the past century.
                    Wake the fuck up.

                    If Trump wins, the fight continues – but with a chance of victory for those of us who don’t want to submit to a totalitarian one world government.
                    If he loses, that’s it. Game over. Because if the left isn’t then immediately overthrown by a hundred million Americans bearing arms and going all in on a real revolution, the left will establish absolute power within a decade (at the longest).
                    They are not exactly disguising their intent to do so

                    1. If Biden actually gets elected, and makes good on his threat to appoint Beto “Hell Yes I’m Going To Take Your AR” O’Rourke as “Gun Control Czar”, well, I predict things are going to get very spicy very quickly.

                    2. I don’t know.
                      Americans are fat and comfortable. The middle class has stuff to lose.
                      I’m a bit disappointed in how easily we’ve been rolling over.
                      Definitely not living up to our founding fathers thus far.
                      And one day it’s going to be too late. The State is going to knock on your door, take your kid, confiscate your home, and ship you off to camp.
                      Uyghurs is woke USSA

        3. Yes.

          Watch the videos from the independent journalists and not the nightly news media coverage.

          read stories like this one:

          https://www.foxnews.com/media/flag-bearing-marine-veteran-recalls-horrific-experience-within-portland-riots

          1. So now you know what I watch on tv and where I get my news? You are truly clairvoyant. That or an ass who assumes too much.

            1. I read what you write and see you basically passing off the common, top level narratives. Stop pushing common top level media narratives and add some depth to your arguments and I’ll stop assuming that is where your information flows from.

              Yesterday was a great example of your argumentation using only first order talking points being generated in the Media.

              It’s all on you to offer informed opinions deeper than what is the common media narrative.

              1. “Stop pushing common top level media narratives and add some depth to your arguments and I’ll stop assuming that is where your information flows from.”

                Assume all you want. I’ll just continue to point out that you’re an assuming ass. And frankly I don’t care that what I write isn’t up to your high standards. Stick your standards up your ass along with your assumptions. It’s possible to make arguments without being a condescending prick. You should try it sometime.

                1. Man, he really hurt your feelings by assuming you watch the news.

                  1. He gets emotional during hangovers.

        4. I don’t know, what would you call it when the local mayor and governor call for their law enforcement to stand down against “peaceful protesters” while said protesters destroy property, rob businesses and assault people nightly?

          But of course stand up against the violent mob and your fair game for imprisonment for “incitement” by the same LE dictates that aim to give the riotous mob ownership of the city streets.

      2. Guys,

        We’re all libertarians here. Why are we even listening to this Army brat GOP troll? I mean, it’s obvious why he likes federal troops shooting at people. That’s his kind and his bread-and-butter. The rest of us that don’t like our tax tax dollars going to beat on protesters that don’t like police brutality should tell him to go fuck himself. GO FUCK YOURSELF ANF YOUR ARMY GOON ASSHOLES, JOHN

        1. I like John. We disagree all the time and at the end of the day I’d cheerfully buy him a beer. He’s a class act. Can’t say the same for most of the rest of y’all though.

          1. “I act like an asshole, then people aren’t nice to me. It’s not fAiR!”

            I can see why you sympathize with the riotous soys

            1. And people say I’m a drunk…

        2. Yeah, nothing says “libertarian” like mobs of violent retards terrorizing the city of Portland.

          You are a violent piece of shit loser. No one here is listening to you because they are not retarded and understand that burning things down and stealing shit is not a “civil right” no matter how much retards like you wish it were.

        3. “We’re all libertarians here.”

          Except for lying lefty pieces of shit like you.
          Make your family proud and the world a better place: Fuck off and die.

        4. I prefer John over you.

          He’s not a socialist.

        5. I really think there’s something wrong with you. Your handle is American Socialist, spew left-wing nonsense often getting your clock cleaned out like Gerry Cooney and come on a libertarian site and claim to be libertarian?

          You’re sick in the head.

          1. He is for drug decriminalization, abortions on demand and the LGBTQ+ narrative, therefore he thinks he is a libertarian. There are a lot of them on here.

      3. People have a federal right to a graffiti-free courthouse?

        States’ rights is a well-known rallying cry for white supremacists. They don’t care about courthouses, they care that the feds had the audacity to come along and tell them they had to serve blacks at lunch counters and couldn’t lynch them by the thousands. Do you know your own history? Conservatives have never been consistent on state’s rights. Not for one day or one hour. It’s just code.

        1. “People have a federal right to a graffiti-free courthouse?”
          Yes.

          1. So taking actions that guarantee to escalate the problem is…
            a) Dumb
            b) Smart
            c) MAGA

            1. “So taking actions that guarantee to escalate the problem is…”

              A non-sequitur, you fucking pathetic piece of shit.

        2. Yes they do. They have a right to not have their tax money wasted by violent idiots destroying the courthouses they built.

          And the Democrats in the old South did exactly the same kinds of things that the Democrats in Portland are doing today. Antifa is just the new KKK. Back in the day Democratic mayors and police chiefs would refuse to enforce the law and allow the KKK to terrorize blacks and any whites who objected. The response to that was to pass the Klan laws which made it a crime not to enforce the law and to deny people their civil rights. And to send federal troops into places that refused to enforce the law to restore law and order. Today, the mayor of Portland refuses to enforce the law and is allowing Antifa to terrorize the city much like his predecessors in the South allowed the KKK to do so.

          The Democratic Party really hasn’t changed much over the years. They just have different targets now.

          1. You are better than this stupidity, John.

            If all living Democrats are responsible for and equal to long-dead racists who explicitly abandoned the party when Democrats became civil rights champions, then where do we stop? Whose crimes are you responsible for even though you explicitly disavowed them? Anyone who happens to share a name? Any Republican ever? Any white male ever?

            The absurdity of “they called themselve sDemocrats, thuhs KKK derpy derptypptp!” is that the modern Democratic party defines itself as the party that passes civil rights in the 60s and suffered dearly for it thereafter. You people are the ones who made it suffer because you didn’t like that black people were getting rights. Am I supposed to think you’re not being completely 100% disingenuous when you churn up this nonsense?

            Stop regurgitating lame internet trash arguments, John. You people are getting so fucking stupid it’s actually starting to concern me.

            1. Tony, the fact is Antifa is terrorizing the city of Portland and the mayor is refusing to enforce the law and allowing them to do it. That is exactly what the mayors and governors in the old South did with the KKK. The two situations are perfectly analogous. The only difference is the target of the mob violence.

              Now I know you are smart enough to understand that. You just don’t like it and instead try and change the subject and scream a lot. It is persuading no one.

              1. You brought up the KKK John.

                Antifa is not terrorizing anything. They are a boogiemonster being sold by Tucker Carlson in exchange for ratings. And Antifa is not associated with any serious people in major political parties. The people who have the biggest interest in them going away are Democrats.

                And you still haven’t explained why [bad thing A] requires a federal response.

                1. Destroying businesses, attacking cars, following people home, doxing opponents, attacking federal and state property isn’t terrorizing people? Killing a mother because she stated all lives matter isn’t terrorizing people? Hitting someone on the back of the head with a bike lock isn’t terrorizing people? Blocking traffick and using force to exclude people you disagree with isn’t terrorizing people? What the fuck is your definition of terrorizing people then?

            2. Still pushing the disproved (multiple times) talking points about the racists fleeing the Democratic party nonsense, I see. Voting patterns show that the old Democratic racist continued to vote Democrat until they died. But don’t let facts get in the way of your narrative, progressives never do.

              1. Or the fact that the Republican party during the Civil rights movement were the actual champion of civil rights, and the Democrats only changed course (some of them) when Johnson realized he could use it to gain power.

                1. And now every white supremacist is a member of the GOP. What point do you think you’re making? Can I randomly pick a Republican from 100 years ago and blame you for his actions?

                  The very argument that Republicans aren’t racist because at some point in history they were for civil rights is to give away the game. If they weren’t racist now, you could just say that.

                  1. No, not all white supremacists are Republicans. In fact, many have their own party and a good number even identify as socialist. But hey, accuse me of cherry picking while doing you own, great strategy.

              2. So your theory is that despite the Democratic party embracing racial civil rights legislation, all the Southern racists remained with the Democratic party.

                I swear to God if you’re mistaking party registration for ideological affiliation when the whole fucking thing we’re talking about is an ideological split, I’m done. I don’t even think you’re arguing in bad faith, because that would take some level of awareness deeper than the fucking terms people use.

                Yes people don’t tend to rush down and change their party ID on a whim. They tend to be lazy and stick with it for life. But you might have noticed that Democrats started not winning elections in the South after this. So someone was voting differently. You might also have noticed that Republicans are the fucking racists now. Look at their president.

                I realize the fact that your political faction’s primary reason for existing is to mine white racial grievance, and that this is a disturbing reality, but the lame internet trash arguments don’t help anything.

                1. if the KKK Democrats “embraced” civil rights, why did a greater percentage of Republicans vote for the Civil Rights act of 1964?

                  1. I don’t care. In 1964 I wouldn’t be born for another 20 years. I care about what living, breathing politicians are doing right now.

                    “We weren’t racist 50 years ago!” is not a very convincing argument for why you aren’t racist now.

                    1. Who is the biggest racist, the ones who say everyone matters or the ones who make everything about race and call any minority who steps out of line an Uncle Tom or race traitor? Your very myopia on this matter demonstrates your racism.

                    2. Biden was defending southern racists into the 80s.

                    3. By the way tony… which party at the state level just voted to end discrimination based on race? Hint. It happened in california.

                    4. Jesse – they voted to reinstate allowing discrimination based on race, not end it

                2. I am a registered libertarian, but keep up your stupid assuming. Also, they really didn’t start losing elections until 20+ years after the Civil rights movement. That is what I meant by voting patterns dumbfuck. History, study it some time. You will find your canned talking points aren’t quite as sound as you think they are. Read a fucking history book.

                  1. This entire conversation is beneath everyone with a brain stem, but you guys keep bringing it up, as if I’m stupid enough to fall for it.

                    The parties were not so ideologically aligned in the past. They had factions. The people who had a problem with black civil rights, regardless of their party affiliation on paper, were white Southerners. They didn’t stop being racists when they became Republican supporters, because party labels don’t determine what’s in your heart and mind. As if I should have to explain this to a fucking adult.

                    1. Most of the racists didn’t become Republican supporters. You can’t accept that fact. To you the world is good (progressive) and evil (conservatives). That is the whole extent of your ability to critically think.

                    2. Hey dumbfuck, they didnt become Republican, they fucking died off. They stayed democrats for 30 fucking years after the civil rights act you ignorant shit.

                  2. The south didnt turn GOP until the late 90s well after the racist generation Tony references began to die off.

            3. John laid out quite specifically how Wheeler’s actions regarding antifa/BLM are the exact same as Jim Crow era governments’ actions regarding the KKK in the past.

            4. To tony, a civil rights champion is convincing minorities to segregate themselves and to look only at race as a judgement of a person.

      4. In addition to all of that, and you’re spot on, she’s also making the claim that the Federal government refusing to fund local governments is somehow anti-federalist.

        She’s making a claim that not only does the federal government have to kowtow to local governments, they have to fund the local governments while doing it.

  3. This woman has gone off the f’ing ledge; she is no more mentally coherent than Kuckland as she can only recite an echo narrative.

    1. Kuckland is pretty coherent.
      I think you meant Kirkland?

      1. Yes, but Kuck just sounds better when applied to that actual asshole.

  4. This person needs help. I mean I get it shit’s bad right now, but seriously this is just unhinged Reason. It was kind of fun for a couple of years making fun of her in the comments but jesus, get this person help.

    1. I’m afraid you may be right, or perhaps just a bad case of TDS.
      Frankly I don’t see how one argues federalism’s purpose is to maintain white supremacy – this is the NYT’s arguing the US is a racist country to the core, Trump is the KKK grand cyclops, and Biden’s Trump is the first racist to get elected.

      Defending “state autonomony” aparently means allowing governors and mayors to make edicts without the legislature involved and that unconstitutionally constrain our freedoms. One could argue not stopping the riots, telling the police to stand down, that inflict property damage on property owners where insurance doesn’t cover it, denies property owners their right to be protected from criminals. Would state autonomy include allowing police to kneel on the necks of handcuffed suspects, if it’s OK with the state?

      IMHO, Democrats want riots, because it distracts from the fact that most all the problems (police abuse, civil asset forfeiture, policing for profit, corrupt cops, etc.) are due to the Democrat management of their police. And Trump is doing people a favor by helping protect them from rioters and politicians that allow them to run amok. Dalmis calls them “protesters”, which they aren’t if they don’t leave when the violence starts.

  5. The Dotard doesn’t know what federalism is. He just wants to be a top man Putin wannabe.

    1. Excellent point. We’d expect nothing less from someone who has been — as the Mueller Report proved — a Russian intelligence asset since 1987.

      #TrumpRussia

    2. He just wants to be a top man Putin wannabe.

      So I’m guessing you’re more of a bottom?

      1. a super bottom no less

  6. Ms. Dalmia continues to produce the sharpest analysis of the disastrous effects of Orange Hitler’s Presidency. This piece might be her best since the October 2016 classic Trump will torch the Supreme Court. And we’ve seen how accurate that turned out to be!

    #VoteDemocratToProtectFederalism

  7. Here’s the face of federalism right now:

    “The mayor of Portland, Oregon, was tear-gassed by the U.S. government late Wednesday as he stood at a fence guarding a downtown federal courthouse during another night of protests. Demonstrators have clashed repeatedly with federal agents sent in by President Trump to quell ongoing unrest in the city.

    It was the 55th straight night of protests in Portland against police brutality and seeking racial justice. They’ve led to the clashes with the federal officers and to those officers deploying tear gas every night for more than a week, reports CBS Portland affiliate KOIN-TV.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-protest-mayor-ted-wheeler-tear-gas-federal-agents/

    Americans are watching Democrats side with the vandals and the arsonists, and they’re disgusted by it. If anyone is making federalism look bad, here, it’s the progressives.

    1. What damaged federalism in this country was first slavery and then the Jim Crow South’s refusal to respect the rights of it’s black citizens. Mayors siding with arsonists and terrorists at the expense of their own citizens will kill it even further.

      1. And that very well may be by design

    2. Americans are watching Democrats side with the vandals and the arsonists, and they’re disgusted by it.

      Disguested and horrified on both sides. Rightwingers are disgusted seeing a representative of the people, law, and civilized society stand on the side of such lawlessness. Leftwingers are horrified to see him forced to stand with the mob only to get put up against a wall by them.

      1. Please see my comment below.

        I don’t think this is about left wing and right wing.

        Average Democrats oppose racism and police brutality. That doesn’t mean they want their progressive mayor to stand in solidarity with the vandals and arsonists who are burning down their city by the dozens of buildings per month. If you associate the Democratic party with support for rioters in their minds, plenty of swing voters will vote for President Trump in defiance of the rioters, and plenty of registered Democrats in places like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will stay home.

        1. For that reason alone he should not have sent to feds there; let Portland deal with Portland, and maybe the saner residents will decide what is really in their best interest. Not so easy to signal your virtue at the voting booth when assholes are tearing down your city.

          1. I’ve been arguing that elsewhere.

            He probably should have let them see where this is going.

            Of course, sane people could see where this was headed already, but we’re not talking about sane people. We’re talking about the people who lost their jobs because of lock downs and the pandemic.

            Fear is the mind-killer.

            If all the only thing they’ll ever understand is the negative consequences they suffer because of the politicians they’ve chosen, the ideology of the politicians they’ve chosen, and the policies those politicians have chosen, then let them suffer the negative consequences of their choices.

            Why save them from themselves?

            1. You mean fear of federal goons spraying tear gas all over the city so Dear Leader can prove how tough he is? Define your terms, Ken! I don’t know who exactly we are to fear. The group of Moms or the people carrying umbrella so they don’t get shot by rubber bullets.

              1. I believe we are saying the fucking federal goons should not be there in the first place; all they accomplish is to provide propaganda points to assholes like you.

                Much better to let your own home grown antifa goons do that for you.

                1. I see your point, but you absolutely cannot allow a federal courthouse fall to the mob.
                  The propaganda/psychological effect of that would be enormous

                  1. Yes, it would…while the local police totally stand down on direct orders from their mayor.

                    1. Yes, and a lot of people would get that.
                      But the direct sense, what would be felt, would be the marxists conquering Trump’s, and America’s, authority.

              2. “Define your terms, Ken!”

                —-American Socialist

                We’re talking about the people who lost their jobs because of lock downs and the pandemic.

                —-Ken Shultz

                People are afraid of the pandemic and they’re afraid of what will happen to them after they lose their jobs–and it makes them so crazy, they’ll jump on any bandwagon that comes by.

                It also makes crime surge, which is what’s happening everywhere all across the country.

                If you don’t understand what I wrote, it’s because you didn’t want to understand what I wrote.

                1. They also cleared out the prisons (kinda like Assad did in 2013).

                  Attributing all of this to the lockdowns, while glossing over the much bigger and sinister factors, is attributing much too much innocence to the whole shitshow.

                  The is The Black Revolution (if using Soros nomenclature) or The Marxist Spring (or Summer, if using regime change nomenclature).

                  This is not a natural or spontaneous movement.

          2. I am sure though, if he went with that strategy, he would have been blamed for lack of leadership and ignoring the needs of his political opponents. As much as they try to play this up, the federal response has been fairly muted. Tear gas and rubber bullets and a few arrests with the arrestees released in under two hours. Yes, their have been bad optics and even some overuse of force, but overall it could be much worse. From what I’ve read the federal police force stays inside the federal building until the “protestors” start attacking it. Then the tear gas them or use other non-lethal methods to disperse them.

          3. No, sending the feds in has made every one of these gibbering idiots put out statements saying the rioting and violence is fine and they’ve got it under control if not actively siding with the rioting mob.

            Without the feds there is no reason to report anything as that harshes the “peaceful protest” narrative. With the feds they have an OrangeManBad narrative to screech while cities burn and accidental truths like 50+ days of unrest in Portland vs less than a week of fed involvement get put out into the general public.

          4. We absolutely cannot surrender a federal building.
            Remember the 3rd precinct?
            Remember chazchop?

            Conversely, remember Suleimani?

      2. Is it not even possible to denounce looting, vandalusm, and arson while standing for the civil rights of those accused of looting, vandalism, or arson?

        1. I’m not sure it’s possible to stand against vandalism and arson after refusing to lift a finger to stop the vandalism and arson for, what is it, six weeks now? And after you’ve refused to lift a finger to stop the vandalism and arson for six weeks, treating yourself to a photo op with the rioters getting tear gassed probably hurts your anti-vandalism, anti-arson bona fides in the minds of average people.

          1. Well now it’s all the feds fault, you see.

            1. Check the stats below.

              Arson numbers, for instance, exploded long before President Trump sent in the feds.

              1. Optics; since when did “facts” and that white supremacist tactic known as “data” mean anything to that crowd?

                1. Facts still matter to me, and I won’t shut up about them–especially in an election year.

                  I think we should give average people more credit, too. Two weeks before the election in 2016, the American people’s opinion of the news media hit new lows according to Gallup. I suspect we’ll test the lows of 2016 in the coming months.

                  Average people don’t give the media much credit. Just because the media broadcasts a bunch of bullshit like it’s the gospel truth doesn’t mean people believe it.

                  1. People like Tony you mean.

                  2. Bullshit like work emails on a private account is the biggest scandal ever?

                  3. “Facts still matter to me, and I won’t shut up about them–especially in an election year.

                    I think we should give average people more credit, too. Two weeks before the election in 2016, the American people’s opinion of the news media hit new lows according to Gallup. I suspect we’ll test the lows of 2016 in the coming months.”

                    Thank you. I give you shit from time to time about the length and volume of your posts, but truthfully, they’re one of a shrinking number of reasons to continue reading this comments section. I imagine lurkers also get a lot of useful information from them.

                    It’s not always shitposting here.

                    1. Not always shitposting? Come on man. That’s why I come here! LOL!

                2. What are the optics of a marxist mob overrunning a federal building?

                  Whose morale gets a boost from that?
                  Who looks like they’re winning?
                  Whose inspired to take action then?

                  1. Good questions, but how do they play out in an election year?

                    As for now the MSM is running with the very presence of “federal troops” maintaining a “virtual occupation” of Portland. And hitting a mom with a bean bag.

                    I think to destruction of a federal building by a leftist mob would make an excellent impression.

                    1. I think it would encourage the wrong people, and discourage the right people.
                      It would be a blow that would cause some to give up.
                      Especially when one thinks about the prospect of voting and potential to be harmed while doing so.
                      If they couldn’t/wouldn’t protect a fortified position, a prestigious federal building, what hope can you have that they’ll protect you going to the polls?

                    2. I think only the devout are really buying into the “Federal crackdown” narrative.
                      We can see what’s going on.
                      No sane person thinks Trump and the feds have been anything but passive do far.

                      I don’t think their narrative has much legs. If more people were buying it, would the press be getting more and more shrill? I think its already running out of steam

                    3. “but how do they play out in an election year?”

                      They play out that both: the West Coast is absolutely batshit insane, and, Trump is an impotent little bitch because he can’t deal with a bunch of pink-haired, dirt-eating, hippie freaks.

                      Beyond that, and speaking personally, the thought of a bunch of Antifa storming and burning out a federal courthouse, fills me with rage. Doubt I’m alone. Along with that, eventually, some group is going to decide that if the cops or Feds won’t stop this tantrum, we will.

                      It doesn’t get better after that. So, I like it when the Feds arrest those they’ve PC for committing this and that federal crime.

                    4. Nardz’s got a point about the polling places and safety. Have we already forgotten the Black Panthers staging in front of several polling places in 2016? Think a similar thing can’t happen with the same freaks lasing, bike-locking, and concrete milkshaking over the last year or so?

          2. Additionally, and this was kinda my point, even if you’re politically/thematically aligned with the arsonists, only an absolute sociopath stares, deadpan, right past any and all arson victims’ rights and says “Can’t you oppose the arson while supporting the arsonists’ rights?”

            Even if you fully support defunding police and equality of policing lighting things on fire is not how you defund the police or get equality of policing. Democrats and Republicans may not agree about any given arson, but months of nightly arson? You’re going to generate pretty bipartisan opposition to months of arson and pretty sociopathic support of it.

        2. Is it not even possible to denounce looting, vandalusm, and arson while standing for the civil rights of those accused of looting, vandalism, or arson?

          What civil rights? There is no civil right to steal and commit arson. The only civil rights they have is the right to a fair trial after they have been arrested for their crimes. If the feds are denying people fair trails, I have not heard of it. And I certainly haven’t seen the mayor mention it. The mayor seems to be standing up for their riot to commit crimes and destroy property. And that is not standing up for anyone’s civil rights.

          1. Civil rights like not bring deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

        3. Do the arson victims have a right not to have their shit set on fire in the first place or do we just assume that’s out the window and play the ‘both sides’ game in favor of people who obviously give zero shits about any side except their own?

          Fuck you and your false equivalency.

          1. People accused of arson are entitled to due process.

    3. I suppose we should revisit yesterday’s statistics from Portland.

      June 2019 Arson in Portland = 15.
      June 2020 Arson in Portland = 57, a 280% increase.

      https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/71978

      That surge in arson happened before President Trump ordered Homeland Security into Portland. Fair or not, the progressives appear to be standing with the arsonists and the rioters in Portland, and it’s an ugly, ugly spectacle to behold. If you can’t depend on local government to oppose the forces of arson and violence, I suppose you logically turn to the federal government.

      When the victims of Katrina congregated in the Superdome, it didn’t matter whether no one in the Louisiana government or the government of New Orleans had formally asked for help, George W. Bush was expected by most Americans to send the feds in to help. Obama was never so unpopular as when he sat on his hands and breathed through his nose while the Gulf oil spill kept pumping oil into the Gulf of Mexico. And as the election approaches, it becomes increasingly unacceptable for President Trump not to act in an election year.

      If you blame President Trump for things that were happening before he sent in the feds, you can’t also criticize him for taking on the responsibility. Were you planning to commend him for his lack of a response when he was doing nothing?

      1. P.S. The statistics for July won’t be released until the end of July.

      2. My progressive sister in law has fled the People’s Republic of Portland. She used to work at a popular restaurant there, owned by a fairly progressive couple. It was burned to the ground in June. Just as an aside my SIL is a bit of a cliche, had a B.S. in analytical chemistry and quite chemistry to work as a waitress.

      3. Can Portland be said to even have a legitimate government anymore?

  8. >SHIKHA DALMIA
    into the trash it goes.

    1. Don’t pollute the trash!

  9. This essay brought to you by the harpy squad. Shrieking loudly for decades.

  10. Decent article until the last sentence. That was lame.

    1. I was going to reply but then you are sarcasmic…

    2. The first sentence is literally off the rails:

      The left has long regarded federalism as a total sham whose real purpose, since slavery, has been to maintain white dominance, not limit federal power over states. And President Donald Trump—aided by his administration’s enablers—is doing everything in his power to prove leftists right.

      This is what you call decent. Says a lot about you.

      1. Yeah, you’re right. It says I must have breezed over that when I skimmed the article, and then commented on the last sentence. Shame on me for not reading as carefully as you. Ass.

        1. Do you ever use critical thinking skills or just automatically blame everything on Trump and the Republicans?

          1. BTW you are getting as bad as DoL, TheRev, Buttplug and Tulpa. Keep up the good work.

          2. Did you read the article? It was about the federal government telling states what to do, which isn’t what federalism is about. It included examples from presidents other than Trump. He just happens to be the current president, so there were more examples specific to him. Are you telling me that federalism is alive and well? That it hasn’t taken a hit since the reaction to the virus? I think the overarching theme of the article was spot on. Would you be reacting this way if a Democrat was in power and acting in a similar manner? Dude…

            1. No, Trump is telling the states what to do, he is ordering federal police to protect federal property. That is completely allowed under federalism. But don’t use critical thinking, just keep nodding your head to Reason’s talking points. And BTW, your version of sarcasm isn’t very intellectual, just predictable trope. I can usually fully predict what you are going to say, before you ever say anything. Defend Reason, support anarchist rioters, blame Trump and the Republicans. It is almost like you are a poorly written algorithm. Face it, you are the Tulpa of left leaning libertarians. And just as original. Also, I rarely ever see you use your version of sarcasm against DoL, Tony, AmerSoc, TheRev etc. In fact, you usually rush to defend them or support them (with the exception of TheRev). You aren’t nearly as unpartisan as you would like to believe. You are not nearly as intellectually honest as you like to believe. You are not original, nor critical of anyone but the right in most cases. I am pretty certain if Trump decriminalised marijuana and granted mass amnesty to every drug offender tomorrow, you would find a way to ridicule it and demonize him for it.

              1. Whatever dude. I defend Reason when appropriate, I’ve never supported rioters, I do blame Trump in that I don’t support his trade war or immigration policies but that’s about it, and I don’t rush to defend anyone. Either the impostor really got to you or you’re reading things into my comments that aren’t there. I used to think you were above this petty personal crap. Guess I was wrong.

                1. No, I am sick of the false narratives being bandied about. We can disagree with Trump’s actions without all the fucking hyperbole. Shikha has almost never written a fucking piece without copious amounts of hyperbole. And for not rushing to defend these people, it sure looks lately like you are. We can disagree with the arrests made last week, but labeling them secret police was pure hyperbole. Reason is no longer offering much in the way of nuanced, factual reporting. And if you don’t like my assertions, feel free to prove me wrong. I am always glad to admit my mistakes.

                  1. I agree that Reason has swung left since the inhabitants of the White House swung right. I’m sure it will swing back the other way like a ballsack when the other party gains power.

                    And I agree that Shikha is prone to hyperbole.

                    But her overall point isn’t wrong. Take away her snipes on Trump and look at the big picture. She’s not that far off.

                    1. No, she isn’t completely, but her invoking of Trump undermines her credibility. And I will offer a bit of meat culpa, you did defend John above from AmSoc.

                    2. You got me. I like John and I suppose I did rush to defend him. I’d do the same for you. If you don’t like it then tough titties.

                  2. And I intentionally use hyperbole to make a point sometimes. Sorry if it offends you. By now you should be able to tell when I’m being serious and when I’m going over the top to try to get people to think. You’re no dummy.

                    1. I am just sick of it all lately. The pure vitriol and lack of intellectual honesty, nuance and factual reporting just makes me sick.

                    2. No disagreement here. And it’s from both sides. It’s gotten so stupid that for the most part I just stand back and watch. And oil my guns of course.

                2. You spent weeks coming into threads yelling strawman arguments that you thought were right wing counterpoints. Lol.

                  Man, cant you even be honest once.

        2. Sara, when Jesse pointed out the first sentence, you could’ve easily just said: “I just skimmed the article and didn’t really process the first sentence, which I guess is pretty bad”.
          That seems to be what you were saying with your extremely defensive reply.
          It’s that defensiveness and compulsion to bitch about us, Trump, Rs, whatever regardless of context that has severely diminished your credibility

  11. Judge orders release of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen by Friday, saying book publication restriction was ‘retaliatory’

    The Dotard tried to hold Cohen in his gulag. Trump’s political prisoners have some hope.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/michael-cohen-judge-orders-former-trump-lawyers-release-from-prison.html

    1. Holding someone convicted, by a jury of his peers, in prison is your idea of a gulag. Just fuck off already with that pinheaded analysis.

      1. Cohen had been put in solitary confinement, you fascist.

        1. I can disagree with him being placed in solitary confinement (which should be abolished) while differentiating with the idea of him going back to prison for breaking the agreed upon rules of his furlough. What exactly is your definition of fascist, anyone who disagrees with your talking points?

          1. What exactly is your definition of fascist, anyone who disagrees with your talking points?

            Isn’t that pretty much the working definition of “fascist” these days?

          2. Why was he in solitary? Was it for his safety?

            Where’s he being held? Club Fed, or a garden spot like Marion or Florence?

    2. He violated his furlough and was punished. Not seeing the problem here. Oh yeah, your insistent need to be stupid and partisan.

  12. no escaping accusations by the left that states’ rights are merely a ruse to protect white power.

    Or, “how to go off the rails in one sentence”.

  13. Thanks to him, there will be no escaping accusations by the left that states’ rights are merely a ruse to protect white power.

    Ah, so *Trump’s* actions were the tippinng point? Not Obama’s ‘I’ve got a pen and a phone’? Not Bush Jr? Not Clinton? Not any of the Congresses across the previous several decades? Over 20 years of President’s and Congress pushing to take power over things that are rightly the domain of the states but its Trump that pushed us past the point of no return.

    It wasn’t things like Congress passing a bill mandating ‘no evictions’ during this current pandemic? No, they had nothing to do with this, it was all Trump.

    What a maroon.

    1. No, they had nothing to do with this, it was all Trump.

      It’s always all Trump, these days.

      What a maroon.

      No! Orange!

      😉

  14. What other local problems do you former states’ rights libertarians think un-uniformed federal goons ought to involve themselves with?

    What about coronavirus? Or is the only problem worth paying attention to when black lives activists get a little too active? Talk about consistency in conservative politics. Godzilla could be turning whole cities into rubble, and still you guys would be arguing for leaving it to the local authorities, because after all, there’s real problems afoot: a black guy across the street looked at your wife funny.

    Fear of the slave, of the uppity black man, is so culturally ingrained with you people it seems to manifest itself without you even trying, like it’s genetic.

    1. Ok I get it now; YOU’RE SHIKHA! It’s really you!

    2. Tony, you can’t go out and burn shit down and steal things. It is really that simple.

      1. RACIST!

      2. Except the federal goons aren’t stopping the Skinny Jean Army from burning shit down. They’re only stopping them from burning federal buildings down.

        1. Which is apparently a violation of federalism, somehow.

          You see, the local government is fine with them burning down the federal building, so unless the feds just blindly go along with that they’re not respecting federalism and they’re also white supremacists.

        2. This is one of the problems with people being so fucking dumb.

          Do you like vandalism?
          No, I’m not too keen on vandalism.
          So should jackbooted federal thugs helicopter in to collectively punish a bunch of the president’s favorite political opponents in response to the vandalism? Almost as if it were a pretext?
          Well, I guess vandalism is bad, so bad guys bad?
          Yes, bad guys bad. What if we just nuked Portland?
          Well, you know, seems kinda extreme, but bad guys bad. Can’t argue with that.
          Is the president of the United States, clearly assaulting black lives activists based on a political vendetta while making a hash of a pandemic response, clearly shitting on the constitution to distract from his failure and get a rise out of the worse people in America in time for election day, a bad guy?
          Well I wish he wouldn’t tweet so much.

          1. “So should jackbooted federal thugs helicopter in to collectively punish a bunch of the president’s favorite political opponents in response to the vandalism? Almost as if it were a pretext?”

            Do you ever post without lying?

          2. Why don’t you go down there and ask them nicely to stop burning shit down? You seem to have a lot of faith that they’ll respond to things other than violence, why not test your theory?

            1. The evidence suggests that the best way to end the riots is to let them die down naturally, which is exactly what was already happening. Trump’s actions have, completely predictably, only given them more things to protest about.

              You get that part right?

              Next perhaps you can work out why Trump would send his goons as protests were dying down naturally. What could be his motivation for deliberately escalating what he considers a national emergency?

              1. Enforcing the law results in temper tantrums, so we just shouldn’t enforce the law. Got it.

                50+ days is it dying down naturally?

                1. 50 days of what? People expressing political opinions in the street? The most American thing there is?

                  1. Right, the windows got boarded up after the first night of “protests” because of how peaceful they were. Everyone was singing Kumbaya until Trump showed up.

              2. 55 straight days of riots are “dying down.” Lol. The fucking ignorance.

              3. “The evidence suggests that the best way to end the riots is to let them die down naturally, which is exactly what was already happening.”

                And yet, you didn’t cite any.

          3. This is one of the problems with people being so fucking dumb.

            We keep trying to educate you, but I swear it’s like trying to teach physics to a goat.

            “Force equals mass times acceleration… Billy! Stop chewing on that tin can!”

      3. Burning shit down and stealing things is the responsibility of the president of the united states and his unidentified federal goon squad?

        1. “Burning shit down and stealing things is the responsibility of the president of the united states and his unidentified federal goon squad?”

          At least as much as segregation:
          “Little Rock Nine”
          https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/central-high-school-integration

        2. It’s not if you believe in states’ rights. But I don’t want anyone to accuse me of dog whistle racism. So Trump is totes cool on this. And Trump is as horrible on this as he is on everything.

          Is that your point? It’s hard to tell; you seem kinda schizophrenic on this one.

          1. Since it’s not happening in my city, and since I don’t have a rich and deep fear of black people having rights, I’m mostly in it for the popcorn.

            Is Trump doing a practice run for when he refuses to leave office after the election? Tune in next time!

            If libertarians can see fascism in a goddamn college newspaper article about trans people, but can’t see fascism when it comes in the form of actual jackbooted federal thugs, then what’s even the point of them except to point and laugh?

            1. This is what I don’t get about you: tell me why I should hate Trump for the right reasons.

              Trump’s idea of trade war is completely stupid.
              Trump is not a Russian spy.

              Trump’s immigration policies are counter productive.
              No one cares about phone calls to the Ukraine.

              I’m certain that Trump will accept his election defeat just as gracefully as democrats accepted his presidency, and I think we can all agree on that without an ounce of hypocrisy.

              BTW, if this was the KKK protesting, you’d be all for Civil War 2. It’s implicit. Don’t pretend that it’s not.

              1. You know what assumptions make you. I cut my young political teeth on first amendment cases like Skokie. It’s always been a grounding principle. I agree that defending the rights of people you disagree with or even hate is difficult, but I do happen to positively believe in staying in the right frame of mind to do just that. Modern democratic civilization is a fragile thing requiring a higher level of citizen engagement than your average thugocracy.

                Admittedly when I bring my popcorn bowl over to Reason come January 20th, I will be amusing myself with what I assume will be endless comments about how Trump barricading himself in the White House with a white supremacist militia guarding the doors is all perfectly fine and not a crisis at all because, after all, some liberal college student wanted to use the wrong bathroom somewhere.

                1. If you want to talk about having the wrong priorities…

                  I’m sure that is as likely to happen, down to every detail, as every other prediction democrats have made about Trump in the last 5 years.

                2. Anyway, Skokie was like a decade before you were born. How does a millennial from the creek reservation cut his teeth on that one?

                  1. A good civics teacher.

                    I’ve been dismayed by modern progressive theories that, by all appearances, would see Skokie as a miscarriage of justice, but you’d have to ask them.

                    But right now the government is run by the actual KKK, so we have other fish to fry.

                    1. See there you go again: you lost an election so the KKK runs the country.

                      Are you trying to avoid getting taken seriously?

                      Anyway, if you a real 1A guy would support the ACLU on Citizens United.

                    2. I’m just as surprised as you that such an overt white supremacist ally is president, but he is.

                      Some people think that’s almost as bad as a college student spraypainting a courthouse somewhere.

                    3. Yes, and a Russian spy, too.

                    4. Tony, the only people calling for segregation among the races is Democrats

                    5. Jesse, if Democrats are the only true racists, why do black people almost universally vote for them?

                      If Republicans are so race-neutral, why are they almost exclusively white?

        3. Well, grammatically speaking, you’re asking whether or not Trump and his goon squad should be the actual people to come in and burn shit down and steal things. But everyone hates a grammar cop and I know that’s not what you meant.

          So, who/what, in your opinion, is responsible for preventing other people from burning shit down and stealing things?

          1. Local law enforcement, usually. Before you say anything, if the local government chooses to be lenient on criminals for whatever reason, I don’t think the federal government should pop in and correct their behavior. At least I don’t think libertarians should believe this. Perhaps the president doesn’t know a city and its particular issues well enough to make an informed decision, see. Of course perish the thought that this is all fascist theater by a president depressed that he’s about to lose an election.

            Now, the feds do have jurisdiction on federal property. But clearly that does not extend to blocks away from the federal property, and it does not justify the assault and kidnapping of American citizens regardless.

            1. They were not kidnapped they were arrested in connection to the assault on federal property. Learn the fucking difference.

              1. They did not read rights, the goons had no probable cause, and they released their victims after the theater was over, and are now being sued.

                1. Whenever cops have grabbed me or put fancy bracelets on me, they’ve never read me my rights. Not once.

                  When I was arrested the charge was specifically mentioned. “I’m placing you under arrest for…” as required by law.

                  But reading of rights? Never happened.

                  1. I can’t for the life of me understand why people who see evil fascist government oppression under every rock all of a sudden lose their ability to sense and think when federal goons are kidnapping people off the street as an obvious intimidation tactic. It all smells pretty goddamn partisan to me.

                    Miranda rights only matter if your case is going to trial and they want to use your statements against you. And if it’s a DUI, my understanding is that you don’t have Miranda rights at all, for some reason.

                    1. I dunno. Base upon what I’ve seen I’m coming around towards accepting the “We were just questioning people we thought were connected with vandalism of federal property” narrative.

                      Nobody was beaten. Nobody was tortured. Some quick snatch, drive to someplace safe, question, and release.

                      That’s it.

                    2. It’ll all come out in court.

                      I would like to see how many here would still be defending the government thugs even if they did waterboard their kidnapees. Do you think it would be 100%? 95%?

                    3. Depends. Is the president a Republican or a Democrat?

                2. They don’t have to read you your rights to detain you, only to place you under arrest. They can detain you for up to 24 hours without charging you with anything.

                  That’s bad in general and should be changed. Are these Antifa goons the sympathetic victim that is going to get it changed? Nope.

            2. I don’t need your permission to say anything. But since the local LEOs are not (IMO) doing a very effective job in Portland right now, how can this be remedied? You don’t want it to be the feds. But you also then qualify that with you don’t think libertarians should want the feds to come in. So which is it? What do YOU think? I don’t care what you think other people think. I’d like to know what YOU think.

              1. I try not to have strong opinions. That’s perhaps why I engage in the unfortunate habit of pointing out when libertarians are being monstrous hypocrites.

                Local cops aren’t doing their job? Why jump to “send in the feds”? I thought we liked it when local cops toned down their thuggery a little.

                Also, they’re acting under orders from the local democratically accountable government. It’s a real problem when the president of the US decides he knows better how to deal with a local jurisdiction matter than the locals do, don’t you think?

                1. Who should prevent the rioting/looting if the local LEO’s aren’t doing it?

                  1. Maybe nobody. The local democratically accountable political leaders chose a hands-off approach. And maybe that’s the best approach. These things die down naturally, and using force against them tends to escalate things. It tends to be itself an escalation.

                    Of course not being a major or councilor in these towns, it’s not my place to tell them how to enforce local law. Not that people shouldn’t feel free to give their 2 cents on the matter, but I wouldn’t expect libertarians to immediately jump to “Override the local officials with un-identified federal goons who are indistinguishable from rightwing militias and escalate the matter for no good reason.”

                    1. So nobody should prevent crime from happening in this situation? Is that actual your stance? The people whose property and businesses have been harmed by this don’t matter? Do you think after this “dies down naturally” that the people responsible for the rioting/looting/damage will be held responsible and will be forced to make reparations for the damage they have done? I tend to think that the taxpayers of Portland, Washington County, Oregon State and the US will have to pay to repair all of the damage being done, and probably not the individuals who are committing these crimes, but we shall see on that front.

                      If PDX police won’t protect private property and business owners in their own city, then next in line is Washington County LEOs, followed by Oregon State LEOs, followed by some level of federal LEOs. Doing nothing is not how we, as a rational and law abiding society, deal with individuals who break the law. We hold them accountable and responsible, and it’s perfectly reasonable for law abiding citizens to expect that the law enforcement agencies they are paying for will protect and serve them.

                    2. I’m not a policy expert on this matter, but I do suspect that the president’s reelection campaign theatrics of Law and Order in the face of brown heathens, using the full force of federal goon squads, is probably not the most prudent course of action.

                      You’re the one who has to defend all of a sudden being totally supportive of federal usurpation of local will for this specific instance of lawbreaking. Windows get smashed all the time. Why send them in now, just at the time and place political differences are at their most fraught? Just a coincidence?

                  2. His solution up thread was “just let it die out on it’s own”.

                    Which is indeed very easy to say when it’s not your store or home being burned down.

                    1. If the alternative is inflame the riots more so more property gets destroyed (the Trump plan), or suspending the constitution, rounding up hundreds of protesters, and throwing them in a cage, I might actually be cool with waiting it out. You?

            3. “…if the local government chooses to be lenient on criminals for whatever reason, I don’t think the federal government should pop in and correct their behavior.”

              Of course, you slimy piece of shit.
              “Little Rock Nine”
              https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/central-high-school-integration

            4. And here’s where Tony voices support for lynch mobs

          2. Law enforcement generally doesn’t prevent crimes. They investigate (when they feel like it), but other than “Hey, there’s a cop! I’m not going to do this because of the police presence!” they don’t actively prevent crime. As a general rule. I’m sure there are some lawyerly people out there who look for absolute statements and try to find an exception just to be dicks, so I’m trying to head that one off at the pass.

            The BoA recognizes the right to peacefully assemble. Riots don’t fit that description. Still… that doesn’t give the cops the power to run roughshod and attack anyone nearby. In my opinion.

            Now cue the slew of morons who will interpret that to mean I support arson and vandalism.

            1. They prevent crimes in the sense that they exist, and there’s a possibility they can catch you even if they’re not right behind you while you commit the crime. You really fear prison or some other punishment, but the police are the first step in punishment for criminal behavior.

              Now, if they’ve been publicly and explicitly ordered to cease enforcing the law, that deterrent effect no longer exists.

            2. They can prevent crime when retarded protesters show up at the same federal building for 55 straight days and try to burn it down. Not hard to figure out. Even Tony could figure that out. Ok, well maybe…

      4. Damn, John. It really is just that simple, isn’t it?

    3. What about coronavirus? Or is the only problem worth paying attention to when black lives activists get a little too active?

      I thought the coronavirus response was 174% Trump.

      1. Yeah and aren’t we all here pretending that our priorities reflect some measure of rationality and aren’t simply cherry picked to ignore the president’s failures and find whatever scrap we can that Democrats can be plausibly blamed for?

        1. Just about everyone but you. You ignore your sides violence, or blow it off as no big deal or a few isolated incidents, while trying to imply all Republicans are racist because a few racists identify as Republican. You realize you are the most guilty for what you are accusing others of?

          1. I guess it’s not my place to tell you what your priorities are. Crime has gone up in cities lately. It’s probably a combination of the Floyd protests and the unprecedented global pandemic and a sudden crash of economic conditions, but who can say? Really, cities were enjoying remarkably low crime rates historically speaking, so in normal times this would be seen as a small reversal of that trend.

            You and I see racism as two different things, and it cuts to the heart of the inability of both sides to talk to each other rather than past each other. I don’t care what’s in an individual person’s heart with respect to race. No amount of hectoring will likely change his mind, and as long as he doesn’t have power over any racial minorities, it’s not an issue.

            The problem is, exclusively, racist institutions and policies. Building an ineffective border wall just to signal hatred of brown Mexicans is bad enough. Policies that keep them in cages indefinitely, that take away their rights, that brutalize them en masse. Those are a problem. A problem you give ten million times less a shit about than some college liberal spray painting a government building.

            Racism is prison being filled with brown people, not because brown people commit more crimes, but because what we define as crimes are things brown people do more of.

            It’s about institutions and policies, not you. I realize white guys struggle mightily and complain like screeching harpies whenever they are not the center of attention for five minutes, but it’s just not about what’s in your heart. It’s about the power your allies have to harm others.

            1. I appreciate that you “guess” it’s not your place to decide what other people’s priorities are.

              BTW – the Floyd protests are peaceful, hence not causing a rise in crime.

            2. The problem is, exclusively, racist institutions and policies.

              This is why you’re an idiot. There are but a handful of examples such as crack vs cocaine sentencing. Oddly enough the higher sentencing for crack and heroin was asked for by inner city leaders who were often minorities.

              You have an ignorance of how life’s choices effect ones success. You dont believe in individualism. You dont believe someone is a summation of their individual choices. So if two people dont end up equally as successful you blame society instead of the individuals.

              You’re basically spouting CRITICAL theory.

              Which makes you an idiot.

              1. Okay so if society is not in fact set up in a way that punishes people for being black, how do you explain lower average social outcome metrics for black people?

                Go on, explain it thoroughly.

                1. Okay so if society is not in fact set up in a way that punishes people for being black, how do you explain lower average social outcome metrics for black people?

                  Great question. See answer below.

                  High rates of illegitimate births (well north of 70%)
                  No father in the home, and few male role models in their area
                  Shit public schools, and few alternatives to utilize (like charters)
                  Moral and cultural decay (in America, not just with blacks)

          2. Tony is a wonderful resource for insight into, or examples of, the progressive mind.

    4. Fear of the slave, of the uppity black man, is so culturally ingrained with you people it seems to manifest itself without you even trying, like it’s genetic.

      Uppity black man.

    5. a black guy across the street looked at your wife funny

      Now I get it! You’re jealous they don’t pay attention to you. You’re trying so hard by supporting BLM and Antifa because you want them to fuck you.

      Sorry about your luck with the black dudes Tony. It really is too bad that there isn’t enough dick out there to fill that hole in your soul and that you have come here to project your inadequacies on others.

    6. Attacking federal property is a local matter? I guess when the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, it was only a local matter.

    7. Also note you are the only one mentioning race, and 99% of the rioters in Portland, a fairly Lilly white City,are white. And these same peaceful protestors attacked a black veteran last night.

      1. Democrats have never stopped being about race.

  15. “Thanks to him, there will be no escaping accusations by the left that states’ rights are merely a ruse to protect white power.”

    Seriously Reason? Seriously?

    I don’t even read her screeds. I just come for the comments.

    1. The comments pretty well cover the screeds.

    2. My question for her is: minus this act of Trump’s, would the left gave stopped using that epitaph? If not than their is no logic behind her statement or her entire thesis.

  16. So, calling for the mandating masks federally at the insistence of governors that otherwise insist on their independence from Trump isn’t having the cake while eating it?

    1. If you can describe preventing mass death as “having cake.”

      1. Can you ever post without lying, shitstain?

      2. What’s the current death rate of Coronavirus?

      3. Ah, I see. So states rights are sacrosanct unless some states do something that you personally don’t like.

  17. The author wrote, “Yet when Trump invoked it, Vice President Mike Pence, a religious conservative who built his own failed run for the presidency in 2016 . . . ”

    Mike Pence didn’t run for President in 2016. You would think that a person writing about American politics would have some idea what he or she is writing about. This is pretty simple and causes me to question the validity of an article I already found questionable for its speculations as to motives. Do better next time, Reason. You are usually better than this.

    1. No, they really aren’t. Especially or at least, with Shikha. Her writing is sub-par garbage for anything regarding legitimate blogging and makes Alex Jones look like a reputable, stand-up guy.

      1. Her writing is sub-par garbage for anything regarding legitimate blogging and makes JOSEF GOEBBELS look like a reputable, stand-up guy.

        Fixed that for you.

  18. I’m sorry, but selectively liking/disliking states rights is a both sides thing.

    1. And it still confuses me how defending federal property with federal law enforcement is an infringement on state rights?

    2. Hint: When anyone else, even partisans, say, “both sides” they mean “both sides engage in this guilty practice roughly equally.” When Reason says, “both sides” they mean “Progressives are engaged in this guilty practice and Conservatives should be assumed guilty because we say so.”

      This is why, when implicating Conservatives, they *never* say “both sides” and, when implicating Progressives, they say “both sides” selectively when it can passibly make progressives look equivalent. The exact way you would expect someone who doesn’t actually believe the “both sides” narrative, like progressives parading as a libertarian, to do.

      1. I resolve this dilemma by believing in individual rights.

      2. Except conservatives are the ones being abject hypocrites on the matter right now, and progressives never really gave much importance to the concept of state autonomy.

        Progressives think who has jurisdiction over a problem should be a practical and rational matter. They don’t feel that states’ rights is inherently good or bad.

        Next time, if you don’t want to be called a hypocrite, don’t spend your entire life defending a principle only to discard it the moment a fat orange president sees his poll numbers dip.

        1. You still haven’t answered my above question, how is using federal law enforcement to protect federal property antithesis to federalism? Also, who is the biggest racists, those who must make everything about race (yours side) or the ones advocating to defend federal property from destruction by mostly white rioters?

          1. White rioters who attacked a black man last night because he disagreed with them and had the audacity to wave an American flag, I should add.

            1. Progressive activists can get a little crazy. I’m certainly not the one to deny that.

              Meanwhile they have no political power beyond street theater, and the president of the united states is botching a goddamn pandemic that’s killed hundreds of thousands and he’s sending in illegal goon squads to make his dick look bigger.

              I’m suggesting you’re focusing on the small problems instead of the large ones, and you’re doing it to advantage a political party. Make no mistake, there are no libertarians here.

              1. They have plenty of political power, why else would the Seattle Mayor have allowed the formation of CHAZ/CHOP and why else would the Portland Mayor pull the police back while the rioters burned, destroyed, private , public and federal property, while assaulting private citizens and following city employees home and doxxing them? You are so myopic it hurts.

                1. You are caring about things Tucker Carlson is instructing you to care about. If you don’t live in Seattle or Portland, why care at all? What larger problem do you think these protests portend? What futurecrime are you worried about coming to a town near you?

                  I get that you actually believe that civilization is under threat from these BLM protests. I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith. I just think you need to consult more objective sources before you worry yourself unnecessarily.

                  Also civilization is actually in peril due to the global pandemic.

                  1. Since I haven’t watched Fox News in over five years, your talking point about Tucker Carlson is just laughable. As is your continued insisyence that this is only a local matter when we see violence being played out across the country by these groups and noted, high ranking officials, giving them cover and even trying to pass legislation at all levels of government in support of their cause. You refuse to answer my questions or address what I actually have stated while just offering rehashed talking points (which aren’t even reality based). Weren’t you on here a few years back warning about the evils of the Tea Party movement? My how your tone changes when it is your side doing much worse than the Tea Party ever did.

                  2. Also civilization is actually in peril due to the global pandemic.

                    After the pharma/biotech industry develops a vaccine (many candidates are already in Phase II trials), the virus is conquered, and civilization recovers fairly quickly, I’ll remember this one. This isn’t like WWII, when civilization did mess around with its own peril, but still found a way to recover.

                    1. Damn italics tag fail

                    2. Fair enough, but I’m sure we agree that if a global pandemic is not too big of a deal, neither is some spraypaint on a courthouse.

                    3. Spray paint on a courthouse isn’t a big deal to me either. Burning down buildings, looting business, rioting and destroying property, however, are a big deal to me. Stop being obtuse. You know more than just spray painting is going on here. Stop with the nonsense. You’re embarrassing yourself.

                    4. None of that is as much of a threat to civilization as a global pandemic.

                      I feel comfortable with this claim.

                    5. I feel extremely comfortable in my belief that this COVID-19 pandemic will not destroy civilization. Science and technology will develop a vaccine. Neither will the rioting/looting that is happening now destroy civilization. Humanity has been through far worse and civilization has survived and improved.

                      As for pandemics that might come along later, I cannot be sure of the magnitude of the threat, and neither can you. Someday, all the people who claim the world is going to end in 5 years, 10 years, whatever it is, will be correct and nobody will be around to give a shit that they were right.

                    6. I hope it doesn’t destroy civilization, obviously. Evidence from other better-run countries suggests it’s quite manageable.

                      It’s just that pandemics tend to be the sort of things that do destroy civilizations, not so much street protests.

                    7. I am certain civilization will not be destroyed by this current pandemic. Vaccines will be developed because scientists, engineers and clinicians are working very hard on many approaches to deliver vaccines. It is possible that they could be delivered as early as December. I tend to think that’s overly optimistic, but Pfizer is already manufacturing their vaccine at risk. Preliminary results are looking very positive (especially for mRNA vaccines). You can read more about that here:

                      https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/

                      Also, there is mounting evidence that the actual infection rate is as much as 10x (or more) the known infection rate, based on seropositive antibody and blood T-cell testing. Humanity is indeed less susceptible to this diseases than might be projected based on CFR alone (which is what we know best, but is not IFR). COVID-19 is not the flu, it’s worse and more dangerous than that. And most certainly there are at risk populations who need to be kept out of harms way. But it’s not going to kill us all. That’s a truth we already know. There is also evidence that some members of the population may already have COVID-19 immunity from cross reactivity with other SARS and Corona viruses in the past that display a very similar protein epitope to COVID-19. These pieces of evidence (which I’ve clearly presented) and other evidence lead me to believe that we will indeed overcome the virus, and civilization will not be destroyed. I don’t need hope. Data, good science, evidence and rational thought works for me.

                      I make a distinction between civilization (root word being “civil”) and humanity. I absolutely do believe that if a civilization begins to tolerate lawlessness, chaos and disorder, those things have the potential to become more of a threat to that civilization than any disease that doesn’t entirely wipe out the human race in a very short period of time, like days or weeks. The end of civilization can come about from lawlessness (which is often times un-civil activity). Are we close to that point? Hardly. But I prefer to stay as far away from that point as is reasonable and feasible.

                      A pandemic could potentially wipe out humanity (although this is highly unlikely given our evolutionary history and our medical advances). However, I’m actually more concerned about the environment becoming inhospitable to humans, or a giant asteroid destroying our ability to exist on the planet, or nuclear war destroying humanity than I am a pandemic doing that job.

                      OK – have a nice evening and have the last word.

              2. Libertarians aren’t anarchist first and foremost. Once the started destroying property they violated the NAP. Deal with it. In a libertarian world, the property owners would have been able to defend their property and selves but in progressive cities they have all but lost that ability. So, unless you are arguing that it will be okay for private citizens to defend their property up to using deadly force, stop trying to misrepresent libertainism.

                1. All anyone is talking about is proportional response. Nobody here is defending vandalism.

                  1. “Nobody here is defending vandalism.”

                    Are you capable of posting without lying?

                  2. How is Federal agents, using non lethal force and targeted arrests disproportionatal response to destruction or attempted destruction of federal property? Answer a question honestly once not just repeat your talking points.

                    1. That’s not what I’m objecting to, I’m objecting to rounding up people nowhere near federal property with no probable cause and no identification markings that might suggest that their actions are something other than illegal kidnapping by rightwing paramilitary goons.

                      I honestly cannot believe you think this is OK. On this site, by people who have spent years or decades preaching the fear of government force.

                  3. All anyone is talking about is proportional response.

                    Show me where, prior to July.23.2020 at 3:22 pm anyone, and I mean anyone, advocated anything remotely resembling a proportional response.

                    Given the thousands of protestors and the hundreds of officers being dispatched, the response *is* proportional.

                    1. So the entire debate is pointless because you’re already right.

                    2. So the entire debate is pointless because you’re already right.

                      If the wind blew your straw man down you would blame the wind.

              3. You still haven’t answered the question how they are illegal goon squads for defending federal property and doing targeted arrests of those in connection to the assault on federal property while also releasing them unharmed. That is just fucking talking points again. You haven’t answered the question, just continue to spout intellectually dishonest talking points.

                1. They’re not kidnapping people from federal property, but from blocks away from federal property. They are acting outside the law. At least it appears that way. Perhaps the lawsuits will clear it up.

                  1. Federal policing power, for violation of federal law, is not limited to only federal property, that is not federalism that is Confederacy you are describing. Federalism allows for assertion of federal power, in federal matters anywhere in the US. And they are not being kidnapped they were arrested, booked, questioned and released. How is that kidnapping other than hyperbolic world?

              4. “and the president of the united states is botching a goddamn pandemic that’s killed “

                Is Trump supposed to swoop in and declare martial law or something in a way that magically becomes non-fascist?

                If you want to smear others as hypocrites, try taking a consistent position once and a while.

                1. I am not a big states rights person, to be clear. I think the whole enterprise began, evolved, and continues to be mostly about racist structures. The constitution is built on compromises with slave states, states’ rights arguments from the 20th century were almost exclusively about segregation and civil rights, and to this day they are being championed as the refuge of choice for bigots. I assume nobody wants to send the feds in to enforce gay wedding cakes.

                  I’m just arguing against the fascism 101 being perpetrated by the president. He didn’t have to do that, but he did. And I’m marveling at all the supposed libertarian government skeptics who are wasting breath defending it all because he has an (R) after his name. As if we didn’t have enough to worry about from normal partisans.

                  1. “and to this day they are being championed as the refuge of choice for bigots.”

                    O rly?

              5. “A little crazy” . . ?

                I find it hard to consider murder, arson and assault by the rioters to be simply “a little crazy.”

        2. Except conservatives are the ones being abject hypocrites on the matter right now, and progressives never really gave much importance to the concept of state autonomy.

          Well color me shocked! It’s almost like you don’t believe both sides are equally bad either!

  19. “Thanks to him, there will be no escaping accusations by the left that states’ rights are merely a ruse to protect white power.”

    Trump is the left’s worst and pre-Trump most fraudulent caricature of, we, its opponents come to life. Trump has resuscitated (Trump was a lifelong Democrat and big Democrat crony and donor, hmm.) the cadaver of the left, after the Obama gambit had cost the Democrats over 1000 elected offices; including control of the Senate, House, and the vast majority of governor’s offices and control of state legislatures. They were nearly ran completely out of elected power on a rail and pelted with rotten vegetables on their way. After the election, it is almost certain that Trump will have given almost all of those losses back with the presidency as a bonus.

    Maybe, Paul Harvey’s “If I Were The Devil”

    http://www.wordandwork.org/2018/02/paul-harveys-if-i-were-the-devil-transcript-from-1965/

    and the legend of the Trojan Horse should have warned us about Trump or, at least, can help us grok Trump’s 2016 win as libertarians and conservatarians greatest loss.

    1. So you think the average citizen wants violence in the streets and the homes and businesses burned down? If that’s the case I’m joining the mob and razing this entire motherfucker to the ground come January.

    2. “…and the legend of the Trojan Horse should have warned us about Trump or, at least, can help us grok Trump’s 2016 win as libertarians and conservatarians greatest loss.”

      Stick your TDS up your ASS, you pathetic pile of shit. Your head needs some company.

  20. I don’t buy the basic implication that the Proglodytes wouldn’t make those accusations of ANY non-Proglodyte POTUS. Bases for accusations are no longer of any interest to the Left.

  21. Big news here, trump has no scruples and will do whatever he can get away with if it benefits him personally. In other news, grass is green and water is wet.

    1. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====►►CLICK HERE.

  22. *Vice President Trump abandoned the run for presidency contrary to what this line originally suggested.

    That’s some quality opinion-journalism correction, Shikha.

  23. The left has long regarded federalism as a total sham whose real purpose, since slavery, has been to maintain white dominance, […] Trump has toggled between invoking and dissing states rights depending on what would go down best with his predominantly white base.

    That’s the propaganda of Democrats and progressives, but it is demonstrably false.

    (1) Democrats and progressives invoked federalism in order to be able to oppress minorities. Republicans have never done so.
    (2) Democrats and progressives have been, and continue to be the party of racism.
    (3) Widespread support for Republicans and Trump has nothing to do with “white dominance” or race, it has to do with economics. That’s why whites in the South moved from Democrats to Republicans long after the civil rights movement.
    (4) For the most part, blacks and minorities support Democrats not because Democrats are anti-racist (they aren’t) but out of economic self-interest. That’s why blacks in the South became Democrats long before the civil rights movement.

    Of course, there are exceptions to (4): as you demonstrate yourself, Shikha, some minorities support Democrats out of economic self interest and because you are a vile racist.

  24. (3) Widespread support for Republicans and Trump has nothing to do with “white dominance” or race, it has to do with economics. That’s why whites in the South moved from Democrats to Republicans long after the civil rights movement.

    Let me add: widespread support for Republicans and Trump does have to do with race in the sense that if you oppose racism, you can’t vote for the Democrats. The Democratic party continues the party that promotes racism and segregation in the US, like they always have.

  25. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page……click for jobs its a limited offER.

  26. Revenue sharing, where the Federal government steals a states money and gives it to another state for political purposes shredded Federalism decades ago. So now you want to blame Trump?

Please to post comments