MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Donald Trump Thinks Political Leadership Means Murdering Journalist Critics

Trump excuses Vladimir Putin's killing of opposition voices.

Donald Trump doesn't seem very bothered by the killing of journalists under Russian president Vladmir Putin, because, Trump said this morning, that demonstrates that Putin "is a leader." 

Putin gave a kind of quasi-endorsement to Trump earlier this week, calling the GOP presidential frontrunner the "absolute leader" in the race and calling him "bright and talented" and a "very lively man, talented without doubt." Putin seemed to welcome Trump's rise and expressed interest in working with him in the future. 

Asked about those comments on MSNBC's Morning Joe earlier today, Trump responded positively, saying how nice it was to called brilliant, especially by a Russian president. 

When co-host Joe Scarborough shot back that Putin was obvious "someone who kills journalists, political allies — and invades countries," Trump doesn't dispute it. Instead, he excuses Putin, telling Scarborough that, "He's running this country, and at least he [Putin] is a leader." Asked again about the deaths of journalists who don't agree with him, Trump shrugs it off, saying, "Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, so, you know..." 

I think it's fair to say that this is not very reassuring about Trump's instincts or approach to political power. Trump is not just unconcerned about the idea of an authoritarian politician murdering his critics, he seems to positively admire it. Murdering journalists? That's what leadership is!

It is often unclear or unstated what exactly Trump and his supporters mean when they argue that America needs real leadership in the White House. Now we know.  

Watch the full clip here. 

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

  • Just say Nikki||

    "I always felt fine about Putin," Trump said. "I think that he's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader … He's actually got a popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader."

    Trump contrasted Putin's numbers with President Barack Obama's.

    "I think he's up in the 80s. You see where Obama's in the 30s and low-40s. And he's up in the 80s," Trump said. "And I don't know who does the polls. Maybe he does the polls, but I think they're done by American companies, actually."

    LEAD ME LEADER, LEAD ME

  • Quixote||

    Well, we do need strong leadership, and a leader like Putin could help us confront some of the more unsavory biological instincts that have long poisoned our society, along with the unwelcome rabble we've being seeing in the streets lately. His handling of the "Pussy Riot" affair was particularly adept, and can serve as an example to prosecutors everywhere in this country. It is unlikely that criminally deadpan "parody" would have garnered a mere two-months jail sentence under his watch. See the documentation of America's leading criminal "satire" case at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    You know who else displayed leadership?

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Herb Brooks?

  • CE||

    Kurt Russell?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Sheryl Sandberg?

  • AlmightyJB||

    She has the same birthday as me.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Eric Cartman?

  • Mr Lizard||

    Breetai?

  • Sevo||

    I'm struggling with this...

  • EndTheGOP||

    This is fuckin' hilarious. Hey Peter Suderman, how do you think Trump should have responded, that America should go over to Russia and bomb the fuck out of Putin? Do you think it's in America's interest for Trump to trash Putin when Putin obviously respects Trump?

    Once Trump is elected president, then watch and see how Trump plays Putin. He's going to play Putin like he's been playing all of you progressive hacks is what he's going to do. Won't that be fun?

    Answer me this Peter. Who do you want to see elected president? Why don't you grow a pair and tell me, then sit back, relax and watch me destroy your choice right in front of your very eyes! Now that'll be FUN.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Putin loves Trump because he correctly calculates that Trump will make his job a whole lot easier.

    Why destroy America, when you can sit back and watch Trump destroy America for you?

  • Plisade||

    Putin does not want to deal with Trump. Putin knows that his endorsement will make Trump look worse, and thus lower Trump's chance of winning.

  • EndTheGOP||

    DEAT -- Where the hell have you been the last 50 years? America has managed to destroy itself without any help from Trump.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Where have I been? Well, the last five years it seems like I've been constantly shaving your mom's back, trying to get her somewhat presentable for my clients. Hairy fucking bitch, barely worth the 35 bucks she brings home every night.

    Now about America destroying itself, it is true that we are on a remarkable downward spiral in terms of debt, eschewing the rule of law, etc, but if we put your mancrush Trump in there, that spiral will turn in to a nosedive rather quickly.

  • EndTheGOP||

    DEAT -- Congratulations. You have taken discourse to a new low. I'm sure your mother is very proud of you.

    Now if you ever manage to come up with an intelligent thought and then learn how to express it, I would love to do a long tap dance on that tiny thing you call an intellect.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Wow that's exactly what your mom said when I was shaving her back!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    then sit back, relax and watch me destroy your choice right in front of your very eyes!

    INTERNET BADASS!!!

  • EndTheGOP||

    Heroic -- Just the facts….

    Let's see if he's got the cojones to actually tell us his choice for president. I'll bet he doesn't!

  • Just say Nikki||

    I'm all in for Sweet Meteor O'Death, personally.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Doesn't Reason write an article every election where the staff tell us who they're voting for?

  • EndTheGOP||

    Heroic -- I want him to tell us NOW, not when all of the parties have already chosen their nominees. Of course that would require journalists to have balls, which we all know they don't have.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Radley Balko doesn't have balls?

  • EndTheGOP||

    Heroic -- I'm not familiar with Radley. He hasn't done any Trump-bashing so I've let him be; nor any articles on politicians in this election cycle that I see. I'll check out his stuff though and get back to you.

  • SimonJester||

    Wait -- are you telling me that de Rugy, Dalmia, and ENB don't have balls? Now I'm really confused....

  • EndTheGOP||

    Simon -- Have any of these writers written a pro-Trump article or at the very least, come out and say who they want for president?

    Allow me to remove any confusion on your part.

    NONE of the writers at Reason have any balls!

  • tarran||

    Answer me this Peter. Who do you want to see elected president? Why don't you grow a pair and tell me, then sit back, relax and watch me destroy your choice right in front of your very eyes!

    I'm voting for Freddie. Have at it.

  • EndTheGOP||

    tarran -- You got me there. I can't destroy Freddie. (Don't tell Peter)

  • Slim Strontem||

    Sacrifice your ideals upon the altar of comb-over.... 'Cause everyone else is too dumb to understand the great mealy-mouthed amoral unprincipled anti-liberty douchebag, that is, Donald Trump. Keep on, keeping on.

  • EndTheGOP||

    Slim -- have you got any actual examples of why you don't like Trump or is your specialty strictly in the realm of name-calling.

    Why don't you attempt to come up with something intelligent to say, figure out how in the world you will express that supposedly intelligent thought, and then sit back, relax, and watch me destroy that thought right in front of your very eyes!

    Won't that be fun? For me.

  • CE||

    Abraham Lincoln. But he didn't kill journalists, he just locked them up.

  • Lee G||

    *braces for onslaught of Trumpeter Spawns*

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Said Lee G the loser, who hates winning, making America great again and nailing nines.

  • Lee G||

    Don't you have some shelf to go sit on for $100?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    For $100 I will sit anywhere you want you want me to.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Over there

  • Jimbo||

    You guys are soooo immature.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Trump is an idiot, but he shouldn't have to apologize for Putin any more than I have to apologize for Obama's drone murders

  • Just say Nikki||

    "shouldn't have to apologize for Putin" != "shouldn't say Putin is an awesome leader who is better than our own because he is a strongman"

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "He's running this country, and at least he [Putin] is a leader." Asked again about the deaths of journalists who don't agree with him, Trump shrugs it off, saying, "Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, so, you know..."

    The word "awesome" isn't there. Hell, I can't find anything objectively false about this statement.

  • Just say Nikki||

    I didn't say he lied, I said he supported a strongman.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Yes, he is saying that, given all things equal(our gov't murders people too), being a leader is better than not being one.
    Newsflash!

  • Just say Nikki||

    That is a newsflash to me. Why would libertarians favor a strong leader?

  • AlmightyJB||

    So the fish won't bite through.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Yes!

  • Billy Bones||

    I see what you did there.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    You're just now realizing Trump thinks having a strong leader is a good thing?

  • Just say Nikki||

    What gave you that idea? Everyone knows he thinks that. That's why there are a bunch of posts criticizing him for it.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    What gave you that idea?

    This?

    That is a newsflash to me.
  • PapayaSF||

    Interesting question. Libertarians aren't anarchists, so I'd say there's nothing per se contradictory about libertarians wanting a strong leader, though of course we'd want to be led in a libertarian direction.

  • Slim Strontem||

    Not "leader", but "employed executive officer". Huge dif.

  • Robert||

    And in the video, he does appear to classify killing with stupidity.

    Anyway, I've noticed that my friends who like Putin also like Trump & vice versa.

  • Princess Trigger||

    I don't really think Trump is an idiot, he just rambling on, and on, and on... and on to the White House.

    Does anyone really think he wouldn't respond the same way to praise from Bill Clinton, Robert Mugabe or Mother Teresa? You praise him - he sends the love back. Details are for losers.

    He's a human-shaped clickbait, people!

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Aren't Trump and Bill Clinton good friends? Bill still has a membership in Trump's county club in Westchester.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Personally, I think people that ramble on are idiots.

    Except in this case, I guess what he didn't say was wrong?

  • EndTheGOP||

    Very insightful Princess!

  • CE||

    You may not get the President you want, but you will get the President the majority of Americans deserves.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    (Fidel)Castro praised Obama as honest, writing: "No one could doubt the sincerity of his words when he affirms that he will convert his country into a model of freedom, respect for human rights in the world and the independence of other nations."

    Wonder if Obama has ever been asked a question in this same vein about Fidel
  • PapayaSF||

  • Jimbo||

    Apology accepted!

  • Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe||

    Donald Trump doesn't seem very bothered by the killing of journalists under Russian president Vladmir Putin

    I suspect not a few of us aren't very bothered by the killing of journalists. That's why God gave us wood chippers and lampposts.

  • AlmightyJB||

    No matter how hard they try and make me like Trump, it's not going to happen. Although, I suppose some sick twisted part of me would like to just watch that whole thing unfold, popcorn in hand.

  • John||

    I know. Why does Reason hate its readers and keeps trying to make them into Trump supporters?

  • PapayaSF||

    Trump 2016: For the Lulz.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Billionaires are birthed with ultra-twitchy triggers. This is far less surprising than the fucking multitudes who glom onto these violent beacons of atrocious hope.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Joe Scarborough shot back that Putin was obvious "someone who kills journalists, political allies — and invades countries," Trump doesn't dispute it

    Political allies?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Just in case

  • Robert||

    You can never be too careful.

  • canuck53||

    Putin is a great leader and Trump has emerged as the biggest threat to the neocons in both parties. Trump will do more for peace than obama has in 7 years. Trump is the first politician to have success criticizing the regime change consensus in DC. Paul is a fringe candidate. Trump is dominating the GOP and represents a real alternative to the war party of GOP establishment and HIllary.

    He was 100% right USA kills and invades much more than Putin. Scarbough is a fool.

  • Lee G||

    Damn Canuckistanis, always squawking and shitting all over the lawn.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Take off, eh.

  • canuck53||

    no

  • Zunalter||

    What a pile of bullshit, please stay in that shitty refrigerator to the North. I weep for Canadian politics if there are a gaggle of frozen-brained morons like you pulling levers.

  • ||

    Vote Trump. Worship Sithrak.

  • waffles||

    See below, I am so on board. At least a Trump/Putin alliance won't get me killed like Hillary's plan for nuclear hellfire. The longer I stay alive the longer I avoid Sithrak's gibbering eternity of suffering.

  • commodious spittoon||

    But isn't Trump also talking about shooting down Russian airplanes over Syria?

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

  • Jimbo||

    Hahahaha...oh, the lulz!

  • canuck53||

    No. He wants to work with Russia and thinks US can be allies with Russia. That is maniacs like Fiorina, Christie, Kasich and Rubio

  • commodious spittoon||

    Yeah, that was Christie:

    "If you're in favor of World War III, you have your candidate." So said Rand Paul, looking directly at Gov. Chris Christie, who had just responded to a question from CNN's Wolf Blitzer as to whether he would shoot down a Russian plane that violated his no-fly zone in Syria.

    "Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it," blurted Christie: "I would talk to Vladimir Putin ... I'd say to him, 'Listen, Mr. President, there's a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you.'

    "Yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling . . . we have in the Oval Office . . . right now."
  • Free Society||

    "Yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling . . . we have in the Oval Office . . . right now."

    That comment probably hurt Obama's feelings, he thought they were going to be such good friends. Maybe they'll hug it out after the election.

  • Mr Lizard||

    I thought Sithrak was on injured reserve this season...and that was do to a spirited weekend AT YOUR HOUSE.

    ...just sayin

  • commodious spittoon||

    Was that an Oglaf reference?

  • waffles||

    Yep, H&R has introduced me to so much awesomeness since 2007, but mostly through the fine commentariat. I think I'll nail a skull on a staff and start screaming "SITHRAK'S GONNA FUCK YOU UP WHEN YOU DIE!" at carolers. When I get arrested someone put me in the am lynx.

  • ||

    You can't prove it didn't happen!

  • Hugh Akston||

    It is often unclear or unstated what exactly Trump and his supporters mean when they argue that America needs real leadership in the White House.

    It's always been pretty clear that they mean they want a blustery strongman who will tell people exactly what they want to hear regardless of his ability to back it up politically, and who will respond to critics by calling them fat losers.

  • Just say Nikki||

    LEAD ME LEADER, LEAD ME

  • WTF||

    I think Nikki is horny.

  • AlmightyJB||

    All women on the internet are. They are all horney supermodels sitting at their computer wearing only garter belts and fishnet stockings. And they have very low standards.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Bangbus was a documentary!

  • WTF||

    I knew it!!1!!!!

  • Jimbo||

    "And they have very low standards."

    ...*looks around to see if anyone is near* Are you looking at me?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not that low Jimbo. Sorry. :)

  • GILMORE™||

    That sounds like fat retarded muslim-loving loser talk to me.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Precisely. And that is the dictionary definition of a Beltway machine Republican. See? Trump's a good-old-bwah for the Goobers' Own Party. After he bails in mid-stream, they go back to gay-baiting, shooting hippies and mutilating pregnant girls, and the LP comes out way ahead in the bargain.

  • waffles||

    I was having trouble reconciling my personal beliefs with the shit sandwich we are being force fed in this election cycle. But then you all introduced me to Sithrak, a god that hates everyone unconditionally and will torture me forever when I die. Now I feel at ease knowing that it will get worse and I should enjoy the good in my life as I have it now. So Trump admires Putin, no big deal. At least Trump won't torture me endlessly. Life is sweet.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    What the fuck sort of guarantee is there that Shitrack isn't actually Trump?

  • waffles||

    Sithrak is already dead. That ancient jackass who buried himself with 1000 clay warriors jumped him on his heavenly throne and drove two spikes through his eyes. Now Sithrak is blind and hateful and will fuck you up when you die. Trump is just a power-hungry salesman with froofy hair.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Everyone knows Murucans go to heaven and furners go to hell. It's in the Bible, just before enslave the coloreds and after kill the fairies.

  • waffles||

    That makes so much less sense than a god who expresses blind gibbering hate for the living. I mean the old testament G-d did some nasty whizbiz too. Jesus was a solid dude, I'll grant that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "expresses blind gibbering hate for the living"

    That's my job. Especially when reading the news or when driving.

  • waffles||

    A god like Sithrak teaches us that there is an infinite well of hate in the universe. You can hate to your heart's content.

  • Jimbo||

    Let the hate flow!

  • commodious spittoon||

    Actually I think he'd just had some angsty moments and published some ill-advised poetry on the subject If he's to be believed. Which he isn't.

  • waffles||

    We have the freedom to believe whatever we want. Trump or no Trump. I think a cult based around Sithrak's angsty teenage poetry would make for a badass fire performance troupe. The cult of Sithrak is going to fuck up Obsidian Butterfly, just you wait!

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Shitrack does this thing with his multiple complexes and it is called shape-shifting across the spans of time and dimension. I perceive that waffles is limiting the fluxorious augmentations of Shitrack and this may not bode well for the young man waffles.

  • Mr Lizard||

    The tentacle penises didn't give it away?

  • Hank Phillips||

    If you vote libertarian you don't have to eat that... um... sandwich. But by all means, exercise your own free choice. All I ask is that you turn your head to sneeze.

  • RAHeinlein||

    "Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, so, you know..."

    Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.

    Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

  • josh||

    the godfather doesn't explain everything.

  • canuck53||

    the anti-war right supports Trump and Putin, Reason irrelevant as ever.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Cytotoxic? Is that you?

  • Free Society||

    Trump is not just unconcerned about the idea of an authoritarian politician murdering his critics, he seems to positively admire it. Murdering journalists? That's what leadership is!

    Maybe he isn't so much endorsing the idea of murdering journalists as a good thing (a boy can dream can't he?), but maybe he's just isn't endorsing the idea of flaunting moral superiority over other world leaders as some kind of social signal like Obama, John Kerry and Clinton are so apt to do. I think that having some political leadership who were less inclined to let their pseudo-moral posturing guide their foreign policy might be a good thing.

    The fact that Trump seems less likely to get his panties in a bind over the internal crimes committed by foreign regimes should be looked at as a relatively good thing for the prospects of non-interventionism. *not a Trump endorsement*

  • Agile Cyborg||

    I think my boy Free Society chipped a bloody dead puppy from the road, clipped its toenails, wrapped its lifeless midriff with shiny ribbons, tapped a bow onto its grey matter-speckled crushed dome, and placed it gently under the holiday tree singing soft tunes breathlessly into hopes that a local lovely human would be gifted this marvelously adorable best friend.

  • Free Society||

    th...thanks?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Posted with peace, dear boy. No worries.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Ah, the missing chapter from A Christmas Carol.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Dead puppies are more practical because you don't have to get a sitter when you vacation.

  • commodious spittoon||

  • AlmightyJB||

    What about undead puppies?

    https://youtu.be/Y40IFiIWM2Y

  • Jimbo||

    What about roly poly fish heads?

  • SimonJester||

    Eat them up. Yum.

  • creech||

    I heard a Trump supporter calling in to a talk show the other day. He was foaming about Muslims (put in camps, deport, make them register and wear identifying logos - the whole Nazi bit). The host fought back (he's semi-Rand Paul friendly). In any case, the foamer was going on and on about how there's millions of voters out there who will respond to Trump who usually don't vote cause they hate the D.C. establishment and political correctness. It made me think again of the 1964 campaign where we Goldwaterites were sure the masses where just waiting for a "true
    conservative" to be allowed on the ticket. I think a Trump candidacy would be the same kind of wake-up: a slaughter for the GOP. Be ready for "Madam President." (I think Clinton wins no matter whom the GOP puts up.)

  • canuck53||

    Trump will continue to surprise. I like Paul but he does not have a chance. Trump is best chance to change US foreign policy of regime change. Hillary is GW Bush again.

  • KerryW||

    Foreign policy of W, economics of Bernie -- what's not to like?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Journalists trolled by Trump again.

    Film at 11.

  • ||

    wake me up when Mika asks Obama the same thing about his pal Castro

  • BakedPenguin||

    Another Trump article? Fuck it, I'm going to watch South Park.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Last three of this season are pure gold.

  • John||

    So the same magazine that published an article claiming Chris Kyle was just like the Newtown Shooter is now outraged that Trump said that the US really can't look down on Putin for killing journalists because we kill a lot of people too?

    Really? Is that your final answer Reason?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Reason isn't a person, John. It's not going to answer your questions.

  • John||

    No it is a ideologically driven publication and thus can be held to some standards of consistency and intellectual integrity. It does have an editor, though it is unclear if he has ever actually edited anything or pays any attention to what gets published.

  • retiredfire||

    Every page gets advertising.
    Gotta fill the pages.

  • Just say Nikki||

    It's not like that article took a pro-Kyle position. Seems like both stories are anti-killing to me.

    I mean seriously, I know people hate that article and that's one thing. But the whole fucking point was that killing is bad no matter who does it.

  • waffles||

    And killing is bad because Sithrak fucks you up when you die. It all makes sense now.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    It's nice to witness someone having a true epiphany.

    Happy for you, waffles.

  • Idle Hands||

    Nikki before you get to far in the weeds arguing this point, realize your defending Sheldon Richman.

  • Just say Nikki||

    I'm not defending Richman's article at all. But it's not inconsistent with this post.

  • John||

    The Kyle article took the position that the US has no moral superiority and its soldiers are no better than serial killers. If we take that as true, then how exactly is there anything wrong with what Trump said?

    Reason is the king moral equivalence between the US and other nations. Trump never said killing journalists was good. He just said the US doesn't have any moral standing to condemn Putin for it. I think that is bullshit. But I also don't think Chris Kyle was a deranged serial murderer.

  • Just say Nikki||

    The Kyle article took the position that the US has no moral superiority and its soldiers are no better than serial killers. If we take that as true, then how exactly is there anything wrong with what Trump said?

    Because Russia also has no moral superiority, and Putin's henchmen are no better than serial killers? And Trump didn't say there was anything wrong with Putin's murderous ways, but praised him for his strength?

    Whether "the US" has moral standing to condemn Putin is 100% fucking irrelevant. If Trump is a human being, Trump can condemn him. He declined to do so.

    I just don't even know why that was a hard question.

  • John||

    Read what he said Nikki. He never said Putin was good. He said he was "running his country and is at least a leader". That is pretty faint praise. It is an excusal not an endorsement. It was also not made in response to anything about journalists. He was asked about the killing in response to this statement. When confronted with the fact that Putin kills journalists, Trump engages in outrageous moral equivalence of saying the US kills people to.

    I find what Trump said to be offensive. But people like you and the Reason staff should not. In fact it should make you like Trump. He think the US is just as bad as Russia. And that is Libertarian gospel in a lot of circles.

  • Just say Nikki||

    It is an excusal not an endorsement.

    Why would I be happy with an excusal? I should like Trump because he excuses murderous world leaders? You're so wrapped up in thinking there is some kind of contest between the US and Russia for my moral approbation that you seem to want to ignore the actual reasons why anti-statists find them both immoral. I don't really give a shit about that contest. It's just completely not about "well we do it too so we can't criticize them." Trump should be criticizing what the US does and what Russia does if he wants to be moral, not excusing Putin on the grounds that the US also murders people.

  • John||

    So you are telling me that "we are just as bad" isn't an excusal for the bad deeds of other country's? Have you ever read anything Sheldon Richman writes? Just exactly what is blow back, a idea held almost sacred by Reason, if not an excusal of atrocities committed by US enemies?

    Sorry Niki if you want to slam Trump have fun. But you also better go after Reason as well.

  • Just say Nikki||

    So you are telling me that "we are just as bad" isn't an excusal for the bad deeds of other country's?

    That really depends on context. Sometimes, saying "we are just as bad" is meant to excuse someone else; other times, it is meant to condemn everyone involved.

    Just exactly what is blow back, a idea held almost sacred by Reason, if not an excusal of atrocities committed by US enemies?

    It can just as easily be a condemnation of both sides.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Blowback is simply the realization that if you go and fuck somebody up, they will want to seek revenge.

    It's a tautology, should be completely uncontroversial. It simply expresses a truism about human nature. Why can't you understand that?

  • John||

    Blowback is simply the realization that if you go and fuck somebody up, they will want to seek revenge.

    Of course it is. And because Reason understands that is why they think it is a moral imperative to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees in the country from a place that we are bombing and whose chaos Reason blames on the US. Blowback is real and not just a bullshit rationalization for the violence of our enemies. That is why it is totally safe to let in Syrian refugees and only pants shitting racists think otherwise.

  • Free Society||

    He just said the US doesn't have any moral standing to condemn Putin for it. I think that is bullshit.

    I don't think our political leaders in the white house or the state department have moral standing period. The fact that they take it upon themselves to condemn other regimes for crimes committed within their own borders is always just a step towards more interventionism and excuse to improve their political standing at home, not genuine concern for the crimes committed by foreign governments. They merely condemn Putin because he's powerful, they bomb Gaddafi because he's more easily disposed of and they shake hands and celebrate their friendship with the Saudis, Egyptians and Pakis because they are, at certain times, useful.

    Forgive me if I think their moral proclamations and condemnations are just a costly show for our benefit.

  • John||

    Fair enough. If you think that, then you should not be offended by what Trump said. My point is that Reason clearly thinks that as well but then pretends to be outraged by Trump's statement. That is insulting hypocrisy on their part.

  • Free Society||

    If you think that, then you should not be offended by what Trump said.

    You never really seem to read my posts before you assign me to the opposite side of the debate as you. No I'm not offended at what Trump said. I'm offended at a headline that claims Trump just gave a thumbs up to the murder of journalists. I expect better things of Reason than that.

  • John||

    Sorry. I know you are not offended. Sorry I did not make that clear.

  • Free Society||

    gotcha. np

  • commodious spittoon||

    He's a blame-America-firster! He's just as bad as Obama with the Crusades.

  • John||

    That is a fair criticism of Trump. What he says was complete bullshit. But it isn't bullshit if you are a blame America First kind of person.

  • commodious spittoon||

    But he pretty clearly admires the idea of offing bothersome reporters. Megyn Kelly should probably get started on her application for asylum in a no-extradition country.

  • John||

    He never said he supported that. He just said the US was no better. Again, I find that idea offensive and wrong. But if I held the views about the US that the Reason staff holds, I would not. Or at least would not if I had any integrity.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Yeah, I don't think you can draw an analogy between having critical reporters murdered and droning (alleged) terrorists without giving the hint that the former is just not a very serious matter. The latter is a highly debatable use of the president's AUMF, but the former is pure NKVD.

  • John||

    Putin is a total asshole. He is not the biggest asshole in the world but he is up there. I am not really sure how Putin is any worse than Mudoro and he is certainly a hell of a lot better than the fucking Castros.

    Reason thinks ending the embargo to Cuba is the greatest thing ever. When is the last time you saw a Reason article on Cuba that talked about the incredibly evil government instead of how fucking awesome it is going to be to vacation in Havana and contribute your vacation dollars to the Castro police state?

  • Tony||

    Why should reason support restricting freedom of trade and movement when such a policy hasn't put a dent in that police state in the many decades it's been in place?

  • John||

    Yeah Tony. so the solution is to fund it. That will end the police state. You know do the same thing we did with South Africa. Kill the tyrants with love.

    Face it Tony, you like the Castros. They mean well. And if the day comes that you go down there and end up in prison because you ran afoul of their appalling laws on homosexuality, you will think being locking in a cage for decades to be your honor to contribute to the revolution.

  • commodious spittoon||

    I thought Obergefell is the greatest thing ever.

  • Just say Nikki||

  • John||

    Yeah I know Nikki, They think what the Castros did to Cuba is a real shame. It bothers reason a lot. It just doesn't bother them enough to make them not want to go down and contribute their vacation dollars to the police state there.

    Either reason is so fucking stupid they think the money that comes to Cuba goes anywhere but in the Castros' pockets or they are happy to contribute to the Castros' bank accounts. You tell me.

  • Tony||

    The US's Cuba policy has been farcical for decades. There are worse dictators out there whom we deal with openly. Our strong ally Saudi Arabia isn't a particularly liberated place. You're just too fucking stupid to get beyond partisanship. If President Palin had spearheaded this same policy change, you'd love it. It's either that or you're a cold warrior relic who hasn't paid attention to the world in 40 years.

  • WTF||

    You're just too fucking stupid to get beyond partisanship.

    Fucking self-awareness, how does it work?

  • AlmightyJB||

    What's next? Kill all the lawyers?

  • Idle Hands||

    Actually that is probably a winning strategy.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Kill all the lawyers who will not defend me pro-bono.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Why do you imagine Shakespeare has so many fans?

  • Jerryskids||

    If you wanna make a hamlet you gotta break a few yeggs.

  • Idle Hands||

    TTTTTTRRRRRROOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!1

  • Hank Phillips||

    It's a good thing Putin never said he "likes" Libertarians. Reason would be roasting his gonads over an open flame for that kind of effrontery to the entrenched Gerontocracy Oligarchical Party!

  • John||

    Reason's so concerned about Putin's morality and are so outraged by his killing of journalists, they for years have routinely sent their staffers on his propaganda show "Russia Today". They really have to think their readers are stupid.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    When Russia Today produces epic sick burns like this one, I don't blame them.

  • John||

    And their newsreaders are smoking hot. I don't blame Reason for going on there. I just think it kind of cuts down their ability to get all outraged about Putin.

  • commodious spittoon||

    They feature occasionally on MSNDNC, too.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Actually, this is the type of journalism that feeds into Trump's support

    Donald Trump Thinks Political Leadership Means Murdering Journalist Critics

    Try being a little more factual in your writing and maybe someone will listen to you on the merits

  • John||

    How about they just stop with the social signaling and just write the truth? It is not like the actual truth is particularly flattering to Trump.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Asked again about the deaths of journalists who don't agree with him, Trump shrugs it off, saying, "Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, so, you know..."


    Don't say later that you weren't warned, journalists.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Journalists? Where?

  • Old.Mexican||

    There! Oh, you missed it.

    There goes another one! Oh, you didn't turn your head on time.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    *squints suspiciously at OM*

    This isn't one of those 'snipe hunts', again, is it?

  • John||

    Think about Mexican, if Obama drone striked Fox News, you don't think the Obama court media wouldn't think it was just awesome?

  • Old.Mexican||

    It is often unclear or unstated what exactly Trump and his supporters mean when they argue that America needs real leadership in the White House. Now we know.


    Means "Making America Grrrr-eat! Again", one deportation and one bombing at a time.

    Until everybody runs out of money, of course.

  • John||

    Trump is right out of the Road to Serfdom. He is nothing but "we need a man who can make a plan work". A Trump Presidency would be bad for the country, though likely not as bad as a Hillary Presidency would be or the Obama Presidency has been. I don't want Trump to be President but I can't shake the feeling that justice demands it. The country doesn't deserve Trump but the fuckheads who spent the last 8 years enabling Obama as he destroyed the rule of law with no thought that anyone they didn't like could ever use the power they have given Obama against them deserve Trump being President in the worst way.

    Yeah, the next few years are not likely to be very fun.

  • Tony||

    It's like the 8 years preceding Obama just dropped into a black hole to you guys, huh?

  • John||

    Yeah because George Bush launched wars without the consent of Congress, ordered the murder of two American citizens, used the IRS to target his political opponents, and was routinely slapped down by 9-0 Supreme Court decisions over the abuse of his powers.

    Yeah, it is like we forgot all of that. I mean it was George Bush who decided that he had the power to just stop enforcing the immigration laws. So when the next President decides to do the same for some other set of laws, we know we can blame Bush and not Obama because Obama never did that.

    I shouldn't be so mean to you Tony. You really do live in a fantasy world and have little or no connection to reality. I should probably feel bad for you but I never do.

  • Tony||

    Bush started a war based on lies that got thousands of Americans and untold tens of thousands of non-Americans killed for no reason in response to the worst terrorist attack ever, presided over the worst economic crisis in generations, made torture US interrogation policy, actively worked to damage the global environment instead of help improve it, probably stole both of his elections, and is nearly universally regarded as one of the worst presidents of all time. But Obama did do some stuff too. Fantasy world huh. The entire planet besides the studios of a few fat-headed morons employed by Rupert Murdoch? That what you're referring to?

  • John||

    Obama destroyed the country of Libya, attacked its government and left it in chaos without any justification in international law and over the objection of Congress. You will never find a more blatently illegal or immoral aggressive war than that. Libya may not have been great under Kadafi but it was a lot better than it is now.

    Obama is a war criminal and what he did to Libya worse than what Putin is doing to Ukraine. Those are the facts. You just think it is okay because there is nothing Obama could ever do that you would not support.

  • Tony||

    Libya had a civil war. The West intervened in a minor way, but it would be a shitstorm, possibly a worse one, if we had done nothing. It's debatable. What's not debatable is that Bush's foreign policy was among the worst, if not the worst, this country has ever perpetrated on the world. His actions are directly responsible for the swarthy radical Muslim terrorists you are currently pissing your pants over. Not to mention the countless dead and maimed humans whose deaths were in service of absolutely nothing except Halliburton profits.

    The sheer completeness of your team's failure has obviously short-circuited your brain. This is really sad to behold.

  • John||

    And Tony, Bush didn't start a war. He and Congress, including a ton of Democrats one of whom was Hillary (you know the woman you want to be the next President) went to war.

    Hillary voted for Iraq and was the architect of Libya, which was by any definition an aggressive and illegal war. You just love illegal aggressive wars don't you Tony?

  • Tony||

    I know, John, I know. Hillary is more responsible for the Iraq war than George W. Bush. Whatever you need to believe to sleep at night. Sleep is important. At least you're acknowledging that it was a mistake now, even if you absurdly and pathetically need to blame the nearest Democrat in order to do so.

  • WTF||

    Tony, derp dee derp! Derp dee derpittee derpee derp! Until one day, a derpa derpa durpa derp! Derp dee derp, -- da teetley tum! From the creators of -- DER -- and -- TUM TA TITTALY TUM TERPA DERP, TONY is -- DA DERP DEE DERP DA TEETLEY DERPEE DERPEE DUMB. Rated PG-13.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Marxian,

    Libya had a civil war. The West intervened in a minor way, but it would be a shitstorm, possibly a worse one, if we had done nothing.


    So minor was the intervention by the West that the Libyan president was toppled and assassinated, the region is now an Al-Qaeda playground and nobody who lived there in relative peace can say the same today. The same can be said of Iraq, by the way.

    Neo-cons are a breed apart but not that different from apologetic Marxians like Tony.

  • WTF||

    Jesus Christ, John, don't you realize who you're arguing with? Facts and logic don't apply.

  • ||

    We could do a guessing game called "Who Said It: Rodman or Trump?"

  • CE||

    We already know who the better diplomat is.

  • Tony||

    It's really something watching the drooling mole people of the modern Right forget the past half century+ of animosity toward Putin's country that had generated their entire political worldview in the first place. It would be evidence of an open mind if it weren't an obvious lizard brain response. Obama pussy. Strong man hate Obama. Strong man good. Russia is absolutely filled with such meatheads, and with a good dose of authoritarian control, that is why Putin is so popular there. I don't see that Putin is really any less ridiculous in presentation than Trump, except for the KGB mien. It's kind of reassuring that our equivalent can only generate support from a relatively paltry minority.

  • John||

    Yes Tony we know, cults of personality and boneheaded celebrity politicians who bring nothing to the table but making their supporters feel good about themselves is just great as long as it is your side doing it.

    You helped elect a corrupt moron President twice because you thought it was so cool to be a part of history. And now you are worried about Trump.

  • Tony||

    Obama's been a relatively exemplary steward of the presidency and the country. He had a lot to clean up. I was skeptical at first, but am pleasantly reassured by the fact that even a young and inexperienced person with a little brains can keep things steady even in the face of total mindless fact-averse opposition. Just by believing in facts and not being an idiot. How do Republicans fail so totally?

  • tarran||

    Obama's been a relatively exemplary steward of the presidency and the country

    You know, when you write shit like this, it tells everyone you are a sock puppet intended to mock progressives...

    I mean, come on man! How can you keep them guessing as to whether you are real or a fiction when you post something so ridiculously false?!?

  • John||

    It is amazing Tarran. Even the Progs I know won't defend Obama these days. It is like Obama doesn't exist. They have moved on to how great Bernie is and how he is going to clean up Washington and Wall Street.

    Tony really is a dead ender. Either that or he is some comment machine that they forgot to turn off or change the talking points.

  • WTF||

    Actually, the proggies are sending a bunch of meme around Derpbook about how awesome Obama is because stock market up, ended two wars, and some other bullshit. They actually think Obama has been great for the country. Makes me want to weep.

  • Tony||

    I think it's a pretty objective assessment, but my formative years were under Bush, so maybe my standards are exceptionally low.

    When history looks back, what will the big Obama scandals be? Can you even name one that isn't a Sean Hannity jerkoff fantasy? The policy achievements are moderate and modest by any estimation, a result of stringent political opposition, so even if you are a fire-breathing capitalist fuckface you can't feel too defeated.

    I dunno. The only thing that has gotten really worse are mass shootings, and you guys endorse those.

  • WTF||

    OMG!!111!!!
    FAKE SKANDULZ!!11!!!11111

    You really are a dishonest little shit, as well as a stupid one.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Marxian,

    I think it's a pretty objective assessment, but my formative years were under Bush[...]


    There lies your issues. My formative years were under my father and my mother.

    When history looks back, what will the big Obama scandals be?


    His administration saw the most rapid increase in national debt ever; his Obamacare was an obvious giveaway to the insurance companies and thus a scam; his foreign policy was even worse than Carter's, and that's saying a lot; his administration was especially hostile to the 1st Amendment when it came to the unwarranted criminal investigations against journalists and by the jailing of a film-maker who was made the scapegoat for what happened in Benghazi; the money-sucking black hole that turned out to be the "investments" in green energy (Solyndra et al).

  • WTF||

    Using the IRS to target political opponents, the VA scandal, the NSA spying scandal, etc. etc.
    But these don't count because "Sean Hannity jerk off, hurr durr!"

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Few days back he broke the character completely when he said something along the lines of "Clinton said a few fibs. Fiorina's lies got people killed." It was awesome, but that puts an end to the act, sadly.

    Still, awesome way to cap a career.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Marxian,

    Obama pussy. Strong man hate Obama. Strong man good.


    I guess then that we should all bask in Obama's "Strength Through Meekness" foreign policy, shouldn't we?

  • WTF||

    "Strength Through Meekness" "Leading From Behind"; why does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah, "Freedom is Slavery" "War is Peace" - I think we have a theme, here!

  • David B.||

    It was Trump's way of being dismissive of MSNBC. I think it was brilliant!

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I heard there are some people at Yale who would agree with Trump, if they thought it through all the way.

  • Michael Murray||

    Commentary had an article entitled "The Kremlin's Candidate" (Trump). Trump supporters were called "would-be authoritarians among us who wrap themselves in the flag, bearing a copy of the Constitution in one hand and a truncheon in the other." That sounds like a description of all the candidates except Rand Paul. Of course Hillary and a few others don't care about the Constitution either.

  • josh||

    the unspoken part of trumps support are the people who think he's just playing a part and all the nonsense is an act. i try not to call voters stupid, but they really need to stop thinking crap like this if they want me to think more of them.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    When it comes to groups despised by the grass-roots, journalists do seem to be in the mix.
    The Donald's numbers will soar once more.

  • woodNfish||

    Dear Reason,

    It hurts knowing you're irrelevant, doesn't it?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Trump supporters calling Reason irrelevant is some fine pot-kettling.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online