North Carolina Senate Race Is the Latest Example of Trump's Hold on the GOP
When the governor behind North Carolina's infamous "bathroom bill" is accused of not being Republican enough, it bodes ill for the future of the party.

Despite leaving office in defeat and under the cloud of a second impeachment, former President Donald Trump retains a level of popularity unparalleled by anyone else in the Republican Party, with the support of around 80 percent of Republican voters in certain swing states. As such, his endorsement is coveted by Republican candidates, especially those who may be lagging in polls or party support. Today's primaries in five states offered a window into the continued success of his recommendations.
Trump's endorsements don't always fit the pattern of a traditional party leader, who may choose to support the "most electable" or "most conservative" candidate. Instead, the former president occasionally throws his weight behind the candidate who is most famous, or more loyal to him, even if it alienates some of his base. This gives some cause for concern, seeing as many Trump-endorsed candidates have been able to ride his endorsement into office.
The race that may best signify this trend is the North Carolina Senate primary, where Rep. Ted Budd won tonight by significantly more than the 30 percent needed to win outright and avoid a runoff. In the fall, he will face Democrat Cheri Beasley in a bid to replace Republican Sen. Richard Burr, who is retiring.
North Carolina leans Republican but is still considered a swing state. For much of the race, the clear front-runner was Pat McCrory, who served as governor of the state in 2013–17. On paper, McCrory would seem to be a prototypical Trumpian Republican: As governor, he banned sanctuary cities, extended the waiting period for an abortion from one day to three, and required people to use the public bathroom that corresponded to their biological sex. That last act, which became known as the "bathroom bill," was credited with narrowly costing McCrory reelection in 2016, despite Republican successes across the country. As far as fighting in the Trump-era culture wars goes, McCrory is an experienced candidate.
But last June, Trump suddenly gave his "complete and total endorsement" to Budd. As a congressman, Budd supported the failed lawsuit in which Texas tried to challenge the results of the 2020 election; on January 6, 2021, Budd also voted against certifying Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Days after the election, Budd texted Mark Meadows, then the White House chief of staff, speculating about conspiracy theories that Dominion Voting Systems was connected to billionaire financier George Soros.
After entering the race, pro-Budd ads started denigrating McCrory as a "liberal faker" and a "RINO," meaning "Republican In Name Only." On the strength of a late-campaign surge, Budd went into the primary with a commanding lead over McCrory.
To be sure, this is not to say that McCrory's record makes him a good candidate: The bathroom bill was a gross overreach of executive power, forbidding cities and counties from making their own determinations on anti-discrimination ordinances. The same is true of a top-down prohibition on sanctuary cities. (For reference, Budd also supports using the power of the government to punish sanctuary cities.)
But it is concerning when a candidate like McCrory, who made his name on culture war battles, is somehow not MAGA enough. It serves as a bad sign for the types of candidates who are being cultivated when the way to win over Republican voters even in swing states is to compete for who can be the most extreme.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Instead, the former president occasionally throws his weight behind the candidate who is most famous, or more loyal to him, even if it alienates some of his base. This gives some cause for concern, seeing as many Trump-endorsed candidates have been able to ride his endorsement into office.
Holeee smokes there's a lot to unpack in these two sentences...
Concern?! He'll need help in Congress when he's president again.
Absolutely. I am glad we are getting rid of many RINOs. This guy mentions the 2 BS impeachment as if we find that legitimate. He may think so but he doesn't count.
TDS is horrible to behold!
I wish Donald Trump would go back to running the Trump Organization, playing golf, and assisting his attorneys in the myriad lawsuits and criminal cases against him.
The GOP used to be the party of educated people who dismissed conspiracy theories as the musings of crackpots, believed in science, and used to blame lost elections on lack of money, a poor message, or ineffective staff.
It really bugs me that so many Trumpers seem to be the arbiters of who is and isn't a Republican. As someone whose family has been voting Republican since Lincoln, I'm not a RINO. In 1984, I voted for Ronald Reagan for President and Charles Percy for U.S. Senate from Illinois. There were two men at opposite ends of the GOP spectrum. But the were superior to Walter Mondale and Paul Simon.
Readers will observe that suckers are conned into throwing away potential history-changing vote clout by ignoring platforms and principles and voting instead for the entrenched, subsidized looters. They choose to continue to vote for coercion when way more freedom was right there on the ballot in their hand. Ignorance of history? Timidity before social pressure? Failure to grasp high school math?
Maybe if McCrory had groveled harder, he would have received the Trump endorsement.
Not everyone candidate can be full throated endorses of marxist or critical theory to get you coveted jeff endorsement.
Oh Jesse. And you were doing so well yesterday, actually offering an intelligent comment that had real content that wasn't just crass insults. I thought you had turned a corner. But now it looks like you are back to barking junkyard dog mode.
I've seen that once or twice. He's worse than the average progressive who you can have a civil conversation with, and perhaps persuade them of something, only to have them return to the hive mindset.
Ironic much?
Sarc’s just here to discuss ideas. Except when he’s insulting people.
Jesse is the closest thing Sarc has to a friend. That’s why he won’t mute him.
https://twitter.com/MaxAbrahms/status/1526757032417697792?t=vdKGJTuxLl5gvZtwTqgnOw&s=19
MSNBC guest says we should call the GOP “the domestic terrorism party” akin to the perpetrators of 9/11:
[Video]
As to the bathrooms, I remember when Trump was first running, he said, "I think they should use whatever bathroom they want." I don't know if he's changed his mind. But it's bizarre to think, as this article seems to, that sanctuary cities aren't a manifestation of the power of government, just as bathroom rules are; what's the big deal about deciding such matters at the state level?
"C'mon Republicans! You like to beat up queers so whycome you not voting for the fag basher? HYPOCRITES !"
Someone read Roberta the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments... And let's not forget how the 18th robbed and murdered everyone precisely because God's Own Prohibitionists could not stand to see anyone escaping across the river to relative freedom and happiness.
Yeah Hank. Romney is gonna take away you tampons! You better go hide!
Hey now! Tampons are a good thing to have for the Prepper SHTF First Aid Kit. Tampons and feminine pads can help patch up sucking chest wounds, such as those inflicted by the Statist Totalitarian du jour of either the Religious Right or the Tankie Left.
It's not that people actually support Trump, as in have rationally decided that he's an agile and accomplished politician who has their interests at heart. It's that people rationalize their choices because they don't want to feel or seem stupid around their peers. Imagine thinking Donald Trump should be president of the United States and being wrong about it. None of these people are psychologically capable of shame. It's just human nature on some distribution, and Republicans have sorted out all the brains with a propensity toward blind allegiance to tribe. The Christian right. They don't call themselves sheep for nothing.
Don't smoke crack!
First of all, let's get one thing straight. Crack is cheap. I make too much money to ever smoke crack. Let's get that straight. OK? We don't do crack. We don't do that. Crack is whack.
I didn’t realize your welfare benefits were so robust.
Tony does raise them turkeys into shotgun range though... That is more useful than most.
Projection 101...
You've have just described the "Blue" wave to a T.... And the biggest reason urban cities "sheeple" into Blue-Haven's until they F'It up and runaway.....
Rational People like Trump because he was Anti Nazi-Regime building... MAGA (Make America Great Again) by toppling Nazi(National Socialist) - Regime expansion adhering to the U.S. Constitution instead of [WE] mob sheeple dictation....
There Tony; now you know WHY Trump still has center-stage attention.. LEARN from it.
Trump: "America Will Never Be A Socialist Country"; "We Were Born Free And We Will Stay Free"
While Nazi-Leader Bernie Sander frowns...... "Oh that horrible Trump."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/05/trump_america_will_never_be_a_socialist_country_we_were_born_free_and_we_shall_stay_free.html#!
Now do Biden.
The only interests Trump has at heart are his own and those of his children. No different from Biden.
Funny, he didn’t govern that way.
If those were the only interests he had, he'd have stayed away from politics, and continued looking like a Democrat in public. Coming out as a Republican has been nothing but trouble for him, and daring to win resulted in a big target being painted on his back.
He's lost more money as a result of running for President than all of us together will ever see in our lifetimes.
You say that like its a bad thing.
"The bathroom bill was a gross overreach of executive [sic] power, forbidding cities and counties from making their own determinations on anti-discrimination ordinances."
The state of North Carolina protected the rights of businesses against encroachment by local governments. Reason is taking the anti-libertarian position by backing the local governments.
"The same is true of a top-down prohibition on sanctuary cities."
If a state decides to cooperate with the feds in deporting criminal aliens, then local governments need to get in line.
Why is the state the ideal focus of government power? And since when has that been a libertarian proposal?
Outside the context of LGBLTs, Reason says stuff like this when states protect people from their local governments:
"By passing a law preventing localities from getting in between willing businesses serving willing customers, Montana legislators seem to have liberated their state's business owners from all that red tape in one go."
https://reason.com/2022/05/02/montanas-ban-on-mask-mandates-is-stopping-local-governments-from-enforcing-their-zoning-codes/
American states have a notorious history of imposing major oppressions, but on the other hand counties and municipalities are what most victimize people on an everyday basis.
I support a minimum threshold of freedom before localities are permitted to govern themselves. Until then, a model government imposed by the UN.
You had me going until the second paragraph, nice sense of humor.
"before localities are permitted to govern themselves..." quoth Tony. And here I was worried abt Drug Czar Biden's Presbyophrenia. Now I'm simply glad Tony ain't in office. Trumpanzees are bad. Worse ain't what libertarians are looking for. There's a surplus of that in Cuba.
I would be happy if both of you idiots were dead.
Well, that’s treason. I look forward to your eventual execution.
states protect people from their local governments:
So explain why a state-wide ban on local sanctuary cities is "protect[ing] people from their local governments".
I was thinking of the LGBLTs
So we can agree, then, that a statewide ban on local sanctuary cities is unlibertarian?
I'm not a libertarian, though I certainly the government is too big.
But kicking out gatecrashing visitors to the country is a long-recognized prerogative of a sovereign country.
Even if one agrees that illegal immigrants ought to be deported, shouldn't that deportation take place by the layer of government legally vested with the authority to enforce that law?
This banter reads like a who’s who of autistic weasel’s.
I wish Covid was more dangerous than it is.
Government is bad because it is coercive, thus it should be limited to only those functions that involve imprisoning, shooting, and expelling people.
Government is force, and as such it should be limited to what would be a just use of force by an individual. Such as protecting life, liberty or property. Is it just to protect one's life from harm by other humans? I think so. Is it just to force your neighbors to pay your medical bills, tuition, rent, cable, internet, and student loans? No. Ummmm. No.
But that's the disconnect. You see no difference between banding together to not live short lives ending in violent deaths at the hands of other people, and extend it to forcing others to pay for virtually anything that can be imagined.
“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” -Bastiat
"Is it just to force your neighbors to pay your medical bills."
Let me consult my Crito. Yep, according to Socrates at least, it's just, provided you live in a jurisdiction where such a law exists.
Police and courts are not more legitimate parts of the social contract than healthcare. It's just that healthcare didn't really exist in 1789.
To say that these explicitly violent functions are cool because it's OK for people to do them too is bizarre. The whole reason we need a government in the most primitive sense is to deposit the right to use force. Individuals are not entitled to commit violence in a civilized community except under very specific circumstances which are verified by the government.
Police and courts are not more legitimate parts of the social contract than healthcare. It's just that healthcare didn't really exist in 1789.
Tony, let me put it this way. If we had state-run health care, do you know who are going to be the people running it? It's going to be people like Trump and DeSantis, who will issue some bullshit mandate under the guise of 'health care' that will make your life miserable because their idiot base thinks your very existence is an immoral threat to the country.
I don't like it when Republicans run the cops either. Or the DMV. Or NASA. Would I rather have them in charge of an in-place national healthcare plan than the insurance industry? Sure, because they've shown that they don't have the balls to dismantle such programs once they're in place.
This is a dangerous game you're playing. I agree that Republicans generally don't have the balls to get rid of welfare programs. But they definitely know how to fuck them up. If we get state-run health care in this country, and with Republicans in charge, it will not be the Western European paradise that you think it will be. It will be deliberately strangled to run as poorly as possible so that people will blame the government when they can never get an appointment to see their doctor. And it won't be much better with Democrats in charge, because they will use state-run health care as a jobs program for anyone with an IQ above room temperature whom they think could maybe possibly vote for them. You will have clinics full of incompetent morons running them. And THEN you will have armies of Karens on either side demanding that their taxpayer money should not be paying for this or that medical procedure for anyone. Imagine the culture war fights currently going on over the public school curricula, magnified by eleventy billion and now covering every single person's medical treatments.
This is what you are asking for Tony?
My primary political opinion is that Republicans should be kept from power as much as physically possible by the human race. You're right. They can do much worse than underfund Medicare. They could blow up the whole damn planet with their current trajectory of delusion.
Somewhere down the line comes my other political opinions, like what kind of healthcare system we should have. Republicans can fuck up the private sector too. They do it every time.
Damn. Sarc and Lying Jeffy aren’t leftists. They just can’t disagree that the government shouldn’t run healthcare from a philosophical viewpoint against a leftist like Tony, they just point out that Republicans will be in power at some point and will fuck it up.
I’m actually honored that you guys hate me personally while quibbling with Tony on specifics about how government healthcare will be run. This is a thread worth remembering.
It's not just Republicans, Tony, although they are a big problem. It's Democrats too. Do you *really* want the AOCs in charge of health care? We'll have health care 'social justice' quotas, we'll have mandates for organically-sourced free-range band-aids or some such nonsense, we'll have price controls on meds - wouldn't want Big Pharma to be 'price gouging' - which means we'll have shortages. The entire thing will be fucked up. Because it will be someone else's vision for health care imposed upon you, not your vision for health care that you choose for yourself.
Funny...
"Government is force, and as such it should be **limited** to what would be a just use of force by an individual. Such as protecting life, liberty or property. Is it just to protect one's life from harm by other humans? I think so. Is it just to force your neighbors to pay your medical bills, tuition, rent, cable, internet, and student loans? No. Ummmm. No."
So well said.
And the U.S. Constitution provides the foundation of a *limited* government.
You’re complaining about the feds doing something that is part of their enumerated powers. Figures.
1. Since the country was created.
2. Since libertarianism has existed in the US.
Principle of Subsidiarity, RIP...
That dispute has been mooted by the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in the Bostock case. Now not only are the localities denied their subsidiarity, so are the states.
The *principle* of subsidiarity says that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible. Ideally, at the individual level. The Bostock case, even if you disagree with it, did not nullify the rationale behind the principle for all issues in all cases.
https://twitter.com/EITC_Official/status/1526767013661745152?t=9lF-tOIAeX_4BsnsHMvqog&s=19
Waukegan and Highwood public libraries putting on pride fest with drag queen story hour.
[Link]
Why is that bad? Be as detailed as you like.
Because shrike doesn't need another venue to be around little kids.
Is Shrike the drag queen...?
Does that idea excite you?
Government shouldn’t use tax dollars to promote sexuality.
Government institutions should not be promoting a particular religion?
Little children don't need you and your friends grooming them.
How can a state bathroom law kill subsidiarity while Bostock doesn't?
The bathroom law didn't "nullify the rationale behind the principle for all issues in all cases," either, so your response proves too much and undermines your death-of-subsidiarity point.
Funny how zoning diktats from the federal government are never "a gross overreach of executive power".
So another few dozen articles to come regarding concern trolling?
I just remarked below on how you Trump Cultists swallowed his lies.
What lies did I swallow? Transitory inflation? Rig counts? Spittin tobaccy?
But I’m just a conspiracy theorist when I posit that Reason writers have a mandate to help the DNC before the midterms.
The real trouble with conspiracy theories is that so many turn out to be true.
There's a lot of evidence to support that theory. Like the implication that Republicans haven't been debating who is "Republican enough" for decades, and that "RINO" is a Trump-era thing rather than going back to GWB and McCain. Like skipping over the way that Democrats have a very similar internal argument, which the radical left has been consistently winning.
Of cours, a lot of that is also explained by .ost of Reason's writers being younger Millennials/older genz who think history started 10 years ago.
Voters long for the good old days when Trump told them his virus would be gone by Easter 2020 and he would balance the budget.
Sometimes a liar is what voters want most. Donnie Boy exploited those dumbasses and gave them what they wanted.
Biden sucks too. Bipartisan hater here!
You dont have to add the lasting with how much you defend biden and democrats.
I only defend Biden when you liars lie about him.
You don't need to lie. He is bad on his own.
Remember, if massive spending causes inflation then Trump deserves most of the blame.
Last time I checked, the budget is constitutionally assigned to the House of Representatives.
Then approved by McConnell and Trump.
Trump only matters if it’s veto proof.
Please give me the cites of anyone who supports Mitch McConnell on anything related to spending.
Then you'll not be blaming President Biden for any economic metrics.
I’ll blame the Democrats for bills they pass, and blame republicans that go along with them, if I disagree with the bill.
I hope you weren’t hoping for a gotcha here.
And just to be clear, the policy you're bitching about is giving people emergency anti-starvation money during a global pandemic? On whom would you blame the depression we'd still be in without it?
And just to be clear, the policy you're bitching about is giving people emergency anti-starvation money during a global pandemic?
If the cost of food skyrockets, the gesture was essentially meaningless.
I’m sorry you’re confused about the difference between spending bills passed by the house and Biden’s policies enforced by agencies within the executive branch.
But we all know you’re not confused. You’re a lying piece of shit trying to conflate things.
People stockpiled food and other goods before any stimmies were handed out. That's the initiation of the supply chain disruptions causing different prices than we had in months prior. You're suggesting that the best policy would have been to make Americans who lost their job during the pandemic also destitute so that their starvation would keep supply and demand more or less stable?
I can't tell for sure, but I think there's a forest and trees issue here.
I’m just glad you don’t bother pretending to not be just making up random shit.
You are positing a possible depression while ignoring the inflation and upcoming recession directly caused by the federal government's reckless spending.
Even if the sockpuppet is a planted Trumpista, Tony is lying. Libertarians are not supportive of taking money from people at gunpoint to hand to the people starving because that very policy causes economic crashes. Republican confiscations and murders caused The Crash by making the Great Depression inevitable until repeal. Communist confiscations and murders do the same thing. Both cause money to vanish from banks before looters grab it, so fractional-reserve banking systems fail. No point for Tony.
Yeah we’re all such big fans of Bitch McConnell here.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. Turd is a TDS-addled pile of lefty shit, a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
Turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Fuck off and die , you waste of oxygen.
Last time I checked it was Biden's administration that was printing bills like no tomorrow, not Trump's.
Quick perusal got Cheru Beasley.
Supports HR1 and the federal take over of elections.
Supports more federal takeover of Healthcare.
Talks around supporting ending the filling user, won't say it should stay.
Talks around court packing.
More government spending and regulations of business.
Campaigned with Justice Democrats, fat left wing.
Libertarian dream.
Oh. Also says justice system is racist.
https://www.carolinacoastonline.com/regional/article_65559286-1fdd-11ec-9794-972366760eb5.html
Justice doesn't so much judge you by the color of your skin as by the size of your bank account.
That is, poor whites can get the shaft like anyone else poor.
Middle class whites don’t exactly skate through the justice system either.
Sure, middle class of any kind may as well be poor when it comes to those legal bills, and they don't have legal aid.
Yep. We have a two tiered justice system, and the elite no longer feel like they need to pretend otherwise.
Who the hell is Cheru Beasley and why should we care?
Read the article instead of focusing on a typing error on the phone dummy.
If reason is going to wade into political races they should do so on both sides.
Oh, she's the Democratic candidate! I see!
So is this one of those times where "opposing Team Red = supporting Team Blue"? Is that it?
Can't a person deserve criticism on his/her own merits without comparison to some other person?
Here is a news flash, this article isn't about the North Carolina Senate race per se. It is an article about how Team Red has become the party of toadies to Trump.
I seem to note that all the time, you post links to articles here that are critical of Team Blue, even Team Blue political candidates, without a corresponding criticism of Team Red. So what's wrong if the same thing happens to something that's happening in Team Red?
If you're not a Republican then you are "other," and "other" is all the same. Democrat, libertarian, communist, it's all the same. It's "other."
Did I miss the part of the article about the libertarian or communist on the ballot?
I used to think you were mean. Now I think you might actually mean well, but you're just terminally stupid.
That really refuted my point, and wasn’t just a personal attack. Like you always do.
Your only point was that you missed mine.
Not at all. It was just a stupid point. This seat will be won by the Republican or the Democrat. If Reason is only attacking the Republican, while ignoring the Democrat, and not actually endorsing the libertarian in the process, they’re tacitly endorsing the Democrat.
If Reason focused on supporting libertarian candidates I wouldn’t be so critical. But they aren’t doing that.
Have there even been any articles on libertarian candidates recently? ANY?
Quick, without googling, who’s the libertarian that’ll be on the ballot for this seat? Because I didn’t notice it in the article.
Otherwise bashing the republican on the ballot without discussing any negatives of the Democrats is, in fact, a pro-democrat article.
It’s sad how you guys don’t realize how transparent all this is.
Violated her judicial oath supporting blm protests.
https://www.nccivitas.org/2020/n-c-supreme-court-chief-justice-cheri-beasley-makes-dangerous-comments-attacking-entire-state-judicial-system/
BLM is worthless and should never have existed. A distraction.
I have to hand it to you conservatives. You find some odd insignificant splinter group and attack the entire left as a proxy.
See ACORN. Hell, you fucksticks still use Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground.
Such a worthless distraction, yet she endorsed them. And here you are defending her.
If they’re such a worthless distraction, why are you defending her?
Also, turn yourself in for your crimes against children.
I don't recall anyone endorsing BLM.
Ohhh. Duh. My bad.
Tony says that not giving is taking, and that no taking is giving.
You and your girlfriends say that not criticizing is supporting, and not supporting is criticizing.
Fucking idiots.
HUNTER BIDENS LAPTOP!
DERP, BLOOP, ARGHHH!!!! WHORE!
What you don't do explains so much more about you than what you actually do, because now I can make shit up and call you a liar when you disagree.
Weird you didn’t mind him bringing up Hunter’s laptop when that has nothing to do with the topic. Wait, not weird, you’re a hypocrite.
Which topic? The one mister topic policeman wants to talk about, or what the people talking were talking about?
The topic of the comment we’re all responding to. Damn sarc, you’re shitfaced again.
No Sarc was just homeless. Thus he has regrettable cognitive processing capabilities
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, a TDS-addled asshole and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
Turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Fuck off and die, scumbag.
“Too many people believe that there are two kinds of justice. They believe it because that is their lived experience — they have seen and felt the difference in their own lives. The data also overwhelmingly bears out the truth of those lived experiences. In our courts, African Americans are more harshly treated, more severely punished and more likely to be presumed guilty.”
It should be noted that according to the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, (Cannon 2-A):
“A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
You didn’t read his link, or you’re willfully ignorant. Or both.
Is any of that not true or something?
So that’s a no on reading the link?
No need. I'll never vote for any Republican.
So you’re admitting you’re willfully ignorant of the topic you’re responding to. Again.
Looks like a person with such strong opinions is better off running for office than being a judge. What are you mad about?
I didn’t say I was mad. You can’t stop lying, can you?
This is one of those like where JesseAz sits back smugly and I can't figure out why.
“This is one of those like where” sarc responds to the issue and doesn’t just make personal attacks. Because he’s not a total fucking hypocrite.
You thought that was a personal attack? No. That's when someone says you're an alcoholic pedophile or something similar, which you've done hundreds of times. You think I attack you personally? Fuck....
I’ve never called you a pedophile. And I call you a drunk because you just remembered me calling you a pedophile hundreds of times when I never have.
And yes, posting a comment just to say someone is sitting back smugly is a personal attack.
Oh shit, is sarc SPB? Oops.
The concepts of giving and taking presume a prior claim to the properties at issue. If the government taxes you, that is not government taking something that actually belongs to you, that is government redefining what belongs to you, which it is allowed to do, what with being the government.
Come on sarc, keep defending Tony here.
Do you people actually think that money denominated in bills with faces of US presidents on them floated down from the sky and landed in your accounts, distributed by moral worth? Render unto Caesar once in a while, at least the coins with Caesar's face on them.
The only reason you own anything is because government says so. That's what you keep saying when you insist on taxing me to pay for cops to defend your property.
“Do you people actually think that money denominated in bills with faces of US presidents on them floated down from the sky and landed in your accounts, distributed by moral worth?”
No. What a stupid fucking question.
So you own you only because government says so, even though men pre-existed governments? And who would own you at a time prior to the establishment of governments?
C'mon, Boi! Put your back into that problem! Chop-chop!
There was an article about this phenomenon back in 2011-2012 or so, I forget. But the basic gist of it was, the Team Red Outrage machine works something like this:
Step 1: Generate a "scandal" by blowing a minor event way out of proportion, deceptively misrepresenting something vaguely controversial as being far worse than it really is, and sometimes even outright lie. The story doesn't have to pass high standards of integrity, it only has to pass the much lower bar of "what conservative readers will believe". The point is to deliberately stoke outrage among conservatives.
Step 2: Conservative readers and pundits, in the right-wing media landscape and social media, take the bait and get outraged and will talk about the story, thereby amplifying it.
Step 3: At the same time, mainstream media will downplay or ignore the story - not because it is being pushed by conservatives per se, but because it is low-integrity bullshit.
Step 4: Conservative media generate even more outrage by pointing out how the mainstream media is ignoring or "deplatforming" or "censoring" or "silencing" them. More news coverage about the fake scandal!
Step 5: Finally mainstream media looks into it, shows that the 'scandal' is a big nothingburger. But, by this point no one is paying attention because the conservative outrage machine is back to Step 1 again with a new fake scandal.
That is the basic game that is being played here. Deliberately construct artificial outrage in order to manipulate the people.
Yes.
See Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Lois Lerner, and Solyndra.
None were actual scandals except in the rat infested brains of conservatives.
I'm glad I don't listen to talk radio anymore. It fills one's head with cement.
Agreed, there's much better things to listen to.
When I'm on long trips, I listen to podcasts, but non-political ones. Ones where I actually learn something new. Chemistry ones, or maybe TED talks, or something like that.
I find I just don't have the patience to listen to garbage like talk radio anymore. It is a waste of time.
For me it's the commercials. Buy gold! Boner pills! Survival food!
Interesting conversation about “an article about this phenomenon back in 2011-2012 or so, I forget”.
Oh, I'm sorry mister conversation policeman. I'm so sorry we deviated from your diktat and went off on a tangent. Oh please don't send us to the labor camps again.
Usually, stacked gray boxes like that indicate the lefty assholes sarc and jeff are both lying to anyone who will read their steaming piles of lefty shit.
Have whatever conversations you want. In fact, I encourage more conversations like this.
I would recommend Joe Rogan as a good podcast, but you were instructed to hate him by your masters.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
"artificial outrage in order to manipulate the people" -- Into pushing for a LIMITED Government????
The ignorance shown by your post of the LEFT side doing exactly as stated 100x as much while manipulating people to support a Nazi(National Socialism)-Regime in the USA is only justified by one's own bias and manipulation.
Yes; both parties are at war with each other.. There is no middle ground between the USA and a Nazi(National Socialist) take-over...
The entire left supports BLM, and labels anyone a racist who will not.
Meanwhile your side is shooting up grocery stores in Buffalo and churches in Charleston and Pittsburgh.
Nobody believes your lies pedo.
Are you planning a shooting?
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. Turd is a kiddie diddler, a pathological liar, and a TDS-addled pile of shit, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
Turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Stuff your head up your ass, shitpile. Your head is looking for company.
No. Are you a fed?
turds planning some late night get together with his 7YO neighbor.
Meanwhile your side is shooting up grocery stores in Buffalo and churches in Charleston and Pittsburgh.
And yours is running over parades and thirsting after small children. What's your point?
Nope. He’s one of you. Hates capitalism, hate Fox News, loves Rachel Maddow.
You're definitely a gold medal contender in Straw Man Slaying.
I don't know of anyone who could match you.
Who is winning the PA GOP primary? The quack doctor Donnie Boy endorsed?
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
We’re you too busy raping a little kid to look for yourself?
So Reason supports the NC “bathroom” law?
This is getting really confusing.
Like the advice "follow the money", to understand Reason, "count the clicks".
And that is being complained about instead of celebrated by Reason why?
There is maybe half or so of a libertarian argument that local governments should be allowed to make their own policies on use of public facilities, instead of those creatures of the state government having to adhere to a statewide policy. Leaving as many discretionary matters to local control is probably good as a matter of policy, though local governments, as creatures of the state only exercising powers delegated by the state, do not have any inherent right to do so.
(There being, of course, no libertarian position at all on whether sex or gender is the better way to properly govern segregation of state-owned bathroom facilities, it is obviously purely a discretionary matter . . . and thus nothing worse than mildly unwise for the state to set it rather than localities.)
The rest of the "Bathroom Bill" -- a ban on minimum-wage hikes and a ban on expanded "anti-discrimination" ordinances -- was pure-quill "Free Minds and Free Markets" libertarianism, guaranteeing that people who own private property could make their own policies for the use of that property by others without the petty tyrants in local governments improperly imposing themselves.
Thus, of course, an actual libertarian's adjective for the "bathroom bill" would not be "infamous", but "pro-freedom" or "rights-protecting" . . . or perhaps "mischaracterized", the latter applying to any description of the bill as " a gross overreach of executive power" (particularly since it was not in any way a use of executive power, but a legislative act).
How is it "pro-freedom" for the state to coerce an individual to use a specific bathroom, particularly against the wishes of the locality which might choose differently?
If the locality passed the law doing the coercing and the State came in and over rode it and let men use women's bathrooms, it would be just as pro freedom as the current situation. Your stupid comment makes sense only if you believe men have the inalienable right to use women's bathrooms.
Government men's bathrooms and government women's bathrooms is what the contenders are arguing about while struggling to evade the realization. It was a government bus ordering blacks to sit in the back that got traction in efforts to reduce coercive racial collectivism without giving up communo-fascist government monopolies. Thanks to libertarian spoiler vote clout, pay toilets are slowly coming back and the problem withering apace. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free... er... um... Subsidy!
Fuck off. Your comments are even more worthless than Jeffy’s. And his comments are shit.
(There being, of course, no libertarian position at all on whether sex or gender is the better way to properly govern segregation of state-owned bathroom facilities, it is obviously purely a discretionary matter
Sure there is. It's the Principle of Subsidiarity. If either choice is equally valid, then the decision should devolve to the lowest decision-making body possible, ideally, all the way down to the individual. That way, the fewest number of people possible are forced to accept a decision that they may disagree with.
Um, no, the "Principle of Subsidiarity" does not, in any way, speak as to "whether sex or gender is the better way to properly govern segregation of state-owned bathroom facilities". It only speaks as to who should decide if "either choice is equally valid" . . . which is, of course, the exact same proposition as "it is obviously a purely discretionary matter."
So, if you were, you know, physically capable of basic reading comprehension and rational thought, rather than knee-jerking partisan asshattery, you would have noticed that I, in fact, spent two paragraphs explaining exactly why the libertarian preference for subsidiarity meant that North Carolina should not have overridden local governments on government-owned bathrooms.
However, since subsidiarity is not, in fact, a bedrock principle of libertarianism, but merely a preference, I then went on to the other two parts of the bill -- local minimum wages and local anti-discrimination laws -- where the bill explicitly enacted the core libertarian principle of preventing a local government from imposing its preferences on private actors by initiation of force.
When a bill's three provisions are divided between two direct defenses of bedrock libertarian principle against local governments and one violation of a libertarian preference on who should exercise discretion in a matter, that bill isn't a pure libertarian victory, no. But the correct libertarian view of the bill is trivial to ascertain. It's "pro-freedom" or "rights-protecting".
you would have noticed that I, in fact, spent two paragraphs explaining exactly why the libertarian preference for subsidiarity meant that North Carolina should not have overridden local governments on government-owned bathrooms.
So you did. That was a bit of a kneejerk response from me, sorry about that.
local minimum wages and local anti-discrimination laws -- where the bill explicitly enacted the core libertarian principle of preventing a local government from imposing its preferences on private actors by initiation of force.
Well, yes and no.
The state didn't actually enact a libertarian *principle*, it was just that the state's actions had a libertarian-friendly *result*. The libertarian *principle* would be to stop the minimum wage increase because it would (further) erode private property rights. But that was not the rationale. The rationale was to stop the minimum wage increase because the state wanted to take power away from the local government, largely due to tribal feuding. I understand what you are saying, but I do not think we should be quick to celebrate an illiberal, unlibertarian tactic which happened to produce a result that we might like.
“So you did. That was a bit of a kneejerk response from me, sorry about that.”
Surprising no one. Maybe stop calling out others more for tribalism to placate yourself.
“ The state didn't actually enact a libertarian *principle*, it was just that the state's actions had a libertarian-friendly *result*… The rationale was to stop the minimum wage increase because the state wanted to take power away from the local government, largely due to tribal feuding.”
Lying Jeffy is more concerned with attacking “tribalism” than promoting actual policies that promote liberty. I wonder which position is being advocated for by which side?
Nah, I’m just joking. I know which “tribe” is advocating the libertarian policy. It’s the one he’s attacking. Because he’s more interested in a philosophical debate than actual liberty.
We are talking about writers who still refer to a "don't say gay" bill and support government subsidies for the Pedo Kingdom.
Ted Budd is a member of the Freedom Caucus and appears to have a Jesse Helms-ish non-interventionist foreign polcy:
So maybe McCrory, in addition to being a proven loser, just wasn't Republican enough !
It's noninterventionist to withdraw soldiers from Afghanistan?
Ask Trump, he's the one that initiated it.
He's the one who surrendered to the Taliban. He left the actual deadline to withdrawal to Biden. History should sort out the credit fairly enough.
"...He left the actual deadline to withdrawal to Biden..."
He did nothing of the sort, you pathetic piece of lefty shit; there was a specified departure date to which all three parties had agreed. Droolin', delusional Joe decided he would prefer a photo op and changed to a new date entirely.
Here. shit-for-brains, read this:
https://nypost.com/2021/08/19/i-ran-trumps-afghan-withdrawal-bidens-attempt-to-blame-us-is-sad/
Typical effort by which shitbags like this TDS-addled asshole attempt to blame others for Biden's fuck ups.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
What’s the obsession by lefties with lying? This wasn’t even a hard one to refute. Biden literally chose 9/11 as his withdrawal date for purely political, photo-op reasons, and it was a stupid political reason to boot.
Yet apparently Tony fell for it? Nah. We all know he didn’t. He’s disgusting dishonest.
"...Yet apparently Tony fell for it? Nah. We all know he didn’t. He’s disgusting dishonest..."
You credit shitbag with too much intent; abject stupidity will suffice and shitbag has demonstrated that often enough to be without question.
The fucker is too damn stupid to understand he's been lied to, and bought it, hook, line and sinker. And repeats it, as if everyone else is as abysmally stupid.
Most times the asshole gets ignored, but stupidity of this level gets a response; what a pathetic fucking lefty ignoramus!
It's noninterventionist to keep soldiers in Afghanistan?
No, shit-for-brains; Trump had plans in place to remove them.
What an assholic piece of shit.
Great news best Gastro Surgeon in Vijayawada
Vijayawada sounds like the very place where you would get gastrointestinal problems in the first place. Hard pass! And I don't just mean the passing of stools, either!
It's not "Trump's hold". He's just a figurehead. What it is instead of a new Right Populism that largely driven by a culture war and anti-trade/immigrant fervor. That brand of conservatism has always been around, but it has grown in direct proportion to the Progressive Left's culture warmongering.
And don't forget, moderates have never done well in primaries. Primaries lean heavily to the radicals because they only care about the registered party members, while the general heads back towards the middle because they have to catch the votes of the independents and unaffiliated and others. The danger lies when the radicals don't move back towards the middle. Then you have crazy ass Hillary versus crazy ass Donald. Both sides claimed to have gotten the popular vote despite nearly half of registered voters not bothering to show up.
Our elections have been taken over by the extremes.
Our elections have been taken over by federal Kleptocracy bribery in the shape of "Nixon's Anti-Libertarian Law." Look it up.
This piece should have been titled
"How to Write an Article about Leftists Being Terrified that Trump is such a Successful Kingmaker Without Saying that Leftists are Terrified that Trump is such a Successful Kingmaker"
"The Kingmaker" couldn't keep Madison Cawthorn on his political throne, nor keep Madison Cawthorn from making a throne out of some other guy's face while preaching Christian "Family Values." 🙂
Thank The Void that Madison Cawthorn is out! Who can trust a man with two last names anyway?
Lancaster, you can't be the 'populist' people claim Trump tone without *appealing to the populace*.
You need to understand that, rightly or wrongly, a large portion of the country supports this stuff and don't want a 'democrat-lite' GOP.
When you can think about it in those terms then maybe we'll listen to you about what does and does not bode well for the future of the GOP
Reason is just upset because Trump is abandoning the GOP whose reason for living is '...money is how we keep score...' and replacing them with people who put America first i.e. '...MAGA is how we keep score...'
Girl-bullying is how fascistas keep score. Yet in formerly fascist Spain, Germany, Norway, Ireland, Argentina, Colombia, France and Italy, pregnant women enjoy the same unquestioned individual rights as men. Deaths from coathanger abortions and Romanian-style crime rates attributable to unwanted offspring are ebbing. NARAL declares itself progressive in the same way the LP was progressive in 1972-1976. Republican bigotry and libertarian dereliction are turning half the population against insincere "defenses" of economic freedom.
Joe Lancaster is more and more what one expects from a token Trumpista infiltrator. SC Governor Pat lost in 2016 after trying to force women to choose between involuntary reproduction and illegal abortions. Ah! But according to looter ideologues at Slate, it was only because he pissed off the NAMBLA vote, refusing to let bearded men in tutus and lipstick hang around the girls' room. This in a state where voters are still chapped that blacks are allowed into former "whites only" bathrooms. That dawg won't hunt.
That's NC Governor Pat McCrory. I should know, I've lived adjacent to his train-wreck political career for years.
And Charlotte's former Mayor McCheese is less a Trumpista than a "Go-Along-To-Get-Along" GOPer who just freight-hopped on The Trump Train.
And, no, North Carolinians are no longer the racial segregationists that they were in your time. After having cleaned enough horse stall public bathrooms of boths sexes, I am a ME-Segregationist. who thinks everyone would be better off in separate-but-equal closet stalls.
And if I were a Howard Roark, every building I build would have a big row of single-stall unisex bathrooms for all, regardless of appendages, simply because single-stalls are much easier to clean.
And if I couldn't get my buildings built to my standards, I'd also do a Howard Roark and one night when noboy's in, I'd stick my ass in the communal, Collectivist bathroom window while eating a big pot of beans and holding a match! 😉
Correction: Nobody's in, whether Boys, Girls, Men, Women, Trans, Intersex, or Eunuchs. I wouldn't want any innocent people hurt by fart flames. 🙂
There's a whole lot here about what Trump's endorsement means or doesn't mean, but the truth is that Charlotte politicians rarely do well in statewide races.
Trump does not have a hold on the GOP. He has no official or
un-offiical position to from which to even do that. He is not working with the RNC. The grass roots official Republicans love and respect Trump. There is a difference.
Take Hillary Clinton, who is indeed un-offically working with the DNC to spread rumors, lies and fake dossiers about political opposition. Hillary Clinton most certainly has a hold on the Democrats, but we aren't hearing any silly stories from Reason on Clinton .