The GOP Should Shun Laura Loomer

The far-right gadfly palled around with Richard Spencer and said she hoped immigrants would die.


Laura Loomer, the far-right gadfly and conspiracy theorist, has prevailed in her bid to become the Republican Party's candidate for Florida's 21st Congressional District. She will face incumbent Rep. Lois Frankel, a Democrat, in the general election.

The district is heavily Democratic, and any Republican would be unlikely to win. The GOP can't stop people from trying. Moreover, it can't prevent insane racists like Loomer from pursuing elected office under the auspices of the Republican Party.

But Republican officials don't need to openly embrace such people either. Unfortunately, both Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.)—a rising star in the GOP with an increasingly large public profile—and President Donald Trump have expressed support for Loomer. Gaetz even endorsed her during the primary, when the GOP technically had other options.

This is embarrassing because Loomer is a lunatic. She previously said that someone should create a "non Islamic" version of Uber so that she could avoid giving money to immigrant drivers. She celebrated the deaths of 2,000 migrants and expressed hope that more would die. She went to Parkland, Florida, on behalf of InfoWars to spread misinformation about the 2018 mass shooting, and also teamed up with far-right grifter Jacob Wohl.

She even posed for a picture with alt-right leader Richard Spencer in Washington, D.C., on January 19, 2017. Spencer's views were already well-understood by the public at that time, and Loomer's caption on the picture makes it clear that she knows exactly who he is.

Some in the media frequently try to portray brash new Republicans as secret nazis: Jezebel implied that 25-year-old North Carolina House candidate Madison Cawthorn was possibly a white nationalist in part because his haircut is similar to Spencer's. The case against Cawthorn rested on dishonest smears. The case against Loomer, on the other hand, is obvious and persuasive. Her associations with the alt-right, conspiracy theorists, and crazy provocateurs are direct and numerous. Republicans should want nothing to do with her.

The failure to ostracize Loomer matters, because many conservatives are currently trying to portray the Democratic Party as beholden to kooks of the far-left. For instance, after it was revealed that Women's March organizer Linda Sarsour—an activist with anti-Semitic associations—had a small role at the Democratic National Convention, Trump surrogates asserted this proved that the Democrats are the party of division and hate. But former Vice President Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic candidate for president, swiftly condemned Sarsour's views. There has been no equivalent condemnation of Loomer from the right. On the contrary, she is being openly embraced.

NEXT: Americans Dislike Both Biden and Trump

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course, all this pales in comparison to the socialists and outright Marxists in the Democratic party.

    I wish Reason would pound on them a lot more. I’ll take disorganized loonies like this over socialists and Marxists any day. What’s worse, celebrating 2000 accidental/self-inflicted deaths or 100 million murders?

    May as well compare an idiot running a kerosene heater indoors vs Auschwitz.

    1. Yes, if there’s one thing Reason fails to do is criticize Democrats and, specifically, apologists for communism. (Imagine an eye-roll, jerk-off hand gesture emoji here.)

      1. Please read better. I said “pound on them a lot more.”

        Knee jerk stupidity like yours is what makes people like you look stupid.

        1. I’m trying to remember which Democratic candidates Soave insisted the Democrats should disavow. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Maxine Waters, Pramila Jayapal? I’ll bet not – that would be racist and sexist. Maybe a stern frown of disapproval.

          1. `I’ve made $66,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student.oiu. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great m0ney.CMs It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

            Here………> Click here

      2. Every single writer at this publication alleged a super secret Russian conspiracy theory had impacted the last election and then hand waved away FBI abuse.

        We can play the game like Reason isn’t biased toward the Left or we can accept reality that Reason writers are largely regurgitating the NYT editorial page uncritically. Robby is the only one who ever questions NYT psychosis and even he still pimped the mentally retarded brand of John Bircherism

        1. Speaking of which, the Senate Intelligence Committee report is out. Nothing to see here.

          1. Lawfare has been about as right during this entire thing as Reason and their sister publication the NYT.

            Weird that you didn’t think the bigger news today was that an FBI agent pled guilty to altering documentation in order to secure a FISA warrant in the Russia Fever Dreams episode. Libertarianism has truly changed. FBI is libertarian-y af now.

            1. Look, I am not gonna say Trump did anything criminal when it comes to Russia and the election, but the guy is shady as hell. And I can say that and still dislike and distrust the FBI and the CIA at the same time.

              1. You can believe that a guy is shady and still accept that the FBI, John Brennan, and the CIA are known liars who we know now altered information in order to attain secret FISA warrants.

                There is no evidence to support the Russia gate conspiracy and multiple investigations have found nothing. No one has even presented what Russia did exactly beyond Facebook memes (unless we want to accept that Wikileaks is a Russian front).

                There is stuff that Trump has done that he is guilty of and then there is this pile of neocon shit.

                1. Or you could read the link.

                  Why is it so goddamn hard for you people to believe that Trump is corrupt? It’s practically his brand.

                  1. Why are you pretending that the accusation is corruption, which you don’t actually care about because look at everyone you support?

                  2. What has Trump done while in office that is corrupt? Take the 0.001 sec to answer, then ask, what has Biden done that isn’t corrupt, while in office? Only fair, take the same 0.001 sec to answer.

                    1. So Chipper, i read some of the links on that wiki page. Did you?

                      Everyone was an accusation based along partisan lines.

                      Where is the corruption? I fully expected Trump to be dirty as hell. But after the full force of dnc opposition research is on him for four years, the most we have is unproven claims and a recording of crude descriptions of women. Thats it….

                    2. Indeed. Trump is excoriated for some crude remarks made privately, and Biden is given a pass even though he is at least somewhat credibly accused of rape. And not just rape, but rape-rape.

                    3. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…UJh after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                      Here’s what I do…..>>…..> Click here

                    4. End Joe Biden’s racist Drug War.

              2. Now do Hillary funding money through a law firm to pay a British spy to pay Russians for information.

                Nobody is saying trump didn’t talk to Russia. Nobody is saying he wouldn’t have used information if he got some. But you’re fucking ignoring actualized Russian misinformation piped through the DNC to the FBI to spy on a campaign.

                Which is the bigger story and why do you only ever comment about the small story?

                1. He has a small mind, among other things I would suspect.

            2. is an arm of the Brookings Institution “which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public” per Charity Navagator, and only gets 3 out of 4 stars with 27.5% of it’s funds going to administration and fundraising.

              I’d expect their predictions about Obamagate to be that it’s a hoax, just like Clapper told us the US doesn’t collect data on law abiding citizens.

              I think eventually the fiction that Russia interfered in the election to be exposed as a political establishment narrative. Though they did somehow get Obama/Clinton to a) sell 20% of the US’s uranium to Russian, b) a great deal for Russian ally Iran, c) no real action against Russian invading and annexing Crimea, d) help for Russian ally Syria against ISIS, e) do nothing during the election about alleged Russian interference.

              Obama was obviously trying to help Hillary claim that Trump was colluding with Russians and used them to release the emails through Wikileaks that showed Democrat corruption, which is why they produced that report based on no evidence making the claim.

              BTW, trolls posting on social media is free speech, not interference in elections, just as Obama explained why he wants certain foreign election outcomes (that would be foreign election interference according to Democrats if the shoe were on the other foot).

      3. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.BAI I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is

        what I do……………… CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

    2. Reason has picked up on doing more criticism of the left, now that the DNC convention is happening and the election is closer. But, yes, they could always do more.

      1. Is this more of your fake both sides so you can claim at one time you made a claim against the left while 95% of your comments are about the right?

        Also do you want to continue justifying trying to making a clone of my name because Tulpa made you upset?? Lol.

    3. Communism is associated with a hell of a body count. Really, there are few ideologies that can touch it in this regard. The only ideology that I can think with a body count in excess is bigotry.

      1. Communism if fairly bigoted.

        1. Communism is also not that old, historically, while bigotry is. If we ascribe hatred of outgroups to bigotry, and all the wars and genocides throughout history that were based on such feelings, it’s not even a contest. Can you even argue with this?

          1. What an incredibly stupid comment.
            Bigotry isn’t an ideology, and has no fixed structure.
            Might as well say “violence has killed more people than communism, because communism is new and violence has existed throughout history”.
            It’s an absurdly moronic comparison on its face.

            1. Well, it’s your ideology, so you are your own rebuttal.

              1. The thing that isn’t an ideology is my ideology, or communism is my ideology?

                Sometimes it’s better to just take the L and move on, eunuch, because you’re only highlighting your stupidity here

              2. Damn Chip, you hit rock bottom, but you instead of stopping, you start digging.

            2. Bigotry is not a political view or an economic principle. It is a character flaw. Bigotry is blind zealotry. It has its roots in religion (French Bigotrie) – suggesting unwavering zealotry and intolerance for those of opposing views. It is not a synonym of prejudice but is used in conjunction with prejudice – rooted in the concept of prejudgement, forming a conclusion with insufficient facts. For example – An assertion that all blacks are lazy based on what you were told by your daddy or what you “saw” when you were a kid dealing with a limited number of examples. That is prejudice. Bigotry takes that prejudice and extends it to complete intolerance of anyone with facts disproving the assertion and those who disagree. It is a character flaw that was embraced by National Socialists, Marxists, Soviets, Maoists, Medieval Roman Catholics, Radical Muslims, Taoists, Greek Orthodox, Buddhists, Shintos, any Racial Supremacists (Black, White, Yellow, Brown) and all members of BLM and ANTIFA. I exclude Protestant Christianity from that because the concept of the free exercise of religion began in a predominantly Protestant Christian setting (specifically Baptists in Rhode Island and Connecticut and Huegenots in Georgia) – even though early Protestant Christians persecuted those of opposing views, they reformed and embraced the separation of Church and State, and free exercise of religion.

              1. Beware of strangers. Some of them have strange diseases.

          2. If we ascribe hatred of outgroups to bigotry, and all the wars and genocides throughout history that were based on such feelings, it’s not even a contest

            What about if we do this intelligently instead of your way?

      2. “The only ideology that I can think with a body count in excess is bigotry.”

        This level of retardation now passes for a point nowadays. Strange time

        1. The typing windup doll seems to be down to a single tired comment. Perhaps a change in batteries is in order?

          1. I’m just glad that we can differentiate between murder done with kindness and that which is done with bigotry. One is OK and can be explained away, the other is different for reasons, of course.

            There is no doubt that “libertarian” means “useful idiot” at this point

            1. If there are any actual libertarians on this board, I have yet to see one. Mostly it’s 4chan overflow.

              1. There still are a couple of us, but not many. To be fair, Just Say’n is among the more principled commenters on here, as is Eddy. While they are not classical libertarians, I would call them libertarian-adjacent. Many of the other commenters are just Trump cultists.

                1. I’ll just assume you’re Nicholas Sarwark at this point.

                  1. If Chipper was Nick Sarwark then the party wouldn’t be a complete joke.

                    1. Aw, thanks. But I will never take any kind of political job ever.

                    2. Do we really need to bring up Bill Weld again?

                      Sarwark is a petty little leftist brat. His antagonism of Tom Woods and Jeff Deist showed as much. I’m sorry the party has been lost to the puritan woketarians.

                2. No teams chipper is making teams again declaring who true real libertarians are. Lol.

                  You’re an open anarchist, not a libertarian. You’ve basically been fine with open mob violence defending them at every turn.

                3. Been a Libertarian for over 30 years. I still oppose the drug war. I also find that I’m a Trump fanboy. How could I help it when Joe Biden is the alternative? End Joe Biden’s racist Drug War.

              2. I was wondering when “No Real Libertarian” Guy was going to show up. Though remember: first, you have to win. Then you can purge the unbelievers. Libertarians always screw up the order.

                I suppose we’ll refight the Civil War next, for 400 comments. Maybe another abortion thread?

                1. Either labels mean something specific or they are pointless. There ought to be a litmus test for being a libertarian, otherwise the word is completely meaningless. Of course people will disagree and argue endlessly about what that litmus test actually is.

                  1. I don’t like commies and I don’t think they were “good guys who just got cared away”. I hate when people try to pretend like commie atrocities are just inconvenient and totally not what commies are all about.

                    Thank you for not calling me a Trump cultist.

                    1. I hate communism as well. Communism was responsible for so much human suffering in the 20th century that it boggles the mind. So we can agree on that.

                    2. Also I agree about litmus tests. I’m old enough to remember when that litmus test was along the lines of “and the answer can’t be government”.

                      Nowadays no one wants to abide by a similar litmus test because then that means that you can’t cheer on the state for forcing nuns to buy birth control or forcing a cake baker to make someone a cake, and then, of course, you can’t regulate speech about Israel on campuses. How are you going to call someone an antisemite for not supporting Israel if you can’t regulate that speech on a publicly funded campus?

                    3. That’s a litmus test I can accept.

                  2. How about we get behind the candidate, him or her, in whichever race, who claims—and actually looks capable of performing—they want to shrink government more than their opponent? And quibble about the labels later?

                    Dr. Jorgensen means well, I’m sure. But she can’t even pander without screwing it up. To a group of racists and Marxists at that. I keep bringing up the Malenkov character from The Death of stalin (Fantastic movie, by the way.) because that’s who she is as a candidate: an ineffectual, lost, bumbling lightweight who is in way over her head. Albeit with an infinitely less amount of blood on her hands that Georgi Malenkov.

                    So, if she’s out, that leaves Bi-Harris and the Orange One. And, for all his numerous personal flaws, the Orange Guy hasn’t been all that bad for the country. No, he’s not Ron or Rand. But they aren’t running.

                    1. Jo is good within the expectations of the LP. That’s not a knock against Jo who is decent (even though her messaging and emphasis is absolutely clueless) it’s more so just disappointing to realize that she’s better than the last two LP nominees and still fairly disappointing.

                  3. What part of liberty requires a specific authoritarian vision of its terms?

                    You’re no better than Jeff.

                2. Many commenters here don’t call themselves libertarian and are pretty harsh on libertarians in general. It’s not a slight to call them not-true-libertarians if they never claimed to be so.

                  1. I’m not one. (I’m probably a Goldwater Republican. He isn’t running either.)

                    But I agree with them, circa 2000, more than I agree with most other political groups. I think the Libertarians have the right of it on the Drug War. Likely are more right than not on foreign policy. Right on the 2nd, not that CATO is all that strong on it these days. Right on asset forfeiture. And so on..

                    It’s just trite though, when the writers here reflexively yammer on about both sides, and this election at least, no, both sides aren’t close to equally bad.

      3. Bigotry isn’t its own ideology. It’s a tendency among demagogues and ideologues of all stripes.

        1. How is a belief system around the relative worth of individuals based on inborn characteristics not an ideology?

          1. Rather bigoted of you to think that bigotry is only restricted to inborn characteristics.

            Bigotry is a vice common to all of humanity.

            1. As a simple example consider that many American Indian tribes are known by what someone else called them. But they often have their own name for the tribe, and in their tongue it often boils down to “us” or “the people” or some variation thereof (e.g. the Navaho call themselves ‘Dine.’

              While their names for other tribes are more descriptive – “liars,” “snakes,” “pretty people,” etc. It is in our nature to define ourselves as much by the out group(s) as anything else.

          2. Conscious devaluation of people based on natural characteristics is a highly restrictive definition of bigotry, and intellectual historians generally consider political ideology a development of the late 18th or early 19th century.

      4. That’s why communism is essentially a dead economic philosophy,’despite your desire to slander most of the people living in the civilized world with it.

        1. No problem Tony – There are indeed communist countries in the world. That is where communists belong ( doesn’t that just make the most sense ever?? ). The USA isn’t one of them; so WHY may I ask are communists moving here instead of there????

        2. Tell that to Slavoj Zizek, the highest profile living political philosopher and an avowed Communist.

          1. Yeah the one guy. Infinitely smarter than any libertarian working too.

            1. Communism (and I’m talking about actual Communism, not just sociological Marxism) is seeing something of a post-Soviet revival in academia. Zizek isn’t the only one, but he’s the only one you’re likely to have heard of.

    4. A lunatic is a lunatic and we should not shy away from calling them out as lunatics. Just because the Democrats have worse lunatics does NOT mean Republicans lunatics are sane.

      1. True. But she is no more loony than your average elected member of Congress

        1. Yeah she is. Though Republicans will catch up to her soon enough if things keep going this ways

          Oh but wh wh whatabout her emails.

    5. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.ISK I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do………………Work

    6. I voted for her
      I think we need to get rid of Lois Frankel

  2. This is a bit of a worry right now, I think. The right has generally done a lot better than the left in distancing from the radical fringes and drawing a line at what is acceptable. Commies and racists/ethno-nationalists should all be shunned in polite company.

    1. It’s just amazing that we are getting pox on both are houses articles at this point. Especially in regard to a primary race.

      1. “It’s just amazing that we are getting pox on both are houses articles at this point.”

        That’s what they think their audience wants to read. And it’s what their benefactor wants them to write.

        It’s lazy, for reasons Ken Shultz has laid out elsewhere in these threads, but it’s an old, old habit for Libertarians.

    2. She promotes insane conspiracy theories. How is that any different from your average member of Congress?

      1. It isn’t, I’m just saying I hope that the right doesn’t allow the crazy fringes to invade their center like the left has.

        1. The crazies already run the Right. Trump is a Republican

          1. What far right policies does he have? Enforcement of the border?? That was centrist all the way back in 2006. Lowered taxes? He isn’t even religious for fucks sake.

          2. >>Trump is a Republican

            in the 80s sense. 2020 (R) is 1996 (D).

    3. That is true. Republicans have tended to have a decent grasp on how far is too far to the right. They know certain lines must not be crossed. Democrats are quickly losing their sense that it’s possible to be too far left. For today’s progressive movement, there’s simply no such thing as being too politically correct, too woke, too egalitarian, too iconoclastic.

    4. Maybe, but are we supposed to deperson from society everyone that the far left wants depersoned? So far the only allegations I’ve heard of Loomer being an evil lunatic come from the same people at the least sympathetic to the cause of violent mobs burning down cities because every white person is racist.

      I see no evidence that she’s an ethno-nationalist or anything other than a typical Always Trump edgy young Republican, and the worst I’ve heard of her actually doing is a bad tweet from a few years ago that Diane Reynolds points to below. Yeah, the tweet is bad, but is one bad tweet now the standard for depersoning?

      What I think is that the left’s hatred of Loomer is nothing special. It’s exactly the same hate expressed with exactly the same invective as they have for anyone else not in their cult. The only difference is that she managed to win her primary and outraise the Democrat incumbent she’s running against despite (perhaps because?) having been deplatformed from the entire Big Tech universe.

  3. Think it would do any good?

    There was a certain Illinois Democrat who palled-around with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. He ended up in the White House, and anyone who mentioned the connection was dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”

    1. Yeah, they crossed paths in Chicago. Anything else is indeed a Conspiracy Theory.

      Like Trump and Bill Clinton “palled-around” with Jeffrey Epstein.

      1. One of those two barred Epstein from his club.

        The other took over 2 dozen flights with him.

        Yeah, similar.

      2. They didn’t just “cross paths”. Ayers hosted an early fundraiser for Obama when he was running for election in the state.

        1. And?

          Obama started as a two-bit state rep. They might have lived in the same block.

          CT starts with “fundraiser” and soon becomes “radical bombmaker”. After 8 years of Obama he was no radical in the least.

          1. I was correcting your statement that said that they merely “crossed paths”. You went off on the soliloquies.

          2. Somebody claimed Obama made bombs? Who?

            That he was friendly with Ayers isn’t really in dispute. Nor that he attended one racist-ass church for a long time.

        2. And somehow, murderous thugs like Ayers and Dohrn aren’t viewed as politically radioactive as the alt-right guy who never made any bombs.

  4. She’s running in a heavily democratic district as you said and is not at all favored to win. I’d say the RNC decided not to associate with her based on that. Anyway wasn’t she up against several others in the primary? Sounds like the RNC was fielding others. They cannot prevent someone from running.

    But assertions from you on mental health aside is anything she is saying honestly more crazy than what is coming from the left? Because here at reason you’ve spent a lot of time ignoring both leftist politics in the democrat party and actual rioting looting and burning by those very same leftists. This very article attempted to minimize it.

    1. The piece expressly acknowledged that the Republican party couldn’t prevent her from running in the primary and that there were other candidates. The point of criticism isn’t that she was able to run, it’s that Gaetz and Trump endorsed her.

      1. If they did it must not have been much of an endorsement as this is the first I am hearing of this and seems to me if they had CNN etc. would be hammering this hard. Probably just had her photo taken at a fund raiser and that is an “endorsement”. Or it was a boilerplate support the Republican candidate.

    2. She can be criticized without reference to what some other group of people is doing. They are separate bits of craziness. This is a fairly pointless story, but the criticism of Loomer seems valid.

  5. job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy…..Click here.

  6. Where is Loomer on the factors that would matter most, were she elected?

    1. Probably just another Big Government Aborto-Freak conservative.

    2. Well, she definitely has a strong anti-immigration stance. That is clear.

  7. wait wait. she *posed for a picture*? burn at stake.

    1. It was whom she posed with.

      1. Ohhh, so guilt by photography. Nice.

        1. If you attend an event with a known white nationalist and say “hey Mr White Nationalist can I take a picture with you?”, then yeah I’m gonna assume you have some pretty shitty beliefs as well. Not sure why this is complicated, it’s as easy as not smiling and posing with white nationalists.

          1. Like when obama posed with farrakhan?

            1. Or went to ‘Kill Whitey!’s church for twenty years, and never noticed the text of the sermons?

              Loomer may be a nut, and a practitioner of identity politics, but she’s treading upon well-traveled ground by the Left in doing so. It’s a little late for the Usual Suspects to start clutching their pearls about it.

              1. Yes, but principled and conservatives who criticized Obama for his associations with nasty people have every right to criticize this woman as well. If you thought Obama should have been censured for his associations with Wright and Farakhan then you should think the same about this woman and her ugly associations. Not everything has to be a partisan tit-for-tat.

                1. Sure. If Obama had actually been censured. Or apologized in any manner that didn’t leave Janet Reno afterwards thinking, ‘Man. he was a responsibility-dodging little bitch.’ He wasn’t, and didn’t.

                  Clearly then, those kinds of things didn’t matter to respectable Washington society and media at large. But they do as soon as the Right starts doing it.

                2. Not everything has to be a partisan tit-for-tat.

                  But then how do you beat the other team?

                3. How many articles did Reason write about it?

            2. Yes, exactly like that.

          2. >>I’m gonna assume you have some pretty shitty beliefs as well.

            fuck you and your book cover judging horse?

            1. Yes, how dare I assume that she has shitty beliefs just because she attends events featuring white nationalists and asks to have their picture taken with aforementioned white nationalists. People do that kind of shit all the time.

              1. The DNC had an anti-Semitic as a featured speaker. What does that say about them? They also had somebody who was getting “massages” from an underage girl who just so happened to be trafficked into fucking powerful men speaking in prime time…

                1. What does that say about them?

                  That the progressive movement has a problem weeding out the anti-Semites from its ranks. As for Clinton, I honestly haven’t been paying attention to the Epstein stuff. If the worst allegations are true, then the Democratic Party needs to address them head-on.

                  Not sure what either of those things has to do with Loomer though.

              2. doubling down doesn’t make you less judgy.

                1. I’m perfectly fine with being ‘judgy’ towards gross people like Loomer. Seems like a much smaller sin than being a bigot who wishes death upon people.

                  1. enjoy the haught.

          3. What’s the difference between white nationalism and black nationalism (as in, kick whitey out of large swaths of the US and establish a black nation)? Because that is definitely a thing. So, what’s the difference?

            1. Nothing at all. Both should be opposed. What does that have to do with Laura Loomer?

  8. Have you produced a similar article about Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib too? You know, the two shamelessly anti-Semitic congresswomen of the Democrats. I have a hunch that you didn’t.

    1. This. ^

      Seems Reason loves bashing right wing bigots but gives a pass to the left wing bigots.

    2. “I’m totally not a racist, but every time you commie fuckers disparage a racist I will come in here to say, ‘whatabout whatabout whatabout…'”

      1. There is nothing “racist” about believing in conspiracy theories about school shootings. It’s nutty, but I fail to see what’s “racist” about it, other than that “racist” is being used in place of “respectable opinion”.

        1. Are you questioning the fact that Laura Loomer has made racist statements? She is known as an anti-Muslim activist. Just about the only argument that can be made here is that being Muslim is not a race but a religion. And that’s a very weak argument that ignores the fact that the term “racist” is not limited to hating a particular race but any group that looks different, and the fact that most Muslims have a darker skin. Nope, the fact is that Laura Loomer is a fucking racist.

          1. I really don’t know Loomer from anything other than that “QAnon” stuff. Michael Malice has interviewed her a few times and from my understanding, though I may have misinterpreted those interviews, the allegation that she is “racist” is based on the fact that she promotes conspiracies and nothing more. The term “racist” is used awfully loosely nowadays, so may be I’m being too reflexive.

            You are correct about the Muslim ban

          2. Equating anti-Muslim with racism is racist

            1. Correct

              But eunuch is nothing if not an ignorant bigot

            2. Most reasonable people disagree with you about, so there is that.

          3. Since you seem to be her biographer. Can you link to the specific statements. Or is “media says she’s a racist” good enough for you? I don’t know her talks, so please elucidate. With how often the media is wrong I don’t trust the narrative without specifics.

      2. “You mentioned two people by name, that’s racist!”

    3. No, because NYT. Read the NYT editorial page before reading Reason and you won’t need to read Reason, because you’ve already read it.

    4. I hate those two, but I hope this crowd retains enough libertarianism to recognize the “let’s label all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism in order to stifle debate” gambit.

  9. The GOP Should Shun Laura Loomer

    And the Dems should shun Omar, Tlaib, Pressely, Waters, etc.

    1. Pelosi has distanced herself from the squad. Nucases have been elected before. I live in Georgia where we elected nutcases like Cynthia McKinney and Paul Brown the conservative crazy fuck.

      1. Pelosi has not distanced herself. She lets them run the show. Be real for a change.

        1. The Squad “runs the show”?

          Hilarious. They all supported Bernie Sanders and can’t get a House vote for their crazy ideas.

          They don’t run shit except snakes into the heads of Fox News wingnuts.

          1. They were the ones behind the impeachment fiasco.

            They run the damned show. They ARE the Democrat Party, son.

            1. I don’t think I buy that. They are being pandered to to a certain extent, probably in the hopes of getting some energized youth vote. But I don’t think they are the main drivers of the impeachment thing or the agenda of the House.

              1. “But I don’t think they are the main drivers of the impeachment thing or the agenda of the House.”

                Really? You think both of those were Pelosi’s idea? We will see what effect the Impeachment has on this election. COVID and the economy, are kind of stealing the show here. Normally, that fiasco would be good for one or two elections’ worth of absolutely devastating attack ads. They behaved abominably.

                Pelosi may be a lush, and profoundly clueless at times—yes, brag about your 5,000 dollar fridge, filled with 12 bucks a pint ice cream, when your constituents are wondering if they can pay their rent—but she’s been a successful politician for a very long time. Successful politicians don’t do stunts that will backfire to the degree the Impeachment fiasco would.

                It was the Squad’s idea. And Pelosi looks like she has to listen when they tell her to do something.

                1. They also gave AOC, a first term congresswoman, time to speak at the convention.
                  And Bernie came right out and said he’s basically running the show.

                  1. You expect Bernie not to say that? He’s got just as big an ego as most politicians.

  10. Please compare and contrast; her views with BLM support for communism and violence and opposition to the family.

    1. Wingnuts can forget about conflating BLM with communism. Uber-capitalists like Mark Cuban have supported BLM. Cop murder is not popular with some capitalists you know.

      1. And directly supported by the Nazi Soros.

        1. Soros is a successful capitalist who avoided politics until the GOP turned fascist in 2001 with the Bushpigs.

          I know I am dealing with a Glenn Beck dumbass when they call Soros a Nazi.

          1. “Soros is a successful capitalist who avoided politics until the GOP turned fascist in 2001 with the Bushpigs.”

            Hmm, an awful lot of prominent Republicans from that specific era, who have never denounced their former views, are supportive of Biden….

            1. One good thing I can say about Trump is that he doesn’t care about the Bush/Cheney Project for a New Amercican Century where the US colonizes the Middle East and fights Russian aggression in former Soviet states.

              Putin wouldn’t allow that.

              1. …but Biden DOES care about that.

                I thought those guys were “fascist” (your word). You are unconcerned that Biden is happily accepting their support?

                1. Biden was never PNAC. They were a formal group with signatory status on their USA “rules the world” view.

                  Soros was shocked by that – thus the fascist comparisons.


          2. Soros worked for the Nazis.

          3. forgot to add about Soros, “…and who is now funding domestic terrorist groups who actively foment violence through various front organizations.” FIFY.

      2. >>Uber-capitalists like Mark Cuban have supported BLM

        nobody cares what Mark Cuban thinks.

        1. And I would assume that he supports the idea, not the marxist organization hiding behind it.

          1. Cuban supports whatever makes him money, whether that’s looking the other way on genocide or getting public funds. He has no principles.

            1. Or looking the other way while a bunch of women were getting sexually harassed, if not worse, on his basketball team.

              Cuban is a bright techie who, the more he opens his mouth, shows himself to be a morally bankrupt human being. Which makes him a great fit with the technocratic wing of today’s Democratic Party.

              1. “systemic” abuse of women @Mavs and China were my complaints.

      3. “Uber-capitalists like Mark Cuban have supported BLM.”

        Yes, uber capitalists have never supported groups utterly opposed to them before. Sure.

      4. Supporting BLM is a marketing strategy.

    2. Why? Can’t she just be awful on her own merits?

      I agree that Reason should do more critical coverage of nutjobs of the left. But that doesn’t mean that coverage of nutjobs of the right is invalid.

  11. Opinions of candidates, no matter how reprehensible, or just plain bizarre, don’t matter.

    Loyalty to The Party is what matters. (either party)

  12. I’ve never heard of this person. And when I’ve never heard of the person and you see a screed of “racist” with a bunch of links to Twitter and Vox, I start to wonder if its really true or just a intentional mis-characterization of the person’s views. For instance following the Jacob Wohl link takes you to a Vox piece that includes info about this Loomer person traveling to MN to investigate the Ilhan Omar marriage story. The link in the Vox article contains no useful information for or against the brother marriage claims. Basically, following any of the links doesn’t give any useful information about the marriage claim.

    I do know that Powerline has run many articles about the claim where they lay out a convincing argument that Omar did in fact marry her brother to get him into the country.

    Anyway…. she probably is a kook but often find these articles lacking.

    1. If she did marry her brother, then strange as it may be, it’s none of my concern.

      If she did commit immigration fraud with this marriage, then this is a little problematic, yes, but it’s still none of my business.

      If she did commit a diplomatic blunder, repeatedly, using anti-Semitic remarks, then I’d say that this is indeed gravely problematic, not just for me, but hopefully for every enlightened (libertarian) individuals.

      1. There’s a new champ. OBL is #2 now.

  13. I’ve never heard of this bitch.

    Honestly, asking the right to ostracize kooks is like crying wolf at this point. The left and MSM have been attacking fairly unoffensive figures like Jordan Peterson, and asking for people to shunned because of their “dog whistle” statements, for years. It’s been long enough that nobody believes them when they say “No, wait, THIS person is really a crazy racist!”

    Maybe she’s an utter kook and a horrible person. I’ve never heard of her. I would not be surprised to learn that some of her statements have been misrepresented.

    1. This aspect is also true. In fact, Jordan Peterson just a couple of weeks ago was still branded as an “alt-right celebrity” by some leftist rag. This was so offensive, especially in light of his recent illness, that even some on the left found it distasteful, and commented that “maybe, just maybe, a professor of psychology should not be branded as an alt-right stooge”. But then again, this is best journalism can offer in 2020.

      1. Personal responsibility is so anti Libertarian these days

    2. As has been said before, if everybody is a Nazi, then nobody is a Nazi.

      Is Loomer my favorite? No. Is she horrible? Also no. I just don’t get why the expectation is for every Republican to answer to the actions of every Republican in any level of government.

  14. Poor Robby. Destined to spend the entirety of his life on the wrong side of history, at the disaffected fringe — unless he renounces everything he has claimed to believe.

    Don’t be so quick to ostracize Laura Loomer, Robby. Soon enough, you’ll be huddled together for warmth, ranting about all of the damned progress and about how unfair everything is.

  15. This Loomer reporting is beyond retarded she isn’t any better or worse than AOC.

    1. I was going to comment that. after reading some of the stuff at her website, I would liken her to the GOP equivalent of AOC. You beat me to it.

    2. Can any of you absolute fucking morons distinguish between people who are fucking racist and nuts and people who have policy beliefs you don’t like?

      1. I’m surprised you admit that AOC is nuts and a racist.

        1. Says a guy who probably never misses an episode of Tucker Carlson.

          1. No Tony, I said it not you.

      2. If policy beliefs lead directly to property seizure, famine, and eventual genocide, then no, we can’t.

      3. “Can any of you absolute fucking morons…”

        Sounds like a question for Woke Twitter.

  16. There has been no equivalent condemnation of Loomer from the right. On the contrary, she is being openly embraced.

    “Thou shall not criticize other wingnuts” – Reagan’s 11th commandment.

  17. Ah yes, the most insidious type of Nazi there is: the Jewish Nazi.

  18. This is embarrassing as expected because Loomer is a lunatic.


    Unfortunately, both Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.)—a rising star in the GOP with an increasingly large public profile—and President Donald Trump have expressed support for Loomer.

    Don’t know why this is surprising. When you do things people like, they’ll be your friend.

  19. said she hoped immigrants would die.

    I don’t know anything about Loomer, but now that we have an established history of purposefully taking quotes out of context, ala Tom Cotton saying “slavery was a necessary evil”, now I have to go google what she said to see if that too is a lie.

    1. Ok, this one looks like it passes the sniff test. Based on her tweet, yeah, she sounds pretty awful.

      1. Oh c’mpn! Share it.

        1. It’s a retweet of a picture of a tweet. She responded to a quote from a Nation article indicating 2000 migrants had died crossing the Mediterranean. She posted a handclap emoji and said Good! Here’s to 2000 more.

          1. Which puts her in the emotional shoes of half of Rome and Naples by this point.

            1. Yeah, Italians are pretty racist. I always ask people who think Americans are super racist if the have ever heard of Europe.

                1. Or Central America, South America, Africa, Australia, or Oceania (or Pacificia or Islandia). Racism is a normal human survival strategy and that is why it will never be beaten out of the human primordial lizard brain. Racism will only stop when there are no longer differences between the races.

          2. That’s just like AOC calling for universal healthcare!

            1. Nah, AOC would be using guns.

          3. “migrants”

            1. Because ‘invaders’ would be mean, or something.

  20. Why does Robby hate gender equity in congress?

    1. What’s funny about this comment is, by the definition of identity politics hustlers, her position in congress represents “progress”. Literally. When we keep screeching that ‘more vaginas in positions of power” is an unqualified good thing, then you don’t get to qualify and sort based on viewpoint or character after the fact. It’s more vaginas, full fucking stop.

      1. Nothing wrong with more vaginas. Just sayin’.

        1. As long as the number of vaginas corresponds, roughly, to the number of women.

          1. How roughly?

  21. and conspiracy theorist
    If we want to talk about dangerous conspiracy theorists, didn’t the supposedly ‘respectable’ Speaker of the House recently say “with him all roads lead to Putin”

    I mean we’ve had 4 years of that conspiracy theory come up bunk

    1. Actually the US Senate IC just published their findings that Putin orchestrated the Trump crime family’s election with the Trump team in 2016

      1. Weird DOL was equally pimping that pile of nothing.

  22. Why? She merely says what most Rs think. There’s a reason they don’t denounce people. Hell, did they ever finally do anything about white power Steve King of Iowa?

    They start going against racism and they’ll lose at least 1/4 of their base, maybe more.

    1. Calling everyone a racist has been a proven strategy. Keep doing it.

      1. They are not calling everyone racist. What is suggested is that racist has a strong foothold in the Republicans. The problem is that Republicans are doing little to clean up this mess and as a result they are becoming a smaller and smaller party. Whatever small amount of racist do inhabit the Party it is enough that the Republican failing to expand their party to the new demographics of this country. Republican ideas could have a much wider and broad reach if they did not have people like Loomer, King and Gomer driving people away.

        1. There’s a lot that’s just plain tone-deaf in your comment. Your comment reminds me a bit of the political cartoon with Hillary driving away from an event, looking at her phone, she quips, “Trump sure failed to unite his party”, and through the back window was a gaggle of angry Democratic factions with Bernie signs shouting at her as she drives away.

          Yes, the Republicans do have a racist contingent. When a party’s position is skeptical of things like the welfare state, unchecked mass immigration, supports the police etc., you’re going to attract some people at the fringes who support these things because of certain target demographics.

          The Democratic party (as far as I can tell) consists almost ENTIRELY of racists– who fly under the cover of anti-racism. Or perhaps you’ve missed the nightly harangue on White Privilege, White Fragility, and the continuous messaging that people of color are incapable of navigating public life without the benevolent hand of enlightened white people to guide them through the confusing process. These are but a tiny fraction of the examples.

          1. So the party that is 90% white has a few fringe racists but the party that contains all the races is all racist.

            1. Yea, I am kind of thinking the same thing.

              1. Actions>words

            2. So the party that is 90% white has a few fringe racists but the party that contains all the races is all racist.

              Because only white Republicans are racist. Whatever you say, Ms DiAngelo. As I say, keep on with that. It worked in 2016, it’ll work again in 2020.

              1. The question is why all the minorities are in the party of the racists.

                What is it about minorities that makes them so stupid? Be as detailed as you like in your explanation.

                1. The question is why all the minorities are in the party of the racists.

                  Because they’re racists. WTF kind of retard question is this.

                2. Here’s a thought Tony — Maybe, just maybe the party that victimizes people of/by COLOR and outcasts and hates on the wrong COLOR attracts by entitlements people of the “preferred” COLOR.

                  Same way when Republicans started “entitling” the family structure MOST families went Republican. Seems everyone wants to be entitled.

                  But one conclusion is undeniable. The party of COLOR affiliation is RACIST by its VERY definition (as well seems you are since the color of a persons skin is by far the majority of your comments). I’m not sure what you call the party that entitles people who choose to have families???

            3. Pretty sure I heard the GOP has more women and minorities running for office in 2020 than the Dems do. I know, diversity-wise, it’s a record-breaking year for the Republicans.

          2. Thank you, beat me to it.

    2. King is out of office now. What ever happened to that VA Governor was caught wearing blackface? I bet he’s ALSO out of office.

      1. He had already atoned for his sin by taking a stance in favor of legalizing neonatal abortion.

  23. Isn’t Laura Loomer Jewish? The Spencer thing confuses me.

    1. Given that anytime I’ve seen Richard Spencer debate a libertarian he’s handed them their ass in no uncertain terms, I have to believe there’s a certain amount of jealousy on Robbie’s part.

      1. Well, at least we know where you stand.

        1. With intellectual argument?

          I’ve never seen anything Spencer has said or done, so I can’t judge Nemo’s assessment, but your effeminate appeal to juvenile emotion just screams overcompensation for your own lack of intellectual ability.

          This, plus the desperate pleas for leftist acceptance, is why you’re a eunuch

        2. Do we? Someone can’t win a debate because they hold principles you don’t like?

          1. Oh, this should be good. Please post a link to a Richard Spencer debate where the audience votes on who won the debate, like they do in the Soho Forum.

            1. “Debates can only be won at the Oxford Union and Soho Forum” is an unfathomably stupid take.

      2. Spencer is a terrible debater. He crushed Sargon because Sargon is a terrible debater and an idiot.

        1. Show me one that he’s lost.

  24. Well duh if I learned anything it’s that only white people can be racist.

  25. Serious question, Robbie, do you think that your coworkers at yourself should be banned from social media for believing in the mentally retarded brand of John Bircherism? Since conspiracies are bad (and no doubt Loomer’s are nutty) and the one pimped by writers at your publication have escalated tensions with a nuclear power shouldn’t they be banned for that far more crazy conspiracy?

  26. Strong language there. Sounds deserved. Maybe it’s a mutated ‘to be sure’ angle. I don’t know.

    But It seems to me the four illiberal jackasses who form The Squad deserve the same kind of scorn. Instead we’re treated to articles that treat their blathering left wing stupidity as if they’re not lunatics themselves. Why no articles about the need for the DNC to distance themselves from these clowns?

    Ah. Therein lies a bad rub. The DNC itself is a cess pool of rabid radical loons who pimp identity politics and their own much more dangerous brands of conspiracy theories.

    1. You’re cherry picking the people who are self-described as the far left of the party (which globally speaking isn’t even all that far left, you goddamn yokel), and meanwhile the president of the United States believes every Breitbart conspiracy theory that unshowered Nazis dream up. There is no hope for you people until you stop consuming rightwing propaganda. Stop being such a sad victim. It doesn’t sell your self-reliance society at all when you behave like you all belong in fucking straightjackets.

      1. “You’re cherry picking the people who are self-described as the far left of the party ”

        So AOC wasnt given time at their national convention to nominate Sanders?

        You act like their being far left somehow de-legitimizes them among their colleagues, which is obviously not true.

        1. She was given a token 90 seconds yes. You should be happy that her wing has been sidelined by a party whose voters clearly preferred a moderate.

          1. So she was given a platform at the most important function they have.

            But hey, at least Joe didn’t expressly unveil his own New Green Deal or anything.

            1. Advocating the unchecked destruction of the global environment is the radical position.

              1. Good thing nobody does advocate unchecked global environmental destruction.

      2. Please ignore the people who aped the fever dreams of the Steele Dossier for three and a half years.

        1. I don’t think you libertarians are up to the task of having political beliefs if all you’re gonna do is excuse the most powerful politician in the world for his very well documented corruption snd authoritarianism. Read the Russia report that just came out of a Republican senate. You are choosing not to know what the fuck you are talking about.

          I would like to note that I’ve been calling you guys crypto-authoritarians for years.

          1. Hey, I acknowledge The Con Man’s deep corruption every day.

            And I am a classic liberal (don’t like to called libertarian due to all the racist crazies).

            If I could I would eliminate the majority of our social programs.

            1. Libertarian largely means Republican right now, but I would love to find a place where left-libertarians/anarchists hang out so I can talk to some people with principles.

              1. C4SS.

              2. Not to offend the libertarians but you’re right. I have read and believe the Libertarian platform is almost identical to the Republican platform and is probably why the Libertarians being recognized as a main-stream 3rd party is so hard to accomplish short-of to say it seems Libertarian candidates don’t seem to have many RINO’s in it whereas the Republican party has a cesspool of RINO’s who vote for the wildly tyrant government the Democratic platform is actually after.

              3. lol…
                Which “principle”
                1. That gun-theft POWER = WEALTH???
                2. That Slavery = WEALTH???
                3. That Sexism = Dictated Entitlements?
                4. That Color = Dictated Entitlements?
                5. That [WE] mobs will ‘fix’ every person/thing by gun-forces?
                If not; I’d like to hear what non-evil “principle” the left has..

                1. As I’ve brought up before. The left has some amazing ignorance when it comes to legislative enforcement ( probably why they think de-funding the police is important ). You lefties need to consider what LAW really is; If I write up a great “plan” to help people and run around telling people to give me their money do you think that’s going to work???? If so; why isn’t the DNC a VOLUNTARY platform? Not a single Republican wants to write laws to stop peoples CHOICE… What makes legislation/government is GUNS… Shooting people who defy them. Enslaving them. That really is the sole reason Democrats and RINO’s are the filth of society.

                  1. What we do need GUNS for is to enforce Individual Justice and Freedom from those who insist they are entitled to other peoples earnings (i.e. Democrats).

          2. The report that has been already debunked before Burr and his assorted idiots did any digging? Rubio already has lacerated it.

            1. Citation needed that the report from the Republican-led committee was debunked.

              1. He cited Rubio’s bit in the comment you’re responding too.

                (For others: Tony knows Warner (D) effectively lead that committee even before Burr was forced out. Rubio hasn’t had time to leave his stamp yet.)

                1. So the only premise you’re working from is Republicans never lie when defending themselves.

                  1. The premise I’m working from is that damikesc explicitly cited something and you responded by asking for a cite. I will give you credit for doing that journalism thing where it’s hard to figure out where the mendacity stops and the stupidity starts.

      3. Shall we discuss the Dems’ laughable embrace of USPS conspiracy theories. Or emolument clause violations?

    2. Whataboutism! We’re talking about white Republican racism here, nothing and no one else! I’m reclaiming my time!

  27. I’m going to join the “Cry Wolf” crowd. We’ve seen panic and outright lies time after time.

    I don’t particularly care about Loomer. However, we have been told for years the worst things about everyone.

    If what you say is true, then I would agree that doesn’t sound like someone we should be dealing with. However, the paragraph about “she took a picture with Richard Spencer” undermines the entire essay. It makes us think you are reaching and stretching.

    I’ve been told to my face that “It’s okay to be white” is horrific hate speech.
    We routinely have women called misogynists and minorities called white supremacists for policy disagreements.
    Comedians and Satirists have been accused of all kinds of things because they told jokes.
    These sorts of accusations don’t phase the right any more because we immediately assume it’s a lie.

    Mr. Soave, If you want to convince people at this point, be short and simple. “She said this”, “She said that” with actual quotes (and if social media posts, screenshots). Some of these quotes, if true, there are no valid defense (though some seem to be attempts at comedy). If it’s true, I’d gladly kick her out of the party. However, you have to approach it from people who will instinctively think you are lying.

    1. I remember the CBC pulling that shit with Jordan Peterson when he was at a book signing and someone gave the ‘OK’ signal during a meet and greet as if he was knowingly associating with Kekistan.

      It was face-palm, cringe-inducing stupidity.

      1. I hope Peterson isn’t dead of Covid.

        I really didn’t think this rightwing quackery was actually going to start killing its own so quickly.

        1. Because only a “right-wing quack” would dare to criticize postmodernism, left and right identity politics, or the hair-triggered PC police?

          As much as I like Jung, I’ve never followed Peterson, but maybe I should, considering the kind of person who hates his guts.

          1. I haven’t heard or read much from him, but his thesis seems to be based on the idea that people have the ability to choose to take personal responsibility for themselves, and that doing so is the surest path to happiness/contentment.
            There are behaviors which are productive or counter productive in any given setting. If you choose to engage in productive behaviors, you’ll be rewarded. If you choose to engage in destructive behaviors, you should expect to not be rewarded. Further, facts don’t care about your feelings, but you can control how you feel about facts.
            That’s about the extent of what I know about him.
            Seems to me he preaches choice and personal responsibility. But maybe I’m mistaken, because you’d think libertarians would really get behind such a philosophy…

            1. It’s a bunch of incomprehensible gibberish that amounts to “We’re all doomed if we disturb the white patriarchy one little bit.”

          2. You really shouldn’t. He’s sincere, but because of that, for all I know if he survives covid he’ll come out a social Democrat. And he doesn’t have the first clue what postmodernism is, what Marxism is, and his literal claim to fame was him being wrong about a trans rights law.

  28. To cite Dave Reaboi — her being somebody completely deplatformed makes her an EXTREMELY valuable candidate. I hope she wins with that in mind.

  29. Funnily enough, the ADL is complaining that she won despite being ‘kicked off of almost every major social media platform’. Showing that censorship is mostly ineffective and actually backfires in many cases. Which also shows how the Nazis were created. Intentional or inadvertent? I’ll let you decide. I will say we’ve been doing this for thousands of years:

    Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego [Jews], who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set aside the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.” – Daniel 3:28

    1. It is. If we accept that Loomer is a fringe racist, and I’m prepared to concede that based on the very little I know of her, this is exactly what people like Douglas Murray pointed out in his book, The Strange Death of Europe.

      When you don’t allow rational conversations about sensitive topics to take place, it just causes the real crazies to come out of the woodwork, because the crazies aren’t cowed by your accusations of racism. Because THEY’RE OPENLY RACIST. And when the rational people have no other outlet- -and no one is publicly voicing their concerns, they’ll go with the crazy racist who’s at least willing to point out the issues.

      None of what I say is to be construed as tacit support for Loomer (or any other openly racist person). But if we’re not prepared to defend western liberal values such as free speech and open debate, then I fear for the next generation’s political landscape.

      1. Another aspect is otherwise centre-minded people who don’t want to engage but are fed up simply go and ‘up vote’ or subscribe to a bunch of channels or Twitter folk who piss on the left as a ‘fuck you’.

        1. Yes. I thought Jordan Peterson’s characterization of why Trump got elected was as good as any. Rational people were continuously made to feel as if their concerns on a range of political and cultural issues either weren’t valid, or were some kind of product of crypto (or overt) racism, and out of frustration, they quietly jammed the Trump button.

          1. I’ve never understood why the standard explanation for Trump winning isn’t “He’s entertaining with a couple anti-elite but very popular policies and all of his opponents were fucking terrible.” All of these other narratives are over-determined.

          2. Jordan Peterson is the funniest joke to come along in ages. Or would be if he wasn’t legitimizing rightwing violence and dying of Covid.


              1. *Kermit the frog voice*

                You wanna talk about attention whores, what about women who wear makeup at work? Wouldn’t a just society stone them to death?

              2. *Kermit the frog voice*

                If you really want to talk about attention whores, imagine a guy who made bank by misinterpreting a law about trans pronouns and decided that made him an expert on economic policy, history, and relationships. If you let women wear makeup at work civilization may well collapse and then where will we be! Baking cookies without pearls and high heels? Being nice to trans people?? I’m soorry but if we’re not careful we’ll have equity and that’s Marxism and that’s the archetype of the dragon, and then where will we be, eh?

                1. “Being nice to trans people”

                  That’s the problem, isn’t it. I don’t mind being nice to people. I mind the government making me “be nice” to people. You obviously don’t. Which makes me a libertarian and you . . . a smiley-face fascist?

  30. What is wrong with her face? Racists are bad enough when they aren’t also the undead.

    1. Her extremist political views and ridiculous stunts, like handcuffing herself to twitter headquarters, confer plausible deniability.

      1. I’m told behavior like this is stunning, brave, and merely shows her passion for the issues. If only we could declare other similar behaviors as ‘stunts’, I think we all could return to a more rational form of discourse.

    2. She kind of looks like a trans vampire in that picture.

      1. #transvampiresforloomer

  31. The reason I have not gone back to the LP after quitting the GOP in disgust, is that this sort of behavior is commonplace in the LP. The party can’t prevent them from running, but it sure as hell should not be endorsing them. But they’re so hard up for candidates to fill out a slate that they will take anyone.

    There’s a perennial LP candidate in the neighboring district who is a convicted child molester. Half the statewide candidates are outright loons and conspiratards. The LP isn’t going to win a major election until it grows up and starts acting adult.

    1. I’m pretty convinced now that most libertarians don’t want to actually ever gain any political power and responsibility. It’s too much easier to sit on the sidelines and smugly point out how wrong everybody else is.
      I’m serious about this. It’s all theory and no actual application in real life. But goddamn it, that theory is the only viable option.

  32. And you Reason “libertarians” should shun the violent left wing anarchist revolutionaries of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. With the exception of John Stossel, not a single one of you have come even close to doing so.

    When you take a break from casting stones, maybe try looking in the fucking mirror every once in a while.

    1. Just because there are a few thousand or so examples of violence from self proclaimed BLM activists doesn’t mean they are all bad! But one crazy Republican lady in Florida who doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning is proof of systemic racism in the party.

      1. Didn’t they burn down a Federal building in Portland holding PPE’s and the records of the first gay marriage?

        But it’s ok. They went back to being peaceful for Reason writers.

    2. Reason spends too much time freaking out about secret federal agents disappearing rioters to notice any riots.

  33. She is a nut with no real power or influence. Who cares? Oh right, both sides.

  34. See, when someone who hates what I believe tells me what I should do, I am not inclined to oblige them. Sure, blind squirrels and nuts, but Robby hates my beliefs. So telling me what to do is probably not in my best interest, but theirs.

  35. I wouldn’t be surprised if Democrats voted for her as a strategy to embarrass Republicans.

    1. They went to too much trouble to gerrymander that district to do that.

      Loomer is going to get crushed. But hopefully be entertaining while it happens.

  36. Interesting character assassination…if you think taking a photo with Spencer is so bad, why not condemn the Bush family as well?

    Also, interesting how you generalize her being in Parkland as spreading misinfo. You hoped we wouldn’t click your link, yet it leads to her actual quotes where she basically just accused some of the child activists like Hogg being fed lines and used as puppets. How is that misinformation? Did you watch that CNN Town Hall and the character assassination they tried to do to Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch? Do you even remember how horribly they treated her? Hogg and his ilk were memoryholed because their emotional blackmail tactics didn’t work.

    1. Do you people really not see any problem with turning kids whose school was shot up into targets of constant rightwing death threats because they happen to have a political opinion the puppet masters of the GOP don’t like? That shit was vile. But add it to the list. You’re all so fucking vile.

      1. No one made them put themselves out there. And save the whining about death threats, you losers pull that agent-provocateur shit every single fucking time.

        1. They are children whose school was shot up. The fact that this made them wary of maximum fun proliferation made them legitimate targets for online harassment and death threats?

          You are terrible human beings.

          1. Hey even I’m for maximum fun proliferation.

            1. And consequence free speech and poitical advocacy apparently.

              1. I just think death threats against children is bad.

                1. I just think death threats against children is bad.

                  Now do Sandman

      2. Do you have a single fact to back that up? Because I know for a fact that we’re constantly told any sort of terrorism or violence directed at anything remotely centrist or left leaning is always right-wing violence, even though it leads to some of the most ridiculous assertions, like the notion that anti-capitalism, environmentalism, anti-Semitism and other such beliefs are inherently right-wing. Right-wing people can believe them, but that doesn’t make the basis right-wing. I remember people tried to say the Christchurch shooter was right-wing. What a bunch of fucking morons. The guy was an anti-Semite who put the Jews at the forefront of everything he considered a problem and he thought that Bolshevism and National Socialism (Nazism) were the solution.

        1. Just ask Trump’s own law enforcement who is committing all the terrorism right now. Leftists can commit terrorism, they just aren’t doing it nearly as much as rightwingers right now.

          Every time anyone remotely liberal appears on FOX News, they get death threats. It’s just part of reality for these guys. And you ignore it all because… you agree with the cause?

          The Christchurch shooter was an alt-right white suprematist who shot up a mosque. How the he’ll do you get progressive from that?

          1. “Leftists can commit terrorism, they just aren’t doing it nearly as much as rightwingers right now.”

            Portland quickly disproves this.

            1. Read more books.

            2. As does Seattle, Minneapolis, New York, DC, etc.

              There has been no right-wing terrorism in decades that wasn’t a false flag by leftists.

          2. Haha Tony. You’re on a roll today.

            The left IS violence. All major political gangs most efficient at murder throughout 20th century politics were LEFT-WING.

            1. You’re an idiot.

              Right-wing murders in the USA outnumber left wing murders 349-0 since 2004.

              1. Politically motivated that is.

              2. I think you people are quite literally out of your minds.

                349-0. Oh shut up.

            2. You’re a little Dylann Roof in the making.

    2. Hogg and his ilk were memoryholed because their emotional blackmail tactics didn’t work.

      They were memory-holed because they were no longer useful to their Democratic handlers. They’re currently wandering through a hall of mirrors along with Beto O’Rourke and Cindy Sheehan.

    3. I remember the kid at Parkland saying it’d be great if his teacher was able to carry, and maybe then could’ve shot that worthless freak…not be invited to Atlanta with the rest of the cool kids like that soulless fucking ghoul Hogg.

      How long did it take for Hogg to climb over his classmates’ bodies and fight to get in front of a camera and start emoting? Seconds?

      It got him into Harvard. Yay, perverse incentives.

      1. And wasn’t one kid from Parkland get denied entry to a college because of his stance on guns?

        Hogg is a douche.

        1. That kid was also, if memory serves, the valedictorian.

          While Hogg is a low level functional retard.

  37. OK. I hate to break protocol, and comment norms, but I have a serious question.
    How can someone run as a candidate of a party if the party does not approve?
    Can Bernie run as a Republican?
    Can AOC run as a Libertarian?
    Can John Galt run as a Communist?

    1. OK, maybe that last one wasn’t serious – – – – – –

    2. The laws that govern political parties in the US are designed to put the candidate in charge of the party, once he/she wins a primary. Each party’s big donors have some power to refuse to help candidates they don’t want, and they used this to exclude Bernie Sanders in 2008 and 2016, and Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. But once he is the nominee there is no way to replace him unless you can shame him into resigning.

  38. She even posed for a picture

    LOL this site is great.

  39. She’ll be exposed soon enough as the dominatrix she really is, but don’t ask me how I know.

  40. Hold on, the republicans are busy disavowing garage door pull down straps and White nationalists creating violence in the middle of peaceful BLM/Antifa riots.
    Laura Loomer will have to wait her turn.
    But please keep that list going so we don’t miss anything.

  41. Yes, republicans should denounce her, specifically for the migrant deaths tweet. Not using Uber comment is BDS in reverse. Does Facebook or Twitter allow BDS groups or tweets that do want to financially support Jews and Israel?

    1. Yes and worse. Twatter allows ISIS, Hamas, and Al Qaeda accounts and does not object to their calls for violence. Only those who oppose Islamic terrorism get silenced there.

  42. Sheesh, her jaw bone is almost as massive as Michael’s jaw.

  43. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

  44. “The far-right gadfly palled around with Richard Spencer…”

    Obama palling around with Bill Ayers didn’t seem to hurt him much.

  45. Libertarians should shun Robby Soave.

  46. Loonies have the same constitutional rights as everyone else. What I don’t understand is why the loonies the support the right get highlighted by the press, while the loonies on the left get ignored by the press. There are more loonies on the left than on the right, and they are way more dangerous.

    1. Because the media are all in bed with the theftists.

  47. How many people have died during a QAnon riot?

  48. The only insane racist in this story is the one who wrote it.

  49. They endorse her, becuase they agree with her. The GOP has become significantly racist. As proved by the vast majority of the commenters on this post.

    1. Islam isn’t a race. Like Communism it is a belief system. She is bigoted against Communism and Islam. Possibly for good reasons.

  50. This matters because of people like Edgar Maddison Welch and the actions they commit. JesseAZ asks for cites, like he never heard of this guy. Peopl wonder why it might be bad to elect people that believe in QAnon bullshit. People wonder why it might be bad to have POTUS pimping this shit.

    Edgar Maddison Welch is a great example of why this matters.

    1. Qanon is real enough and is probably what he says he is. An intel guy possibly close to the President. What is the purpose? Well to develop a fan base of unthinking “patriots’ for one. But the main thing is to protect the Drug War by sending people on wild goose chases. Has Q ever asked his fans to look into Afghani opium? Or Iran-Contra-Cocaine? Elite child molesters has been a campaign tactic for a very long time. Some of it is true. But not near all of it. So Q tells stories of pizza and duct tape. Keeps people’s minds off what US organization started the war in Afghanistan, on horseback.

    2. And the best part? Q has you chasing his bonafides without asking his purpose. Very clever.

  51. Laura Loomer got 14,500 votes, the Democratic incumbent got 75,000. I think I.P. Freely or Hugh Jass would have done about as well. This is a big fucking non-story about a nobody. Who gives a rat’s ass?

  52. I won’t believe Robby without links. I want to see video or read something she actually wrote. I want full context. I want no editorializing commentary. Otherwise I believe he is just another lying media man with Trump Derangement Syndrome slandering someone he doesn’t like in politics because their immigration policies would infringe on Robby’s free movement of lawn workers and cute twinks.

    1. This is what I am referring to; “She celebrated the deaths of 2,000 migrants and expressed hope that more would die.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.