Donald Trump Dominates Super Tuesday State Primaries
Despite voters' continued disgust at the idea of a Trump/Biden rematch, the former president is poised to carry nearly every state.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll in January found that two-thirds of Americans were "tired of seeing the same candidates in presidential elections and want someone new." Those voters' hopes must have been dashed by the results of Super Tuesday.
Fifteen states and the territory of American Samoa held their primary elections on Tuesday, and the results so far have been unsurprising: The New York Times reports that former President Donald Trump, fresh off a unanimous Supreme Court decision finding that states cannot bar him from their ballots over his attempts to steal the last presidential election, has won nearly every state Republican primary contest.
The results are a sobering rebuke to former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Trump's sole remaining challenger for the Republican nomination. Going into Super Tuesday, Haley had lost every single Republican primary with the exception of Washington, D.C. Ahead of the contest in Haley's home state of South Carolina—which she would lose by 20 points—she vowed to continue fighting to the end, and her campaign announced that it would spend over $1 million on ads in Super Tuesday states.
State primaries award candidates a certain number of delegates at the Republican convention in the fall, when the party officially selects its nominee. Before Super Tuesday, Trump had captured 247, with Haley only earning 43; a candidate needs 1,215 delegates to be considered the presumptive nominee.
With more than one-third of all total delegates at stake on Tuesday, Haley needed a miracle—likely multiple miracles, in multiple states—if she wanted to arrest Trump's momentum.
Instead, Trump continued to steamroll his competition, winning primaries in Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee by more than 50 points each.
In an address from Mar-a-Lago, Trump said, "there's never been anything so conclusive" as the primary results.
One notable outlier was Vermont, where Haley remained competitive throughout the night before ultimately winning it by nearly 4 points.
I've seen enough: Nikki Haley (R) wins the Vermont GOP primary. And…that's pretty much it.
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) March 6, 2024
In practice, this means that for all its talk of fiscal restraint and moral rectitude, the Republican Party remains in thrall to a candidate who severely hiked spending as president while promising cuts and who currently faces numerous civil and criminal trials for conduct both before and during his presidency.
There was even less drama on the Democratic side, as President Joe Biden easily outperformed his two competitors, wellness guru Marianne Williamson and Rep. Dean Phillips (D–Minn.). Last week, Williamson "unsuspended" her campaign after she outperformed Phillips in February's Michigan primary, despite having exited the race earlier in the month.
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
Maybe the Republican Party should have found better candidates instead of throwing their support behind Nikki.
The Republican Party is the party of cowards. Between their fear of the Democrat/Media complex and their fear of Trump, there was no way that they could back anyone who might actually cut government.
The Republican Party is the party of cowards.
True, the neocons are the biggest pussies in American history. They sure do love getting others to fight their battles for them, though.
The biggest fear of the center-right is that the party's conservatives might actually force them to put up a fight. That's why they support culture war surrender monkeys.
I liked Vivek a lot. Apparently I was nearly alone in that amongst primary voters. Alas.
Whatever, fuck it. I'll vote for Trump. If the IC hasn't shot him by election day.
The republican party DID find a better candidate. And voted for him.
The democrats who masquerade as republicans voted for Haley.
Geezus H Fucking Christopher Columbus! Stop repeating this TDS lie!
They ruled states cannot bar federal candidates, period. Whatever the states' reasons are, they cannot ban federal candidates, period.
Fuck off, TDS-addled idiots.
Not even the worst TDS comment in the article.
What's the shit about the republican party "In thrall"? Or not putting the spending hikes in perspective?
The thrall bit is pure projection. The way the Democrats and the media approached Obama was downright embarrassing. The whole primary campaign before, places like PBS were ignoring the Rs and going all gaga over the "historic" election because the next president was going to be someone who was almost black or almost a woman. When Obama won a thrill went up the leg of the media.
Now, they want to paint people looking at Hillary, holding their nose, and voting Trump as a cult. Rs aren't in thrall. Most are likely either saying "fuck you" to the political persecution, rightfully scared of letting the party of Pelosi and Biden retain power, or both.
Likewise, they want to paint emergency spending during the beginning of the Pandemic -- which was bad, largely a solution to a problem Government created -- as the same as Biden, who took office with the vaccines out, people going back to work, and already knowing we were facing massive inflation and responded by proposing trillions in pork barrel spending, doubling and tripling down on unconstitutional spending even when the SCOTUS says no, and setting the one-time emergency budget as the new baseline.
Fuck, dude, why is this running in a libertarian publication? Why is this idiot working for a libertarian publication? He needs to move outside of DC and actually talk to ANYONE not in his insular circle to understand. If he's intellectually capable, that is.
I also like how Biden's insane spending is a non-issue apparently.
SIC, I'm nominating this for "Best Comment of 2024".
Remember how Obama was intentionally framed in so many photos so as to appear to have a halo?
Count me among the Trump voters who did so quite reluctantly. Basically, I voted for Trump because he was the only possible candidate running that had a chance–slim though it was–to take down Sec. Clinton, and even then only because his likely SCOTUS candidates seemed quite positive.
As President, I liked most(?) of his policies, far from all. But OMG, if only he would shut up for ten seconds! The constant “me me me, I I I, biggest bestest most fantastic” just STFU for a few minutes and let people see what your policies are doing for them, then take some quiet credit when it is due.
So I voted for him against Biden too. Despite all the off-putting thing, the results were pretty good and I knew damn sure what Biden would do.
And I’ll do it again this year.
That’s after I voted straight L for every race I voted for more than 30 years, since my first eligible vote, which was for Reagan to get a 2nd term. After that, if there was an L in a race, they got my vote. Right up until Hillary Clinton ran, and the Libertarians ran Gary “I agree with Bernie Sanders 73% of the time” Johnson and Bill “I’m not a gun grabber anymore” Weld.
Well said Stuck.
Trump raised spending and Joe Biden didn’t? Trump has been charged with numerous crimes, Biden hasn’t been because he’s a
“Well meaning elderly man with a poor memory”.
Trump had no wars. Biden has Ukraine, Middle East and in a few months probably Taiwan.
Get a little sense of proportion here. With Biden, we don’t even know who’s running the store. Biden’s position is what? Zombie? Puppet?
Trump will have a completely recalcitrant deep state that will stymie his every move. He will be relentlessly attacked by the press, Hollywood and every university in the Western Hemisphere.
If Biden wins, his handlers will be unleashed to end fossil fuels, establish censorship by proxy and drive the economy into the ground.
The future doesn’t look good no matter who wins. A paralyzed executive versus a deep state ventriloquist act.
The most frustrating to me is that Reason articles have devolved so much to pragmatic excuses for different government regulations instead of fewer that calling it libertarian is a poor joke. Yet at the same time, they refuse to recognize that in this god-awful system we have, Trump happens to be a better pragmatic answer than any Democrat so far offered. Didn’t start wars, cut back some regulations, and everyone knew exactly what he wanted. Sure, he should have vetoed spending bills and made Congress put their names on record as wanting more spending, he should have fired Fauci and Brix, his tariffs show an appalling economic ignorance. But Biden and the Dems have been worse in every respect.
It’s like the only time Reason shows any libertarian spine at all is when it leads to reluctantly and strategically voting for Biden because mean tweets.
Even then they can't offer a logical explanation for it on libertarian grounds. From a libertarian perspective, Haley is significantly worse than Trump. Their laments over him trouncing her in all but heavy Democrat areas is suspect on its own. The repeated intrusions of negative assertions towards Trump while doing nothing of the sort for his opponents highlights TDS. Further, any talk of the Democrat primary is incomplete when ignoring that despite almost no coverage Biden is performing poorly against 2 no names. That is even if you disregard the Democrat party booting RFK from party contention and doing their best to keep him off of any ballot as 3rd party.
The throughline here is that the Democrat party is using every dirty trick to thwart democracy and eliminate competition for the single puppet candidate it has chosen
his tariffs show an appalling economic ignorance.
C'mon Jesse! Attack! Whoof whoof! You can do it! Good boy!
Oh fuck off, toad.
Just showing your double-standard of flying off the handle when I say something, and ho-hum when the same thing is said by a teammate.
Wear it with pride.
It must be five o'clock somewhere. I'd suggest puting the drink down, Sarc.
So it was five o'clock somewhere when your buddies screamed and yelled at the computer before typing really nasty comments whenever I said anything critical at all about Trump's economic policies. Interesting way to defend them.
You've never said anything rational about Trump's economic policies so your criticism registered as yet another bout of foaming idiocy.
Because the truth is this--the economy was crappy under Obama, IS extremely crappy under Biden, but was suddenly producing real wage gains and prosperity for the American people under Trump --despite you leftists and the leftists that infest Reason thinking those policies were bad.
Trump raised spending and Joe Biden didn’t?
The Trump administration set the new baseline and the next president continued it. Seems to happen every ten years or so. 9/11, housing bubble, COVID...
Fuck off and die, TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
Time to give Vermont back to Canada.
I'm thinking everything north of Detroit's southern edge, and east of Chicago's west edge. Sorry, New Hampshire.
American Samoa has presidential primaries? Why? The people there don't get to vote for president. I guess they figure that, even though they have no vote in the general election (since they pick no electors), they can have a small impact on the results by helping to choose the candidates. I can't even call them citizens, since they (and only they) are U.S. "nationals" but not U.S. "citizens". What exactly that distinction means, I'm not sure. Perhaps that they can't vote at all if they move to a State, but can make the move if they want to.
Instead, Trump continued to steamroll his competition, winning primaries in Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee by more than 50 points each.
He would have won by more than 100 points each if it wasn't for election hacking.
And states where they have open primaries letting Democrats get in their shots by voting in the Republican primary, given that Joe is effectively running unopposed. Then again, Trump was running-- effectively--unopposed.
Lancaster's shadiness is part of why people ain't paying 25 bucks to Reason. Was there a libertarian take anywhere in the article? Or just an extended TDS episode?
Or just an extended TDS episode?>i/>
See next to last paragraph.
Future analysts will show 3 things here
1) Decisions to bar Trump increased votes for Trump
2)Biden's "I will bring people together" and "I am a friend of the family" were so dishonest anyone else looks better.
3) Most people despise the idea of Kamala as President yet Biden is in effect pushing it by pretending to run again instead of dying ,which even the casaul look at him brings to mind.
The Courts just underlined why TRUMP must run. ANd I am NOT a Trumpie, just a logic-trrained observer.
Also, now one of the Cobb county DAs wants to testify that Bradley, Willis's supposed star witness, her beaus divorce lawyer, lied on the stand about the timeline of their affairs, that it did start before he was hired and that the divorce lawyer knew that and the prosecutors office was also aware and trying to hide it.
Getting worse than that. The organizer of the DA office is a man named DiSantis (not DeSantis) who has heavy ties to Joe Biden and the DNC. It is all coordinated political lawfare.
It is all coordinated political lawfare.
Correction: it's all a criminal conspiracy to imprison a political opponent.
And, according to reports, was paid by the WH for 'consulting' with Willis.
Trumpism is not libertarianism, it is populist demagoguery.
When Haley concedes later today, America will finally have to face up to a very simple choice: leftist insanity or incoherent and inconsistent government overseen by a narcissist.
Heaven help the Republic.
One of the big give aways if a not a libertarian gaslighting as a libertarian is the spittle that comes out with the yells of populism. How dare the citizens have a say! We need elite rule!
leftist insanity or incoherent and inconsistent government overseen by a narcissist.
Heaven help the Republic.
Well said.
Trumpism is not libertarianism, it is populist demagoguery.
If the current political and cultural establishment wasn't so corrupt, bloodthirsty, and empirically insane, populist demagoguery from the opposite flank wouldn't seem nearly as appealing.
The actual problem is the former, not the latter. Suppress the former, and you won't have to worry about the latter. But the bottom bitches on the center-right don't have the spine to fight that battle. So Trump is the result; and if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else with enough sense to know what time it is.
inconsistent government overseen by a narcissist.
So, most of politics in general? You really think politicians since Theodore Roosevelt have done this job without a massive desire for self-aggrandization? Shit, for a long time that was celebrated for the purposes of a chief executive "getting things done."
You're complaining about something that's been a feature of the office for nearly 125 fucking years.
So, most of politics in general?
I don’t see it that way. Only five presidents, including Trump, got into office without any political experience. That’s it. The rest have been experienced politicians who were playing the game. Trump doesn’t play the game. He does whatever is best for him and him alone, which makes him an inconsistent and unpredictable narcissist. Anything remotely libertarianish that happens along the way is purely incidental. Is he less-terrible than the competition? Sure. But less-terrible still terrible.
I don’t see it that way. Only five presidents, including Trump, got into office without any political experience.
I’m not talking about “political experience.” The amount of time a politician has spent playing the game is irrelevant to what I actually wrote. And if that's not what the OP is talking about, he should probably learn to express his thoughts in something other than sweeping generalizations.
Again I disagree. Sure those who seek the chief executive office love attention and want to leave a legacy, but the ones with political experience play the game and are somewhat predictable. Trump neither plays the game nor is he predictable. Hence my agreement with the statement “leftist insanity or incoherent and inconsistent government overseen by a narcissist.”
Trump neither plays the game nor is he predictable.
My response to that would be, "So what"?
When it comes to geopolitics a bit of unpredictablility is generally considered a good thing. If you're rivals can predict how you'll react it places you at a disadvantage.
It means you just never know what he's going to do. That's important to some people.
They've been saying that about GOP candidates since Goldwater. It's a work.
Trump doesn’t play the game.
Which is exactly why the establishment doesn't like him, and why so many others do like him. Those others are sick and tired of the game being played by the elites and the establishment.
Dude, his domination of the primaries and the fact that Republicans who criticize him are dismissed as RINOs makes him the establishment. Saying otherwise is as honest as the political right complaining about being shut out of the media while dominating cable news and talk radio. Even if that first part is true, we still get an "incoherent and inconsistent government overseen by a narcissist" if he wins.
Dude, his domination of the primaries and the fact that Republicans who criticize him are dismissed as RINOs makes him the establishment.
RINO has been an insult going back long before Trump came on the scene; it's just that those politicians actually ran the party, hence, they were the establishment, working for uniparty purposes.
This DARVOing of the term is something Allahpussy came up with at The Dispatch, and it's nothing but a sour grapes take because his side doesn't control the party's functions anymore. But they're still part of the uniparty that actually runs the country.
This kind of self-indulgent, question-begging nonsense from Patterico's comment section epitomizes why the old GOP guard isn't equipped to actually advance an agenda other than "give the left what they want so they don't start a revolution":
We don’t even know exactly what Trump plans for the border which is probably the most unifying issue for the GOP. Detention facilities and mass deportations….dictator for a day. Is there any pause that any of this could truly be awful and illiberal? That we are going down a path that is materially changing who we are…and the aspirational beauty of America? It’s a hard concept to sell in today’s GOP, but we do actually need immigrants and that is getting lost in our over-heated anger and hatred. I’ll leave it there.
Notice this retard can't lay out his position in anything other than the most glittering generalities, while whining and bitching that Trump's policies are opaque. What the fuck does he mean by "we do actually need immigrants"? That statement has fuck-all to do with actual immigration policy, and betrays a consternation that the flood might actually be stopped.
And in case anyone forgot, this is the EXACT ISSUE that Trump used to snatch the GOP out of the neocons' hands, because their voters kept telling them since 1986, "cut back on immigration," and the party's leaders kept ignoring them time and time again. Trump comes in, tells them "We're going to build a wall," and they're shocked that GOP voters flocked to him in droves? Hey morons, maybe you should have actually followed through on what you promised to begin with, instead of kneeling to the Chamber of Commerce demanding an endless flow of service industry peon labor, while stabbing your working-class constituency in the back over and over again. And that's just one issue--I'm not even bringing in the bank bailouts, the endless wars, and the general cuckery in the culture war.
Not just endless wars but endless wars that we didn't try to win, instead tried to fight them as 'low intensity conflicts'. Wasn't so low intensity for the guys having to take (and retake) Fallejah or fighting in the Eastern provinces of Afghanistan (or the the western Highlands and Mekong delta of Vietnam etc).
Too many neocons successfully promoted the idea that Third World populations were desperate for Enlightenment-style "democracy," to the extent that even a lot of Democrats bought that nonsense.
I've seen some of these idiots actually argue that we should have stayed in Afghanistan because it was a strategic bulwark against China, with our troops in their backyard. How the fuck could these people possibly believe that China would be in any way threatened by a small contingent of American troops stationed in an area that they never really fully controlled?
If the current political and cultural establishment wasn’t so corrupt, bloodthirsty, and empirically insane, populist demagoguery from the opposite flank wouldn’t seem nearly as appealing.
"Look what you made me do" is the last moral refuge of tyrants and dictators.
“Look what you made me do” is the last moral refuge of tyrants and dictators.
Yes, why should the Optimates ever suffer the consequences of their own bad actions? Everyone should just shut up and accept shitty, two-tier systems that wrap themselves in the cloak of documents that they don’t even take seriously if it inconveniences them, because “the alternative could be so much worse” or something.
It’s one thing to fight against this and not win; it’s another to capitulate from the start and then claim the people who wanted to fight are tyrants. That’s some real galaxy-brained doublethink.
Jamie Foxx’s character in “Law Abiding Citizen” is actually the bad guy, not Gerard Butler’s.
Detective Dunnigan: [before illegally breaking into a storage facility owned by Clyde] You're gonna do that? Here? What about his civil rights?
Nick Rice: *Fuck* his civil rights.
True. I still think Butler's methods and actions went far enough across the line that he is at best an anti-hero and at worst a sympathetic villain. Foxx's character represented current progressive policing quite well. Go easy on the transgressors and thwart the efforts of the people to seek equivalent justice. I'm game for vigilante justice when it corrects a legal system that advantages the corrupt while firing all guns on people pleading for peace and justice
Clyde Shelton: The jury's going to believe me, though, because it's the truth.
Nick Rice: We could lose, and then we have nothing. We could spend a whole year, spend millions of dollars, and both of them could end up going free.
Clyde Shelton: Please don't do this.
Nick Rice: I made the deal. I'm sorry, I know you don't think this right now, but this is a victory for us.
Nick Rice: What if I said “you were right and I was wrong?” What if I said, “Let’s take them to trial?”
Clyde Shelton: I’d say “you’d be making progress”.
Nick Rice: And we might’ve lost, and both Ames and Darby would both go free, don’t you get that?
Clyde Shelton: You didn’t even care, you didn’t even try. You could’ve walked out of that courtroom with your head held high. I could’ve lived with that.
That’s the 2010-2016 GOP in a nutshell.
And just so it sinks in, for emphasis since you avoided this hard fucking fact:
The actual problem is the former, not the latter. Suppress the former, and you won’t have to worry about the latter. But the bottom bitches on the center-right don’t have the spine to fight that battle. So Trump is the result; and if it wasn’t him, it would have been someone else with enough sense to know what time it is.
What has the demagogue been all that wrong about? The border? The energy policy? The communism? The danger of being wholly dependent on China? NATO being irrelevant 30 years ago and dragging us into WW3?
All seems to check out to me.
One of the worst things Woodrow Wilson did was drag the country into WW I. If Britain had left well enough alone, the war would have ended like the 1870 war, but then Wilson backed the bankers who kept Britain afloat, and that led to WW II and another jingoistic President choosing sides in another war which didn't affect the country. And that led to NATO, and the refusal of all the NATO junior members to slack off and leave their protection to the US, even after the USSR was gone. I'm sick and tired of paying to protect those slackers while they levy billion dollar fines on US companies out of jealousy.
The worst thing that Wilson did was being the ur-Progressive who officially brought that evil political philosophy into the body politic.
Teddy Roosevelt would like a word with you about whom is the true ur-progressive.
Yes, we knew all that about Trump the first time, too.
As I wrote in an email at the to a family member:
Let’s say Trump wins. GOP Congress, who for the most part hate him, will have no qualms about cutting him off at the knees–he’s a rich white man. At least we can be pretty sure about his SC appointments and secure in the knowledge that the rest of the government is not about to let him go off the deep end.
The point is that they GOP establishment hates him because they are the establishment (similar to Cruz only far more so). Dems hate him because they are Dems. The press hates him (because they’re all Democrats anyway).
You know I've been a straight L voter for 30 years, but Johnson sounds more and more like Bernie, and Weld agrees with Hillary on gun control; and the L party plank on illegal immigrants is pissing me off.
Of course I won't vote for Hillary or Stein. So I can vote L again, for two people I have strong misgivings about and whose party-line I *strongly* disagree with, or I can vote for Trump, someone I have strong misgivings about. Or I can stay home.
I'm struggling, I gotta tell you. I KNOW KNOW KNOW Hillary will be a disaster and will screw up SCOTUS for a generation. Under Hillary I fear a 2nd amemndment solution will be required. Compared to Trump...
I chose to stay home in 2016 for those reasons and because I doubted any conservative bona-fides from Trump. I voted for him in 2020 because in spite of his shitty temperament and adolescent manner of speech he mostly did positive things. A 10% positive rating for Trump is far superior to a -90% rating for Biden. Vivek was my preference for 2024 or as a VP candidate to Trump or Desantis (prior to his implosion.)
I started out as a conservative Republican with strong liberty leanings until seeing that the RINOs were becoming a dominant force in the party. Now the party is fully run by what would be considered left-wing democrats from the 90s the only hope I can lean on is the minority of TEA party and freedom faction members. The Libertarian party went too woke and libertine to hold the line on the advancement of Progressive policies and leaned too hard into advancing socially destructive liberties. I support liberty but at the same time will not praise actions that harm individuals and society.
Can you explain what is so inherently bad about appealing to the populous in a representative Republic? Doesn't the term representative Republic imply that populism is kind of built into the cake and actually should be at least partially your guiding principle as an elected official?
Populous like nationalism is a fairly broad category, and the knee jerk reaction to label anyone who is a nationalist or a populous as bad/evil is irrational. Yeah, I want my president to be at least partially a populous and a nationalist, because his first job is to serve the people of the USA (not Europe, not the UN, not Africa, NATO, Latin America etc, the fucking USA and serve the needs of the people of the USA not a subset, especially not an cabal of self appointed pseudo-aristrocratic elite).
Populous like nationalism is a fairly broad category, and the knee jerk reaction to label anyone who is a nationalist or a populous as bad/evil is irrational.
It's baked into the national psyche due to the labor wars of the early 20th century in the case of populism, and World War II leading to globalist left-wing fears over western populations with a collective, coherent national identity pushing back against their schemes (nationalism was encouraged in the third world specifically because it was resistance to western culture, nothing more); hence, why they poison the well on any nationalistic or patriotic feeling as "fascism" at worst and "jingoistic white supremacy" at best. Fascism at this point is really nothing more than a pejorative for anyone resisting left-liberal globalism and social engineering, as opposed to the actual systems of government that Hitler and Mussolini ran.
One of the things that gets overlooked is how nationalism often went hand in hand with humanism and enlightenment from the end of the high middle ages, through the Renaissance and through the early modern period. The development of a national identity helped spur people to demand a common set of laws and liberty, reject of the concept of absolute monarchy, assert a right to have a bigger say in how they were governed, etc. The concept of a nation as we currently know it, didn't really start to coalesce until the high middle ages, and wasn't completely formed until the early modern period. Yeah nations existed before that, but they were much less formalized and far more ephemeral, with overlapping Marches, and suzerainities and conflicting allegiances, and feudal obligations etc. And that's how you end up with someone born and raised in Spain serving as the High King and Emperor of the Germans, or a Scotsman as King of the English (and later his German descendants on the throne) and a global war over rather an Austrian or a Frenchman should be the king of Spain (no one bothered to ask the Spanish, Large because Spain wasn't exactly, and still isn't to a degree, a single agreed upon national identity).
Yeah, the only real areas where you see something along the lines of national identities forming during that time was England and France, and that was due largely to the Hundred Years War forcing people to pick sides. Most identity was regional, not nationalistic. And as you point out, England's mainly came out of James I taking over after Elizabeth died, although one could argue that England, Ireland, and Scotland had distinct national identities of their own that came out of the centuries of Viking raids prior to Stamford Bridge and Hastings.
"Trumpism is not libertarianism, it is populist demagoguery..."
Not sure what "Trumpism" is, outside of an effort by TDS-addled piles of shit to avoid admitting they are TDS-addled piles of shit, TDS-addled pile of shit.
Now, tell us who did a better job as POTUS over the last century and show your work.
Or STFU and then please fuck off and die.
Trumpism is the slavish adherence to the man over and above any policy and to the complete abandonment of any kinds of personal, ethical, or professional standards. To the trumpists, it does not matter if "their guy" doesn't actually support their agenda. They will change their agenda to match him from moment to moment. It does not matter if "their guy" commits crimes, because the "other side" is "much worse". Anyone who refuses to abide lying, criminality, or even just the constant personal maelstrom which surrounds Trump and almost everyone in his circle is cast aside like a traitor.
Who did a better job as POTUS than Trump? I'll go with "absolutely everyone". No one has so completely destroyed their own party from top to bottom. No one has fired so many cabinet officials. No one has had so many cabinet officials quit in disgust. No one has let, let alone encouraged, a mob attack the capitol building. No one has expressed such disinterest in the imminent murder of their own vice president. I won't even bother getting into the middling nature of his actual policy making because his own wildly ineffective and incompetent brand of "leadership" was so impossibly bad at running anything that very little actual policy (good or bad) was accomplished.
No one has let, let alone encouraged, a mob attack the capitol building.
The fact this bullshit claim continues to persist demonstrates that power of the leftist media to establish a narrative.
That's some prime level gaslighting for an event that happened on live television. There's no "narrative" around that. It's a fact. It happened before all of our collective eyes. It was captured on hundreds and thousands of live videos and photographs and projected for the world to see in real time. To tell people that it did not happen is to tell them their own lying eyes deceive them.
That’s some prime level gaslighting for an event that happened on live television.
The gaslighting comes from your side claiming he "let, let alone encouraged" it to happen.
You're projecting here, your mind-reading skills are shit, and deflecting to "We saw it go down on live television," doesn't change the bullshit assertion.
Who did a better job as POTUS than Trump? I’ll go with “absolutely everyone”.
Why not just get a tattoo on your face that says you're a TDS addled asshole and be done with it?
You couldn't sound more retarded.
"inconsistent government overseen by a narcissist."
How does this not apply to Haley (or the other non-libertarian NeverTrumpers)? The Democrats are currently giving us incoherent insane leftist government run by authoritarian narcissists.
I'm sure we'll hear about the strategic votes that the staff will make again later.
"In practice, this means that for all its talk of fiscal restraint and moral rectitude, the Republican Party remains in thrall to a candidate who severely hiked spending as president while promising cuts and who currently faces numerous civil and criminal trials for conduct both before and during his presidency."
What, in practice, does being in thrall to Joe Biden mean for the Democrats, Lancaster? I mean, you laid out how terrible it is for the Rs to back Trump. Let's at least lay out what Biden means for the Ds.
"Heads up: Commenting privileges now require a subscription to Reason Plus. As a past commenter you have been granted commenting privileges on a temporary basis. To ensure your continued ability to comment and enjoy numerous additional benefits, subscribe to Reason Plus now."
Wow. Just read this now. Maybe time to check out the Glibs.
I'm certainly not paying money to argue with idiots.
So you got your mirror for free?
Damn. I was hoping you and Jesse would for my entertainment.
Seriously, though, they'd have to really upgrade the system for me to even consider it.
Say what you will, 35% of the comments aren't about Shreek being a pedo.
They seemed to have solved the sock problem pretty brilliantly.
Sarc is an insufferable fool, but his mean girl stalker faction seems much smaller all of the sudden.
The kirkland leftist sock brigade is also but a trickle.
Wow. Just read this now. Maybe time to check out the Glibs.
Those guys are different kind of community; they may be more right-sympathetic, but there's quite a few commenters who crossed over that ended up getting banned, like john.
People who don't make an effort to fit into the culture there will be gone in short order.
From what I've heard John was banned for his actions, not his opinions. He became a really disruptive jerk. At least that's what I was told.
I don't profess to know the inner-workings and politics of Glibs, but they can get a little testy I've noticed. But I've never had problems.
John's a mystery. But he sure knew how to ruffle people up. Too bad. He had some good things to say.
What a ride from the 'good old days' with Episiarch, Gilmore, Alamanian, and so, so many others. Best comments section on the net.
All things must pass.
I can only comment based on my own observations. I didn't migrate over there during the Glibbening, and I suspect I'm far too confrontational to really last long over there. But I do enjoy reading their comment sections from time to time and will continue to do so.
"...Despite voters' continued disgust at the idea of a Trump/Biden rematch,..."
Perhaps if you weren't as TDS-addled as you are, you might admit that voters' disgust is not aimed at both.