Trump Bans A.P. From Oval Office for Not Saying 'Gulf of America'
A dust-up over geographical nomenclature is silly, but it signals the Trump administration's hostility to the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

This week, Donald Trump's presidential administration reportedly barred the Associated Press (A.P.) from the Oval Office for not adopting his preferred geographical nomenclature. Unfortunately, the childish squabble could carry major First Amendment implications.
Among dozens of executive actions issued on his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order declaring that the Gulf of Mexico would henceforth be known as the Gulf of America.
Not everybody adopted the change right away. According to its style guide, in an entry published three days into Trump's term, the Associated Press said it would "refer to [the Gulf of Mexico] by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen. As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences."
This apparently did not sit well with Trump.
"Today we were informed by the White House that if AP did not align its editorial standards with President Donald Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, AP would be barred from accessing an event in the Oval Office," A.P. Executive Editor Julie Pace said in a February 11 statement. "This afternoon AP's reporter was blocked from attending an executive order signing."
"It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism," Pace added. "Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP's speech not only severely impedes the public's access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment."
At a press conference the following day, CNN's Kaitlin Collins asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt whether the decision to bar the A.P. over the organization's style guide language was "retaliatory in nature" and set a "precedent that this White House will retaliate against reporters who don't use the language that you guys believe reporters should use."
"If we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable," Leavitt replied, "and it is a fact that the body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf of America, and I'm not sure why news outlets don't want to call it that, but that is what it is."
As Reason's Eric Boehm noted last month, simply decreeing that the Gulf of Mexico—which bore that name before the Pilgrims landed in what would become Massachusetts—will now be called by a different name does not make it a universally recognized fact. It may be the federal government's position that the name is different, but that has little to no bearing on what other countries call it—even though Leavitt said it was "very important" that news outlets adopt the new name "not just for people here at home, but also for the rest of the world."
The squabble is humorous for how sophomoric it is, with Trump punishing a news outlet for little more than hurting his feelings. "Woke White House bans AP from event over deadnaming the Gulf of Mexico," snarked one social media user.
But as Collins noted, it sets a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration will punish journalists who don't toe the party line.
"Punishing journalists for not adopting state-mandated terminology is an alarming attack on press freedom," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) said in a statement after the news broke. "That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's unconstitutional. President Trump has the authority to change how the U.S. government refers to the Gulf. But he cannot punish a news organization for using another term."
"In the relationship between the press and the Office of the President, coverage and standards are entirely in the purview of individual organizations," echoed Eugene Daniels, president of the White House Correspondents Association. "The White House cannot dictate how news organizations report the news, nor should it penalize working journalists because it is unhappy with their editors' decisions."
"The level of pettiness displayed by the White House is so incredible that it almost hides the gravity of the situation," added Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders. "A sitting president is punishing a major news outlet for its constitutionally protected choice of words."
This is not the first time Trump tried to bar reporters from the White House over a petty squabble: In November 2018, during his first term, Trump revoked the press credentials of CNN's Jim Acosta after a heated exchange at a press conference, when Acosta repeatedly pressed Trump on his use of the term invasion to describe an influx of Central American migrants approaching the U.S.–Mexico border.
Acosta was later denied access to the White House, and Trump said he would consider revoking other reporters' access, as well: "You have to treat the White House with respect. You have to treat the presidency with respect."
CNN sued, and Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in its favor, ordering Acosta's access to be reinstated. Kelly noted that while presidents do have the right to decide which outlets can cover the White House, it cannot revoke access without sufficient due process.
In August 2019, the White House suspended Playboy correspondent Brian Karem's credentials for 30 days after he got into a heated argument with right-wing radio host Sebastian Gorka in the White House Rose Garden. Karem similarly sued, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the White House's action violated Karem's right to due process.
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
0 shits do I give for a federally funded news agency.
I'm sure that Sarcasmic, Jeffy, Lancaster, Boehm, Sullum and Buttplug were absolute furious when Obama tossed news orgs he didn't like.
Well Mike showed up.
Lying Jeffy never disproves that he's a fat liar.
Trump was just trying to prevent the AP from spreading misinformation and dead naming the Gulf of America.
Can you name, Joe, how many journalists Biden tossed out of the WH? 400+, if I am not mistaken.
But, yes, it is a shame government funded propaganda gets tossed out of the WH.
Gonna be a long four years for you. Pace yourself. You don't want to wear out your spurg-o-meter.
And how precious. A BlueSky link. Man you're a fucking pathetic shit.
Let him have his echo chamber.
SQUIRREL!
Never forget: This useless "libertarian" voted for Kamala Harris because Trump hurt his precious feelings.
Joe, are you just not good enough to work for Slate? I mean, your writing IS shit, but that seldom seems to be a problem for leftie writers.
It’s too bad Gawker is no longer a thing.
They’d definitely take him.
Donald "I hate Taylor Swift" Trump is a baby.
Why?
Can't the client demand his money's worth, since they're paying so much to the AP?
2 reasons:
1 The president is not the client of the AP, all Americans are.
2 It's childish and unnecessary use of his authority. It's a bad look for a president.
Would you like it better if the president just ordered the AP to switch to pushing right wing propaganda?
I was criticizing his motivation, not his action. It's his press conference. He can cry if he wants to.
He gets to pwn the libs, AP gets to be the lede of their own story and I get to make fun of him for being a baby. It's win/win/win.
And I get to call you a disingenuous fuckwit.
OK. That's fine with me.
Yeah, get fucked.
"The president is not the client of the AP, all Americans are."
And he's the person the American people have chosen to be their voice. In the popular vote, and the electoral college, with the results in the senate and those in the house.
As a famous community organizer once said "Elections have consequences".
Fair enough.
I think the funding of the AP is a red herring though. What is relevant is that it's a Whitehouse press conference.
To be clear, I feel he has every right to exclude anyone he wants for any reason. I also have every right to think his reason is childish.
They’re definitely RED.
I agree with this. Trump should be able to keep or kick out any outlet he likes. It's his staff's press conference.
He should simply move it to a much smaller room and kick out most of the rabble.
"I think the funding of the AP is a red herring though."
You think giving tax payer dollars to left wing propaganda is red herring?
It’s definitely RED.
Yes.
Quicktown Brix is a TDS-addled pile of shit.
Hi Sevo.
I'm sorry people booed at your precious cat lady idol. Grow up.
I have no idea what this means.
Ooooohhhh Taylor Swift. Right, right, right. I'm a Swifty for sure.
She still won’t have sex with you, stop being a simp.
Yea, but he's a funny baby at least. NGL, Trump 2.0 is growing on me a lot more than Trump 1.0 (and definitely Beta Test Trump) did.
I've always been really critical of him, much to the chagrin of his MAGA flunkies - but honestly, since sworn in, he's not done anything that I find particularly objectionable. Granted, it's only been less than a month, but still.
Abuse of the EOs, sure - but we knew that's how it was going to be. Especially with a Congress that cares more about their own skin (some of them now VERY terrified of legit jail time) than they do the people they're supposed to represent.
I kinda don't mind his overt trolling of the lefties. They've become so insufferable over the last eight years. (This chick nailed it.) And the media left in particular, I think if Trump held a press conference where he personally, literally spit in some of their faces, I'd be like, "Y'know, I'm OK with it. Not very presidential, but can't say they didn't deserve it." And not like some pathetic little blustery spittle - but a full on, head back, throat clearing, giant chunky loogie perfectly aimed right in their mouths as they open it to ask some misleading/narrative-based BS question. I'd even forgive the fact that it's technically battery, given how much they have it coming to them.
I think the thing that's really refreshing is that there's no double-talk or "try to please everyone" acquiescence or moral ambiguity. Like, this was REALLY REALLY a good thing to hear from our American President and Commander in Chief:
https://x.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1888782446319022364
None of this "boaf sides" nonsense, none of this wishy-washy who might we offend holdback, none of this shying away from condemnation of people who rightfully deserve condemnation, no moral relativism or vacillation. I'm not a Trump cultist or a MAGA warrior or any of that nonsense - but I can recognize, appreciate, and laud a man who just lays it all out there for everyone. What "Palestine" did is awful and shameful, they are the wrongdoers, and "at some point we're going to lose our patience with them."
Moral clarity, a position of strength and righteousness, empathy for the persecuted - I mean, for all the man's faults (even on those three things from time to time), this - on this subject - isn't one of them. And it's so friggin' great to hear the most powerful representative of the American People saying it for a change.
And the same goes for the Gulf of America. Yea, he's trolling. But A) the majority of Americans are delighting in it; and B) I find no fault with being unabashedly and unapologetically pro-American. Again, just such a breath of fresh air from a branch of government that - for much of my life - seems to be ashamed of being American, and wants me to feel the same. Screw that.
Doesn't mean I'm going to start wearing a red hat and buy a F150 with a flag planted in the bed - but, baby or not, I'm not mad about him to date. And you shouldn't be either. Nor should anyone here.
I'm not mad about him to date. And you shouldn't be either. Nor should anyone here.
I'm not mad. I'm just observing a man use up his political capital on petty nonsense. The pendulum will swing back and having his accomplishments like an official name change that no one uses without an eyeroll or a chuckle over a loogie to the face doesn't help us one bit. It's pure gold to the left though.
Seeing the left melt down over it (Hey, it was Gulf of Mexico before the continents even formed! it's history and you're oppressing it!) is pure gold. And as far as I'm concerned they're his press conferences in his office and people are allowed by invitation, something Biden didn't do at all much less almost daily, and he can invite whoever press he wishes to attend. And AP is still at the regular pressers that happen daily. There's no repression of freedom of speech here, and judges who say he needs to take them to court and give them "due process" to get them out of his office should be removed from the bench.
We already agree that the balance of power limits the amount of political capital he has, yes? Most of the real change requires cooperation with the legislature. So, until he gets that cooperation, the petty nonsense is what he has to work with.
And again, I don't see "Gulf of America" as necessarily petty. Yes, obviously it's making the left pee their pants in incoherent rage - but that's a perk not a purpose. The reality is that it's also very pro-America in a time and age when America needs to be reminding people that America's the greatest nation that has ever existed. Which, again, is a refreshing chance of pace coming from the Oval Office. And, really, what future President is going to be enough of a leftist jerkass to be like, "Yea, we're changing it back to Gulf of Mexico. Because screw America."
Barack maybe, his whole bread and butter was apologizing for America's existence. But luckily he'll never get the chance. And if the Democrats keep up the dumb games they're playing, NONE of them will get a chance for the next score of years. At least, not in the Oval Office.
Well you've given me food for thought.
The one thing I keep thinking though, is that we spent the past decade+ bitching that the left wants us to use their words around the trans issue. We countered that they can't change language.
Now conservatives, as usual, take a play from their book. But, as Churchill said, "It's OK because the Democrats did it first."
Yea, but renaming a body of water isn't the same as denying biological reality to go along with someone's delusion. Trans nutters aren't trying to change language. They are trying to pretend reality isn't real.
A better comparison would be Fort Bragg. Which became Fort Liberty, because lefties got their panties in a twist over it being named for a Confederate. Now it's back to Bragg, and lefties no longer have a basis for complaint because it's not named for that Confederate (*wink*).
It's not that we're taking a play from their book - it's that we're better at the game than they are. Conservatives don't want to play games like this in the first place. But if lefties are going to insist on it for short term gains, then there's no reason at all not to show them how idiotic their "logic" is when applied in the long term.
It's like the nuclear option in the Senate. Boy oh boy I'll bet 'ol Harry genuinely believed it was a great idea at the time. So they made their bed. And a few short years and a new administration later, the Republicans made them sleep in it.
I can't remember who I was talking to here, sarc probably - one of those hysteric incoherent dolts who vomit up nonsense and don't ever read it before they slam their mouse button down on Submit - but you're effectively, unfortunately, making the same argument he did. I'll (verbally) fight you honorably, Marquess of Queensbury, any day of the week, Brix. Because that's my standard. But if you start lining your gloves, rabbit punching, and taking nut shots - you lose any moral authority you have to criticizing ANYTHING I do in response. You don't get to cheat, and then try and weaponize my honor against me for fighting back in kind. (Islam, incidentally, as an inferior culture, loves to exploit this against superior Western Culture.)
It's not "OK because they did it first." It's "you've changed the rules of the game for yourself, but not for me." And nobody has to or should tolerate that. (Not to go all religious on you, but the Pharisees loved trying to do this to Jesus. And failed every time.) Trying to weaponize a person's better nature against them only illustrates just how poor a nature the one doing it has themselves.
Trump is as petty as any human I've ever met or heard about, and each day his massive but fragile ego gets worse.
Just checked Google maps, the AP
is wrong.
Just like reason.
Press credentials are not a right.
That is debatable.
What is not debatable is that the WH can not suspend access because they don't like what the journalist says.
Why should trump be forced to have someone he doesn’t like in his house?
What is not debatable is that:
M.
G.
Is.
Full
Of.
Shit.
"That is debatable."
No, it is not even close to debatable.
"What is not debatable is that the WH can not suspend access because they don't like what the journalist says."
Biden did. 400+ of them.
Trump did it last term because CNN was flatly dishonest and worthless.
But then, Lancaster, Reason, other media, etc. are all, it seems, never going to have their moment of reflection.
Lmao at the end.
Yes they can.
Every administration has done so.
This isn't a matter of press creds, the AP still has their creds and attend the daily presser given by the press secretary. These are the near daily pressers he started doing personally from his office and attendance is by invitation.
America pays a hell of a lot of money each year for the AP. Why can't it just do what the client wants?
"America" thinks "Gulf of America" is stupid and petty. One does not change a 400 year old name on a whim.
Why do you hate change?
Doesn't seem very progressive to me.
It’s going to be a rough four years for you delusional freaks.
The gulf has had a dozen different names in the last four hundred years. Mare de Nort, Golfo de Florida, Gulf of Cortés, Gulf of St. Michael, Gulf of Yucatán, Yucatán Sea, Great Antillean Gulf, Cathayan Sea and Gulf of New Spain, just for starters.
How did you get so silly and ignorant, Tony?
How’d he get that silly and ignorant?
Sucking off dudes with lead poisoning?
Why not?
Now you're going to tell me they have to change the name back to 'Constantinople'.
Or is it only Americans that can't rename things on a whim?
Why didn't they do this when Obama changed the name of Mount McKinley to Denali? I don't remember them fighting him on it for some strange reason...
Corporate propagandists don’t have extra rights Joe.
I've never quite understood how press conferences are related to freedom of the press or the First Amendment. There is not any Constitutional requirement for the President to hold press conferences or answer questions from the press in the first place. Please explain to me how inviting or uninviting a particular reporter to press conferences or refusing to answer questions from a particular "news" organization violates their first amendment rights?
There's also no constitutional requirement to issue duck hunting stamps, or even have a duck hunting season. The total number available may be limited.
Do you argue that the President therefore has discretion to give duck hunting stamps only to people who never say "Gulf of Mexico" in their private lives? How about only Lutherans?
I would argue that the POTUS has no obligation to create a government document called a "White House Press Pass". But if does, then the rules for getting that document have to fully comply with the constitution, and that means not favoring one religion or viewpoint over another.
As far as answering questions, sure, he can refuse to answer whatever he wants to.
Terrible logic as usual Mike.
What makes the AP so precious to you? Is it the leftist narratives?
Please point me to the constitutional clause for press passes.
Your reading comprehension is getting steadily worse. No, seriously, get it checked out and make a living will while you can still read at all.
Your reasoning ability remains pretty much worthless.
Poor Mike.
But if does, then the rules for getting that document have to fully comply with the constitution, and that means not favoring one religion or viewpoint over another.
Show me the viewpoint clause Mike.
Oh wait. You treat politics as a religion. Sorry.
But let's speak on reading comprehension.
The AP didn't have any documents taken away. They were denied entry into the Oval Office which already has limited access. Always has.
AP was literally present at the standard press briefing the next day.
You're a fucking retard Mike.
Well there are limited seats available and the AP leftist religion is well represented by the entire MSM. Maybe if they actually report shit instead of shilling for the deep state and demanding woke speech from their reporters they can come back. Weep for the AP if you must but nobody else gives a shit.
Do you argue that the President therefore has discretion to give duck hunting stamps only to people who never say "Gulf of Mexico" in their private lives
If the stamps were within his jurisdiction, then why not?
White House pressers are well within that jurisdiction.
What a stupid analogy.
Were your parents cousins? Fucking useless jackass.
These are not the daily pressers held daily, which the AP still has a seat in, these are BY INVITATION personal pressers the president holds in his office. Trump can invite whatever press he wants into his personal office. And Biden didn't hold any of these, why wasn't anyone screaming screaming freedom of the press then, where were all of these activist judges then?
Big mistake. They should've acknowledged the name change by changing their labels from
Gulf of Mexico to
Gulf of Trump's New Name for this Place
Do you seriously want to make the AP become a bigger joke than they already are? They don't deserve our tax money.
A French Cartographer put the Gulf of Mexico on the map in 1550.
It took America a further 225 years to become a thing, and only in 1804 did the Louisiana Purchase plant the stars and stripes on its new Gulf coast.
Congress renamed Cape Canaveral Cape Kennedy after JFK's assassination only to reverse itself in 1973, the oldest brand name in American geography having acquired too considerable a local fan base in five centuries for the Beltway to ignore.
Trump didn't name it the Gulf of the United States of America. The first recorded use of the name "America" was in 1507 on a map by Martin Waldseemüller.
" The first recorded use of the name "America" was in 1507 on a map by Martin Waldseemüller."
That's not true. It was recorded on Amerigo Vespucci's Florentine birth certificate in 1454, and countless Italian and Gothic ones before it— It's a corrupted form of 'Almaric'.
The most damning thing about Trump's stunt is its failure of due diligence. Vespucci voyaged from Guyana to the Carolinas, but never sailed the Gulf,
Congress renamed Cape Canaveral Cape Kennedy after JFK's assassination only to reverse itself in 1973
And nobody died.
Wellllll... JFK died so that Cape Canaveral could be renamed Cape Kennedy. So... there is that.
Short term gain though.
A dust-up over geographical nomenclature is silly, but it signals the Trump administration's hostility to the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
Are we synonymizing the AP with the 1A and free expression? Is that what we're doing now? You guys do know that not only does the 1A guarantee more than one right, there are 27 other amendments that guarantee *numerous* other rights too, right?
You guys are beyond your own parody.
In November 2018, during his first term, Trump revoked the press credentials of CNN's Jim Acosta after a heated exchange at a press conference, when Acosta repeatedly pressed Trump on his use of the term invasion to describe an influx of Central American migrants approaching the U.S.–Mexico border.
Did Acosta challenge left wingers who use similarly loaded language to frame ideas and people they oppose? Of course not, because left wing activists demand the right use neutral language while the left engages in demagoguery. This is generally known as the jeffsarc principle.
Funny.
The democrats are fine with the government saying we have to call men women.
They are fine saying we have to call Fort Benning Fort Moore.
(Etc. ad nauseum)
Why do they have a problem calling the Gulf of America "The Gulf of America"?
Slightly off topic, but what are the limits of this renaming thing?
Suppose the President decided to rename a town, very much against the will of the inhabitants. Note that the Bureau of Geographic Names does do towns as well as mountains and gulfs.
Of course people would have a free speech right to keep using the old name, subject to the restriction two paragraphs down, and (perhaps, if they accepted the consequences) the town could keep using the name on its own letterhead and signs.
But it seems the Executive Order could, in addition to changes all federal maps and records, ban (a) the post office from delivering mail using the old name, and (b) ban using the town name on any federal forms.
And according to the MWAocdoc Theory, people and towns who used the name outside of government could be denied *anything* that involves executive branch discretion: press passes, hunting permits, tariff exemptions, ....
Poor Mike.
More retarded whatifs from Mike.
Do better Mike.
I have a right to rename you Dee, bird.
What if a certain commenter claimed for years that no minors were having sex change surgeries, and then said surgeries that weren't happening were banned, and then the people like said commenter who said it wasn't happening, threw a hissy fit over the ban?
Mike Liarson did all that.
MAGAs, tell me again how much Trump loves free speech.
He just got the UK to revise their censorship laws with a tariff threat. Giving the AP special privileges doesn't have anything to do with free speech.
These freaks think that destroying their ability to censor is censorship.
The AP is now and always has been a propaganda organ for the intelligence state. A wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA. Journolists don't have any more free speech rights than J6 protesters. Nobody is denying their freedom of the press. They just don't get a seat at the table. Fuck them and fuck Reason for publishing this bullshit.
Trump controls the CIA. Why not just send his orders via CIA to the AP?
The CIA will be cleaned out soon enough.
M.
G.
Is.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
The CIA is a bigger ball of worms than the USAID and it's been around a lot longer. JFK wanted to "scatter it to the wind" and he got his head blown off. As Chuck Schumer explained the IC has "ten days to Sunday" to come after a president. Ratcliffe has been in office for two weeks but I doubt the fucking AP is even on his radar screen. God you're an idiot.
Trump doesn't control the CIA. No president for 50 years has. That's the reason we elected Trump.
JFK controlled the CIA, oh…
Never mind.
I'll agree with the article only insofar as not saying "Gulf of America" is a silly reason to boot out a press outlet.
OTOH, the AP sucks and does plenty to earn derision. They don't deserve a preferred seat at the table.
It was a meeting in the Oval Office. That's it. That's what this whole story is crying over.
Right! And the hostile media had nothing to do with it.
Joe Lancaster is a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit who needs to fuck off and die.
Look how prissy Trump and his defenders are. "You say this or we won't do that! Look how cool we are!" All dressed up in pink.
Somehow I can't picture Sevo dressed up in pink.
His homosexual taunts are born of lamentations. Dunno if he's Catholic or Canadian, but he had a messed up childhood.
So says the degenerate alcoholic.
All dressed up in pink.
His homosexual taunts are born of lamentations.
I love that sarc engages in homosexual taunts but then criticizes others as if they are degenerates for engaging in homosexual taunts in his very next comment. It's the sarc-est things ever.
Principles re those things that apply to other people, never to sarc or other left wingers.
How else do my words offend your homosexual sensibilities?
I see you in an intersection with your windows down screaming at someone. Does it make you feel good? Does it increase your self worth? Does it solve some problem in your life?
Road rage motherfucker.
Tribalist moron.
The only positivity in your life is from attacking people on some stupid website that no one cares about.
luuuuuuuuuuuuzer!
Shitfaced.
How else do my words offend your homosexual sensibilities?
I'm not offended, I told you I enjoyed your comments. Why lie? But again the best element is pretending my comment reflects offended homosexual sensibilities which is of course flatly wrong. Again. Like all left wingers you just assert makes the insult of the moment completely without regard do accuracy, truth, or facts.
This works for the left because their institutions enforce these double standards and always accept each others unprincipled criticisms based on allyship, which is why you never developed any principles.
Road rage motherfucker. Tribalist moron.
More accusations completely without basis for me, but perfectly appropriate for you.
The only positivity in your life is from attacking people on some stupid website that no one cares about.
Funny coming from the guy whose every comment on every thread is attacking others no matter what the subject is. You think everyone else has your life? Too funny. Maybe a fifth of vodka will get you through.
You're slurring your text, drunky. Old boomer fuck. How many opioids do you take a day you hypocritical mother fucker. Hope you fall into a hotel pool, all alone. No one will notice until it smells.
DrunkyMcfucknuts, keeps telling on himself.
Wrong on all counts, but be sure to lecture me on respectful discourse next. Remember we're all Americans first.
"you're slurring your text,"
If you're reading anyone's text as slurring that's you drunkass.
Lol this is the part of the show where you get blackout drunk and forget what you just posted and rage post at your anonymous enemies.
Then he gets buttfucked by a random trucker.
Marshal is just a more wordsy version of R Mac. He claims to be in favor of "truth" or "integrity" but really he is only here to bash one side for not living up to HIS preferred set of standards, while letting his own side run rampant with all sorts of lies and chicanery. It's just more 'pwn the libs' bullshit.
Whereas you're the kind of scumbag who shows empathy for rapists instead of rape victims or those imprisoned for criticizing rapists.
Receipts available upon request.
I stand up for the liberty and the rights of all people. That includes the rights of rape victims, and it also includes the rights of rapists. Sorry not sorry that I believe everyone is entitled to basic human rights. Why don't you tell us what you think should happen to rapists.
Lie.
Truth.
I'll let everyone else decide for themselves.
he is only here to bash one side for not living up to HIS preferred set of standards
Untrue, I hold you to your standards. That's why it's so amusing you constantly fail them.
No, you attempt to hold me to the standards that you imagine that I have. You never listen to me about the actual standards that I do have.
Why don't you tell us all why, when I tell you what I believe, why you think I am lying and why you think you know what are the actual standards that I do hold?
Because you're a liar.
You never listen to me about the actual standards that I do have.
Of course I do. Your problem is that you think exempting yourself can be portrayed as a "principle". For example you constantly complain that others lie about you (whether or not this is actually true isn't relevant) but you openly lied that I defended an apartheid supporter which you completely invented out of nothing. It wasn't even a mistaken commenter.
That's the nature of Left Wing Privilege. They believe they can say or do anything but others must act within strict rules.
But that is a lie. I did not claim that you defended the racist Jeremy Kauffmann. I was mocking you for your claim that anyone who disagreed with you was for racist reasons, by pointing out that there really were some people who were racist who deserved to be disagreed with.
You completely invented this lie about me because you cannot tell the truth about me. Because you do not know the truth about me. Because you refuse to learn the truth about me or anyone else like me, you are convinced that the caricature in your head is all that you need to know.
That's the nature of Left Wing Privilege. They believe they can say or do anything but others must act within strict rules.
So, which one of these do you believe? Do you believe that anyone can do or say anything? Or do you believe that people ought to act within strict rules?
In other words, what is the standard that YOU hold yourself to? Are you going to be brave enough to state it?
I did not claim that you defended the racist Jeremy Kauffmann.
Of course you did. You claim you have a good reason to have made that accusation, at least a good reason to you. But we know your lie was not necessary to make such a point nor are you accurately summarizing what you responded to. You lied because you know no left winger will ever hold it against you so it's just another tactic. But regardless having a good reason to lie means you did it, not that you did not.
No, I didn't. Everyone can read it for themselves here:
https://reason.com/2024/11/06/chase-oliver-calls-libertarian-party-presidential-run-honor-of-my-lifetime/?comments=true#comments
By the way, I note that you did not link to the comments that supposedly offended you. Why is that? Is it because you knew you were lying, and that linking to the primary source material would reveal your lie?
They sure can. And the first thing they'll see is that while you claimed I called everyone who disagreed with me racist in fact I said this is how the people responsible for such a poor Libertarian showing thought. Naturally being Jeffey and a liar he pretended this was an attempt to defend racists instead of accepting that people disagree for millions of reasons including many which are not racist. But like every leftist calling his opponents racist is Jeffey's only argument.
But let's not hide it behind a poor link, instead let's just look at the lie you now claim not to have made:
chemjeff radical individualist 3 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Jeremy Kauffman: Hey, maybe South African apartheid wasn't so bad after all.
Normal people: Umm, that sounds kinda racist.
Marshal: STOP CALLING HIM A RACIST FOR NOT BEING AN ABSOLUTIST! IT'S NOT FAIR!
There he is again lying that I defended an apartheid supporter just like I said and Lyin' Jeffey denied. Whoops.
Guess what, there are actual libertarians who are actual racists. And they deserve to be criticized and mocked. I didn't say you are a racist and I didn't say you defended racists. I mocked you for not having the self-awareness for understanding that yes, there are real racists in the libertarian movement. Maybe you should reflect upon that instead of your knee-jerk anger at the comment, which is going on three months now.
By the way, what is your opinion of Jeremy Kauffmann and his racial comments?
Ok boomer.
I mocked you for not having the self-awareness for understanding that yes, there are real racists in the libertarian movement.
I never said there weren't racist libertarians as there are racists in every large group. So you weren't mocking me for self-awareness, your were lying that someone my comment could be interpreted as defending them. It's pretty amusing your defense is "I'm not a liar that you were defending one particular racist because I was lying that you were defending many racists".
The truth is that everyone, even idiots like you, understand what when I refer to all opponents not being racist it does not mean there are no racists and any comment which uses that as an underlying principle is therefore a lie.
This is the kind of shitbag you are.
I never said there weren't racist libertarians
To my knowledge this is the first time you've admitted it.
So maybe, when some people criticize libertarians for racist reasons, they have a point? Because there are actual libertarians who are actual racists?
So you weren't mocking me for self-awareness
Yes I was mocking you for self-awareness. This is where you think you are entitled to re-define what everyone else says or thinks.
To my knowledge this is the first time you've admitted it.
Notice how everything is a racial inquisition that non-leftists are required to prove themselves out of. My opposition to racism has never been in question but he frames himself as the judge of whether others have sufficiently proven themselves to him. No evidence is necessary, no logical thought is required on his part. Not only is it offensive but since left wingers are often racist they are in no position to judge anyone. But this is how left wingers think: Inquisitors for Racism (but only the kinds they don't like).
So maybe, when some people criticize libertarians for racist reasons, they have a point? Because there are actual libertarians who are actual racists?
Again we see how Jeffey lies about the underlying discussions. The subject was assuming that ALL opposition was due to racism. Even idiots like him cannot believe this means there are no racists, the same could be said of any large group. The fact that he again tries to pretend this is a reasonable conclusion shows he is unwilling or unable to follow basic logic if it helps him call his opponents racist.
Yes I was mocking you for self-awareness.
As with most left wingers he's so far behind he thinks he's ahead. We're lapping him and he thinks he's about to get a medal. We've just shown him his understanding of the circumstances was completely false but he's not even smart enough to revise it.
These third rate thinkers think they can lecture others on subjects they can't even understand the basics of. Life is absurd sometimes.
Lying Jeffy is an exact version of Lying Jeffy. He is in favor of "lies" or "dishonesty" but really he is only here to bash one side for not living up to HIS preferred set of standards, while letting his own side run rampant with all sorts of lies and chicanery. It's just more 'pwn the MAGA bullshit.
Poor Troll Mac. He was utterly revealed to be nothing more than a troll and now he is upset.
How so?
lol
Lying Jeffy has nothing.
Lol. Well, if marshal is a “luuuuuuuuuuzer”, what would you call a dude who claims to “hardly ever be here anymore”, even though he totally is, vows to leave forever over the cost of 25 whole dollars to remain, and actively seeks out abuse with every repetitive, boring, butthurt post?
Haha. We just call him sarc.
Poor mike.
The GMO turducken has really broken you.
sarcasmic is a steaming pile of TDS-addled lefty shit who needs to fuck off and die.
I’ll credit someone above for noting the hilarity of these massive ballsacks transgendering a body of water.
It could have been called Gulf of America. Who cares, in a vacuum? Why are we America at all? Some random Italian nobody knows anything about.
Naturally the point is xenophobic assholery. Nobody doesn’t get that, right? And what does that accomplish? What is the social benefit to you?
Could it be a fascist nationalistic distraction from the fact that they’re stealing all your money and you’re cheering it on because at least 17 trans people won’t get to play volleyball?
Isn't the continent Mexico sits on also called 'America'?
“They’re stealing all of your money “
Goddamn you’re a fucking stupid piece of shit. We are taking OUR money back from you commie clowns.
*Who* is stealing the money?
Lmao at this talking point that Musk is stealing our money. It's so dumb on so many levels that the only reasonable response is to mock these people as they are beyond reasoning with. And why are half these nuts big fat bald black women?
Elon is stealing his money by shutting down corrupt organizations.
Were Trump a true conservative he would have spelled it ' Guelph of America' in honor of Mexico's martyred Emperor Maximillian, a true-blue Habsburg unlike that Vatican-defying Ghibelline Vance.
He should also build a Great Mall of America along our southern border to bewilder would-be immigrants.
>A dust-up over geographical nomenclature is silly, but it signals the Trump administration's hostility to the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
Didn't the Biden administration revoke a whole bunch of press passes? And no one cared?
That's the thing. It would be fine if they complained about this stuff incessantly when everyone did it, but I guess that would require equal payments from both sides.
You didn't complain when they did it, and that makes it ok. Even if you did complain you weren't loud enough or angry enough. Look, it doesn't matter, it's ok when Trump does it. Shut the fuck up. He's different. I said shut up you leftist marxist! It's different when Trump does it! Hands off me! No! Nooooooooooo!
Here's some of what you might remember tomorrow
https://youtu.be/9Zq6PD1OvQo?si=M1c8VbnrSoTvJN-Y
You didn't complain when they did it, and that...
What did sarc say every time anyone criticized Obama/Biden/Dems for spending? That's right "Reps spend too" or BOWF SIDES. In fact it was effectively his only response to everything. But the second the focus switched he acts as if BOWF SIDES became illegitimate. In fact that is now effectively his only response to everything.
He's not even smart enough to understand each of these is exactly the position being criticized by the other. How could anyone be this dense? At least make a new sock and pretend you have a single principle.
Instead he violates every single principle he has ever claimed to hold. But that's not the funny part. The funny part is that he thinks people will care that he preens as a principled libertarian as if we haven't seen his schtick for a decade. Fucking ridiculous.
He completely lost the plot on Babbitt. That's the moment his hatred for a random internet poster led him to giving up all of his purported principles.
He's especially gleeful on that subject because death pisses people off extra, that's how shallow he is.
Lok, sarc. In order to earn any credibility around here, you have to not only criticize Obama and Biden for every single thing that they did, you have to go to DC and murder them and their entire family and everyone who voted for them. Only when you express that level of opposition to Team Blue do you earn the right to say anything negative about Trump. Get it?
You'll have to wait about 24 hours for the reach-around. He's currently passed out from his binge.
"The president is not the client of the AP, all Americans are."
Not this one - - - - - - - -
Blocking the AP from the Oval Office in no way "severely impedes the public's access to independent news." Nor does it "plainly violates the First Amendment."
They can still say what they want, they just can't access the Oval Office. To make statements as those in the article is just lying.
AP is left-wing propaganda.
Reuters is left-wing propaganda.
But the Federalist? Breitbart? LibsOfTikTok? That rando dude on Twitter? THOSE are reliable news sources!
See, Elon Musk has been rooting around the government for about two weeks now, and he says that the Treasury Department doesn't keep track of who they send checks to, or even follow basic accounting procedures.
I mean, this must be true, right? Because Elon Musk has the entirety of TWO WEEKS of experience looking into these things. It is completely believable that the world's largest spender of money does not follow very basic accounting practices. It took ELON MUSK AND DONALD TRUMP to tell the world how awful the Department of Treasury is. Only because of them that we know that the Department of Treasury has been doing it wrong for 200+ years.
It is very very convenient that the narrative that we are being fed squarely casts Trump/Musk as the heroes, and everyone else as either bumbling fools or corrupt ne'er-do-wells. Very convenient. Not at all the work of propaganda. It's the literal truth.
It is complete bullshit fed to you by a right-wing bubble media that has one aim in mind: Team Trump is the hero, everyone else is the villain. That's it. You will never hear a story from them that deviates from this premise. Because they are here to feed you a story, not to tell you the truth.
I get to add Lying Jeffy to my lolrage group.
Not usaid, you were kinda quiet at first. DOE makes sense. Because children. Matches the timing too.
Remember that time Elon bought Twitter and fired most the employees and retards like you kept predicting it would collapse?
Remember when I didn't say anything at all about Elon's management of Twitter?
No
Of course you don't, because you're a lying troll.
Projection.
lol
You think I remember you not saying something?
I think you imagine me saying things that I didn't say.
"retards like you"
I do not. I think I imagine you being too dumb to read what is actually said and then spazzing out for an hour or so.
Oh, so you want to criticize someone else for saying something else. That's fine. Why does this involve me again?
"retards like you"
Is this too complicated for you to understand? Maybe your confusion comes from my honesty?
Oh so you are just insulting me for being a 'retard'. How sixth grade of you. I will duly note it.
Not just a retard, but a retard similar to certain other retards. I really think you're trying to overthink this and it's confusing you.
You're just calling me names like you're back in 6th grade. I think I understand completely. Which is why you're just a troll and a nobody.
You clearly don't understand. My grade level of words calling you a retard don't make you less retarded.
Your unwillingness to explain why you are so retarded is telling.
You don't remember this?
Why don't you refresh our collective memories with a citation?
You really don't remember anyone predicting this?
So no citation?
No. I'll let anyone reading this decide for themselves if anyone predicted Twitter would collapse after Elon bought it.
Then decide who's being dishonest here.
So you're lying and appealing to the crowd, which is a fallacy. Got it.
And by the way.
It is the Gulf of Mexico. Not the 'Gulf of America'.
The team that claimed to be opposed to preferred pronouns because of 'reality' now thinks that reality can be changed by the will of one man alone.
You are going to defend him. You are going to defend him no matter what he says or does. He literally could shoot a man on 5th avenue and you would find a way to defend him. You will never be honest with the rest of us why it is that you really defend him, but you will defend him no matter what. There is not a single thing he would do or say that you would not defend. Not a single thing.
Seethe and rage harder lol. Love the projection, as you will oppose anything he says or does. The masks coming completely off is glorious to witness.
Actually that is not true. I will remain skeptical of what he does, because I think anyone in a position of power should be treated skeptically. But I do not automatically reject everything that he does.
For example I agree with the concept of eliminating waste from government. I will probably not agree with him about what he considers waste, but I agree with the concept.
You on the other hand will automatically defend everything that he does. If I'm wrong, then prove it.
"For example I agree with the concept of eliminating waste from government. I will probably not agree with him about what he considers waste, but I agree with the concept."
LOL. Is there a bigger weasel than Lying Jeffy?
No. The devil or the CIA or something should give him an award.
What is the weasel part? Do you think that I must agree with Trump on everything that he considers waste?
If Trump says "all of USAID is waste", am I required to agree with him?
Look at the weasel go.
lol
Yeah, stupid DGE doesn't realize you're too fat to "go".
Are you a libertarian?
More than most around here.
So the very same Jeffy who demanded we call boys in skirts "girls", and rename everything from military bases to football teams to pancake syrup is very upset about this Gulf of America thing.
I think I sprained my eyes by rolling them too hard.
Radical individualist, how much of what the federal government does isn't waste?
Haha, you just admitted you're more likely than not to support the federal government.
On a libertarian website.
While pretending to be a libertarian.
I never thought it would be this good.
How should we determine what is 'waste' in the government? By Trump's word alone? Because Trump is such the uber-libertarian?
Are you an anarchist? No? Then you believe that there is a proper role for the government. And that the spending for that proper role of the government is, by definition, not 'waste'.
Do you think that there can be a legitimate disagreement on what that proper role of the government ought to be, even from a libertarian perspective? Do you think that this discussion should be informed by rational argument? Or do you think it should be informed by paranoia and emotional appeals to 'tear it all down'?
Look at poor Lying Jeffy spazzing out defending the government.
There we go. You can't make rational arguments so you troll instead.
Once again, are you an anarchist? Yes or no? If the answer is 'no', then you too 'defend the government' with respect to the tasks that you believe it is legitimate for a government to perform.
Do you believe decisions to cut government spending should be made based on rational considerations, or based on paranoia and emotional appeals?
chemjeff radical individualist 3 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
There we go. You can't make rational arguments so you troll instead.
This is Lying Jeffy's OP we're all responding to. He was definitely making a rational argument, hoping for rational argument responses:
And by the way.
It is the Gulf of Mexico. Not the 'Gulf of America'.
The team that claimed to be opposed to preferred pronouns because of 'reality' now thinks that reality can be changed by the will of one man alone.
But it is the Gulf of Mexico. How is this incorrect? Do you think that one man has the power to change reality?
Can you identify the specific number of word police necessary to change the name?
Evidently that number is 1, as Trump himself has been quite successful in convincing a lot of people into referring to that body of water as the 'Gulf of America'.
But surely you would agree with me that those like me, and like AP, who insist on standing in favor of reality in referring to this body of water as the 'Gulf of Mexico', should not be punished for this, right?
No it's not. It's the Gulf of America. Why are you being such a bigot?
there we go. There we see the complete lack of principle. It was never about 'reality', it was always about 'pwning the libs'.
But surely you would agree with me that those like me, and like AP, who insist on standing in favor of reality in referring to this body of water as the 'Gulf of Mexico'
Note the difference Jeffey is trying to portray. Language policing is a key tactic of the left, presumably because they have nothing useful to do. Wasn't it the Sea of Cortez they left renamed? Were they denying reality then? No, only when Trump does the same thing does it rise to an "outrage". When other left wingers do the same thing it's no big deal. It's interesting this is always the pattern isn't it? Even when what the left does is more outrageous Jeffey makes excuses about why the right needs to be uniquely criticized. What underlying principle do you suppose might justify that?
That's why we need to know the number of language police required, so we can judge accurately in the future. I'm so glad it's 1 so we can put this "outrage" to rest.
What principle of mine have I violated, Lying Jeffy?
Language policing is a key tactic of the left
you mean, exactly what Trump did today w.r.t. the AP?
Wasn't it the Sea of Cortez they left renamed?
This body of water has been the Gulf of Mexico, internationally recognized, for over 400 years. NO US PRESIDENT, Trump or otherwise, should be entitled to rename an international body of water on his will alone.
When other left wingers do the same thing it's no big deal.
Which left-wing US president has decided to rename an international body of water on his will alone? Please tell us all, I'm sure we'd all like to know. What Trump is doing is embarrassing and stupid.
Even when what the left does is more outrageous
When has "the left" done something more outrageous than this?
Which left-wing US president has decided to rename an international body of water on his will alone?
That's why I asked how many language police were required. You told me 1 and now you're all upset. Did you lie again?
What are you even talking about? Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico on his will alone and it sure looks like he is being successful in coercing a lot of other people to obey his will. Do you accept this? Do you think any US president should have the power to rename international bodies of water on his will alone?
Do you think that we all ought to be compelled to call it the 'Gulf of America'?
Look at the gulfphobe.
It was never about 'reality', it was always about 'I want to force you to define yourself as who I say you are'.
'I want to force you to define yourself as who I say you are'.
Look at Jeffey who accidentally admitted forcing others to use your language is as act of political force.
That's not me, that's you.
You want to force trans people to define themselves as who YOU say they are, not who they think themselves to be.
And the entire claim that it was about 'reality' was always a fraud.
I identify you as a fat liar. Who are you to deny my truth?
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to rearrange the rest of society to accept your opinion as truth.
lmao. Thanks Lying Jeffy.
You want to force trans people to define themselves as who YOU say they are, not who they think themselves to be.
Stupidly wrong again. The current high-profile conflict is driven because left wingers like you insist we, and worse our children, must accept you controlling our language. Luckily that pulled the blinders off many people's eyes and with any luck the Dem Party will collapse without their illegitimate funding for propaganda and institutional control.
"Oh oh, but what about trans people?"
It was never about some objective definition of 'reality'. It was always just about courtesy and respect.
If a trans-man came up to you and asked you to refer to him as 'he', you were always free to decline. No one was going to force you to call the trans-man a 'he'. It was only you and your team who decided that 'reality' dictated that the trans-man's request should be denied, and in fact the government should demand that the trans-man should be referred to as 'she' because 'that's biology'.
So, I am not going to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as anything other than the Gulf of Mexico. Because that is its proper international designation for over 400 years, and moreover, the Gulf of Mexico is not a sentient being.
we, and worse our children, must accept you controlling our language.
You were always free to reject any trans person's request for their preferred pronouns. No one ever mandated otherwise at least from the government. The issue was that you didn't want to be stigmatized for that rejection. You wanted your preferred choice, to reject preferred pronouns, to be normalized and accepted as the normative standard. THAT'S the issue. It was not enough that you could reject someone's request, you had to insist that EVERYONE must reject their request, inventing this bullshit 'reality' standard. It was YOU AND YOUR TEAM which wanted to control the language by falsely declaring that there was no difference between sex and gender, and that one's genitals defined how one must act in public in all ways.
:It was never about some objective definition of 'reality'. It was always just about courtesy and respect."
Lie. Lying Jeffy can't help it.
It's the truth. It was your team which invented the 'reality' standard, declaring that only biological sex counted as 'reality'.
THAT'S the issue.
Stupidly wrong yet again. Instead of allowing these people to live their lives you recruited the most extreme activists and put them inappropriate places such as reading to children in stripper clothes while obviously cross dressed. You did this because you wanted to confuse children and create an opportunity to belittle and threaten them and their parents because social conflict is what convinces your activists to vote for you while you loot the Treasury for yourself.
Well, *as a group* a *legitimate medical procedure*, blah blah blah, *I’m so nuanced*, haha.
No acknowledgment of how we got to the point that “tear it all down” seems the only way to get anything done? That the screeching about “funding” *aka other people’s money* has gotten so fucking entitled and ridiculous, that it’s not worth listening to anymore?
Your *let’s be nuanced about this* bullshit is about 50 years too late. Fuck off.
The team that claimed to be opposed to preferred pronouns because of 'reality' now thinks that reality can be changed by the will of one man alone.
I'm sorry repressive tolerance got fed back to you, and Google responded exactly like you said it wouldn't.
I'm not sorry that you have a very long four years ahead of you.
He's so fucking stupid he doesn't understand what's going on.
Stop deadnaming it. That is LITERAL VIOLENCE.
There we go. There was never any principle involved at all.
You were in favor of 'deadnaming' trans people because you thought they deserved it, not because of some standard of 'reality'.
You and your team think you are entitled to define reality as you see fit.
I'm only doing what you asked me to. Don't deadname. It's violence. Why do you suddenly have a problem with me accepting that? Worse, why are you suddenly engaged in it?
Come on Jeffster, I know you're here. You were so quick on the draw last time. Like, within minutes.
Come on, let me hear you say it. I know you're going to say it, unless you're a coward - both personally and intellectually - so stop delaying the inevitable. Say what we all know you're thinking. Use the word.
You were either [use the word] then, or you're [use the word] now. Which is it?
And he rabbited.
What do DJT and Erdogan have in common?
They give Reason Magazine the "vapors" more than Keir Starmer or Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo?
How stupid you appear for taking a small step by Trump as pointless but then saying this small step is a portent of great bad things to come . Which is it ? I think he is right.Don't be like you and say "let little disrespects and slights alone" YOU NEVER DO IT< WHY SHOULD HE 🙂
"sophomeric" describes Trump in general, along with boorish, bullying and just plain ignorant.
He still beats the heck of the lefty agenda and I'd sure rather have him running the show than Biden or Harris.
Biden never ran the show. He was selected as a puppet for behind-the-scenes manipulators, and he served the purpose well until his dementia became too severe to follow the script. Harris was then selected as the next puppet. Democrat voters can be divided into two categories: the deluded who didn't realize this, and the evil who knew what they were voting for and still voted for it.
Cultists gonna cult. You can't help yourself. Trump did it, therefore it's good and right and proper. And if the people you hate disagree with what Trump did, that proves it.
Am I allowed in the Oval Office? No. Well then either that's a violation of the 1st Amendment, or AP being told "no" isn't one either. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say they have more rights than I do.
Geez, just like 'reason.' The AP was banned because they disrespected the Press Secretary and demanded an interview with Trump in the Oval Office, as if they have the right to go anywhere their little hearts desire. But I guess media hubris doesn't matter to lubbertarians.
Libertarians for a
freepress that must obey the stupidest whims of an orange babycrat or else get banished.