MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump’s Threat Against The Washington Post Is Yet Another Reminder That He is a Bully and an Authoritarian

Trump's lack of respect for freedom of speech is deeply worrying.

Foter / Gage SkidmoreFoter / Gage SkidmoreIn an interview with Fox News last night, Donald Trump issued a thinly veiled threat against The Washington Post, suggesting that the paper’s investigations into his background were in fact part of a tax dodging scheme, and hinting that as president, he would crack down on such behavior. Trump’s remarks were a clear attempt to intimidate his political critics, and they should terrify anyone who is concerned about abuse of government power, executive overreach, or freedom of the press.

Trump’s threat came in response to a question about whether he was ready for the rigors of a campaign in which both his likely general election competitor, Hillary Clinton, and news outlets like The Washington Post would be digging into his past. Here is what he said:

Every hour we’re getting calls from reporters from The Washington Post asking ridiculous questions. And I will tell you, this is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon. Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise. He’s using The Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed.

He’s getting absolutely away—he’s worried about me, and I think he said that to somebody, it was in some article—where he thinks I would go after him for antitrust. Because he’s got a huge antitrust problem because he’s controlling so much. Amazon is controlling so much of what they’re doing. And what they’ve done is he bought this paper for practically nothing. And he’s using that as a tool for political power against me and against other people. And I’ll tell you what, we can’t let him get away with it.

So he’s got about 20, 25—I just heard they are taking these really bad stories. I mean, they, you know, wrong, I wouldn’t even say bad, they’re wrong. And in many cases they have no proper information, and they’re putting them together, they’re slopping them together, and they’re going to do a book.

And the book is going to be all false stuff because the stories are so wrong. And the reporters—I mean, one after another. So what they are doing is he’s using that as a political instrument to try and stop antitrust, which he thinks I believe he’s antitrust, in other words, what he’s got is a monopoly. And he wants to make sure I don’t get in. So, it’s one of those things. But I’ll tell you what. I’ll tell you what. What he’s doing’s wrong.

Trump has offered plenty of evidence throughout the campaign that he is a bully who personalizes even the mildest criticism and has no respect for freedom of the press. But even still, this is deeply worrying stuff.

Trump is singling out a media company for its reporting into his candidacy, and then suggesting that the investigations are an attempt by the paper’s owner to avoid a federal investigation into another one of the owner’s businesses, Amazon, under a Trump presidency—an investigation that Trump, by saying that Amazon’s behavior is "wrong," implies he might undertake. 

As with nearly all Trump remarks, it is a kind of word salad. But even still, it is difficult to read this as anything other than a threat to use the power of the federal government to crack down on a bothersome political critic.

As he has throughout the campaign and his public life, Trump is advertising his authoritarian tendencies. He has a history of berating companies that outsource operations (those that do can "go fuck themselves") and threatening them with unspecified "consequences" should they leave the country.

And he has repeatedly praised strong authoritarian governments, saying that although the Chinese government’s 1989 massacre of student protesters at Tiananmen Square was "vicious," it was also an effective response to what he described as a "riot." "They put it down with strength," Trump told Playboy in 1989. "That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak."

Trump’s admiration for authoritarian strength has been most visible in his praise for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, saying last year, "I've always felt fine about Putin. He's a strong leader, he's a powerful leader," and praising Putin’s political popularity. And, most tellingly, he has defended Putin against charges that he has had bothersome journalists killed.

"He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country," is how Trump responded when MSNBC host Joe Scarborough brought up Putin’s habit of killing critical journalists. When pressed further, Trump equivocated. "Well I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe."

Trump is not floating the possibility of violence against Jeff Bezos or The Washington Post. But there is no doubt that his statement last night was a threat—a threat, to be clear, from a major party nominee for president to use the might of the federal government to target the business operations of a critic for the crime of reporting. It may be a mild form of Putinism, but it is Putinism all the same.

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.

  • sarcasmic||

    Reason is never critical of Hillary or Bernie! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

    /John

  • Maine Koon Kat||

    Meow.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    At this point, John deserves it.

    At one point, I had a decent amount of respect for some of the arguments he made. Now it's just incoherent repetition of moronic talking points.

  • Forks and Spoons||

    John doesn't pass the Purity Test but their aren't many here that do. Maybe it's just the nature of this board that some like to rip on others, or maybe its just because it is anonymous, but that's their prerogative. Or maybe deep down all of us like being dicks to each other whenever we can.

  • Loki||

    maybe deep down all of us like being dicks to each other whenever we can.

    That's why I'm here...

  • Quixote||

    "Authoritarian" is a terribly pejorative word that expresses the author's bias against our great future leader. We need a strong president who will do what needs to be done to stop not only the reporters, but the Trolls of the net who have been fomenting disorder on our college campuses with unwanted, inappropriately deadpan "parody" and other forms of offensive speech. And the best way of achieving that goal is to end the "free" speech nonsense and re-criminalize libel throughout this heroic nation. Surely the author doesn't agree with the outrageous "First Amendment dissent" signed by a single, isolated, liberal judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Nick W B||

    Not sure if sarcasm or a comment from a complete idiot...

  • SQRLSY One||

    My sarcasmometer says its sarcasm...

    Also Trump will SAVE us ALL by Trumpling all over our liberties, 'cause we're all a bunch of LOSERS who obviously do NOT know HOW to use our freedoms in a properly Tri-Tri-Tri-Trumpianistic way! To the Tri-Tri-umph of The Will, I say! (Someone should make a MOVIE out of that, I say!)

  • SQRLSY One||

    The Trump Youth agree with me...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....rally.html

  • GamerFromJump||

    Sweet apocryphal Jesus Quixote, you are living up to your name. It seems like every press article, you cut-and-paste this same advercomment. I thing we're fully aware now, and anyone who's interested has already followed the link. Give it a rest.

  • Quixote||

    GamerFromJump: a terrible, "anti-authoritarian" attack on our future national leader hardly qualifies as a "press article," but do allow me to thank you for joining my anti-Troll campaign. Since you are already so deeply aware of the importance of stamping out inappropriate "satire" and libel in New York, Peoria, Los Angeles and everywhere in-between so we can make America stronger, you are naturally free to ignore my comments on this particular issue. I certainly wouldn't want to waste your time! i am curious, though: who are the members of the great community you refer to, the "we" who are "fully aware" of my little contributions? Do they include the hundreds of new "libertarian" converts who (perhaps under the influence of hashish and other nefarious drugs) discover these dangerous attacks on social order for the first time every day?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    It's not a purity thing. I used to respect his arguments, even if I didn't agree with them. But, since he's come down with his case of the DTs (Donald Trumps), he's taken to arguments that are just incoherent.

  • sarcasmic||

    The closer it gets to the election, the worse he will get.

  • Forks and Spoons||

    Have you ever considered ignoring him? or using whatever it is can be used to hide his posts?

  • pronomian||

    I read and reread the interview, I saw nothing that suggests trump is threatening the WP and saying it was tax dodging. ...Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise. He's using The Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don't tax Amazon like they should be taxed."

    It's amazon trump is talking about and that bezos bought the WP in order to protect his trust. In fact, he didn't even say he was going to do anything against amazon, he is putting in bezos' mind that there may be an anti trust and tax evasion problem.

  • JohnKing||

    Where were you, under a rock? They've been critical of both!

  • Bureaucratic_Sex_Creep||

    Wow, I feel sorry for Amazon and the Washington Post Reporters! Trump the Bully is way out of line here and I for one...Ohh, cool I can get Tiger Balm by Saturday with Amazon Prime!

  • JW||

    Tiger bomb?

  • thrakkorzog||

    You know who else got Tiger bomb?

  • ||

    Lindsey Vonn

  • Loki||

    Random hookers and waitresses?

  • Col. Chestbridge||

    Girl Hitler?

  • Donald Trump||

    Geez, talk about painfully obvious. Did you piss off your senior editor or something? This is all y ou do, any monkey could post this stuff.

    You know what? You're FIRED!

  • Florida Hipster||

    Not rambling enough.
    c-

  • some guy||

    He thought he was on Twitter.

  • Ron||

    So he sounds just like Obama who uses the IRS to go after those he disagrees with and we know Hillary will follow in his footsteps and has threatened to take other similar actions. In other words a politician that wants to control what others say about him.
    What I'm asking for is balance on Reasons part but based on the level of hatred towards Trump that could also be leveled against Hillary I think Reason is in the tank for Hillary. Very dissapointing

  • Cato the Younger||

    Reason isn't in the thank for Hillary, at least not yet. However, for some inexplicable reason they seem to heel more threatened by Trump than Hillary - when it is Hillary who is arguably the more threatening political figure, at least when looking at her political actions in the past.

    Maybe Reason isn't going after Hillary yet because they think Sanders could still pull off something dramatix and therefore she isn't the presumptive nominee yet, unlike Trump. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now but it is odd that Trump gets far more coverage here than Hillary and Bernie, given that all three are enemies of Free Minds and Free Markets.

  • Aloysious||

    It might just be a Suderman thing. I just did a count of Suderman's last twenty articles, and Trump is in twelve of the headlines.

  • some guy||

    It could also be that Trump is such a new thing for politics. Hillary and Bernie are really just the same old thing. But when was the last time we had a politician get as far as Trump has while being as politically incorrect as Trump has been. When was the last time we saw a politician get so far with this combination of terrible policy positions? We know all about the evils named Hillary and Bernie, but Trump is a new one that some people are still struggling to understand.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Hillary is fucking horrible, but she's not stupid and she's a grownup. Trump is a petulant child. So...when it comes to writing news stories, which gets more bang per paragraph, the horrible well spoken grownup or the horrible incomprehensible screaming child?

    It's that simple.

  • Austrian Traveller||

    Hillary is a grown-up? In what sense, besides just age?

  • waffles||

    Height, weight, net worth. Hmm...what metrics do we have for adulthood?

  • BertF||

    That's why all the super-delegates are sticking with her, because she's a grown-up. Has nothing to do with the fact that she'd fry their asses if they switched and she manages to pull off a win.

  • Rhywun||

    I could swear he's cranked out one of these every single (week)day for the last month at least.

  • wef||

    As psychological insurance, Suderman better put a substantial bet down now that Trump will win.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Yeah, with Suderman, it's all Trump all the time.

  • Forks and Spoons||

    Maybe he's on Trumps payroll and he's using Suderman to stoke hatred and derision, since that's what seems to have propelled Trump this far.

  • Wizard4169||

    Yeah, it's a shame how Reason never attacks Hillary. They should do a cover story about her long history of attacking free speech.

    Oh, wait...

  • Fk Censorship||

    Maybe Reason is doing it for the money. This article as of now has 187 comments. The one about the "worst mom in America" (a lady fighting for more children's freedom) has 2 comments. So the fault lies with us, those who comment. Crap, I just commented on another Trump article.

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    "So he sounds just like Obama who uses the IRS to go after those he disagrees with and we know Hillary will follow in his footsteps and has threatened to take other similar actions. In other words a politician that wants to control what others say about him."

    BUT OBAMA is going to be the right-wing version of BUT BUSH for the next decade, isn't it?

    Also, I think Reason pointing this shit out about Trump is a good thing given how many of their readers seem to be in the tank for the Trumpen Fuhrer.

  • pan fried wylie||

    BUT OBAMA is going to be the right-wing version of BUT BUSH for the next decade, isn't it?

    It's been workin pretty well for Obama so far.

  • wareagle||

    I don't know about in the tank, but I do know this: it's not hard to come with reasons for opposing Trump, but it's damn near impossible to come up with reasons for supporting Herself. Around here, there are plenty who will vote for neither; across the country, those numbers are far smaller. As it is, she's a known criminal with an actual history of seeking retribution against enemies, real or imagined; for now, he's just a blowhard.

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    The only thing you can say in support of Trump is that we don't know how bad or corrupt he'll be because he's never held political office.

    Do you really want to gamble on the idea that Trump's constant statements in favor of authoritarian violence is just bluster as opposed to his actual governing philosophy?

  • wareagle||

    vs. already knowing how corrupt, authoritarian, and venal Hillary is? I''m at least willing to consider it. Trump talks a big game; Camp Clinton has a body count on its ledger.

  • Cato the Younger||

    Do you really want to gamble on the idea that Trump's constant statements in favor of authoritarian violence is just bluster as opposed to his actual governing philosophy?

    I don't disagree with this statement at all but isn't it fair to say that Hillary will govern the exact same way? And given Bernie's hard core socialist leanings and the bloody history of that movement, fair to say of him as well?

  • ||

    Bernie is not a "hard core" socialist. He's a softball New Deal Democrat who likes the word "socialist" because it makes him sound not quite so old and out-of-touch.

  • Bruce D||

    Trump says a lot of stuff, sometimes incoherent, and then backtracks. The media seize on his comments especially the incoherent ones and spin them the way they want for their own interests. Trumps likely not serious about a lot of wht he says. Hillary, on the other hand, IS serious about what she says and she doesn't retract anything.

  • Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe||

    I can think of one good reason to support Trump. If he gets elected you'll get to see the media throw the mother of all tantrums.

  • Fk Censorship||

    The media gave him the nomination, who are you kidding? All that free publicity??? Do you think it just wrote itself?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    BUT OBAMA is going to be the right-wing version of BUT BUSH for the next decade, isn't it?

    Probably, but right now, Obama is still in office, so I think it's appropriate to point out that Obama is actively engaging in the behaviors causing so much hand-wring among Trump-critics.

  • ||

    BUT OBAMA is going to be the right-wing version of BUT BUSH for the next decade, isn't it?

    I know you're young, but you can't be so young that you don't remember the "BUT CLINTON!" that was so ubiquitous from 2001-2009.

    Team Red spent 1993-2001 screaming about what an amoral crook he was, but once he was out of office suddenly he was their moral compass.

    Expect nothing less from the next administration if Team Red gets in again.

  • Loki||

    Lobbing Tu Quoque fallacies at the other TEAM is one of the more irritating features of both TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE.

    Newsflash TEAM-TARD assholes: JUST BECAUSE THE OTHER TEAM IS A BUNCH OF CORRUPT SHITSTAINS DOESN'T MAKE IT OK FOR YOU TO BE CORRUPT SHITSTAINS TOO.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Of course, there's something of a distinction here. The Democrats have been authoritarian asshats for the last hundred or so years. If the GOP falls to just another brand of authoritarianism, there really isn't a major party for pro-liberty positions to build upon. As such, Trump is actually probably more of a threat to liberty.

  • thrakkorzog||

    Except that Trump isn't really part of a movement in the GOP the way that the tea party was. There don't seem to be a bunch of pro-Trump Republicans running on his coattails. If the GOP suddenly starts purging the libertarian leaning members of the party, then it will be time to worry, but I have a hard time seeing guys like Paul, Amash, etc. suddenly deciding to go along with Trump's authoritarian tendencies.

  • ||

    Paul has already said he will support Trump.

  • Pat (PM)||

    His candidacy, not necessarily his policies should he be elected (spoiler: he won't).

  • Loki||

    It could be that a lot of Reason's writers and editors (I don't think the publication as a whole has an opinion) view Hillary, rightly or wrongly, as a continuation of the status quo while Trump may be dumb enough, and clueless enough about how the government is supposed to function under the Constitution that he'll actually try to expand executive authority even further than Obama and W before him and emulate some of those "strong leaders" like Putin and Chinese communists he so admires. Just a thought.

  • ||

    I agree with Loki -

    On one hand, as someone mentioned upthread, there is nothing new to say about Hillary. Additionally, Hillary is a politician, and is at least rhetorically constrained by historical political principles of this country.

    Trump has real echoes of "fuck it all, my group wins and I don't give a fuck what I have to do to make that happen."

    Make no mistake: Hillary is just the same at root, but she's bound by the traditional mores that politicians are bound by. The Donald, OTOH, is running on a lark and is driven 100% by cheers and applause and could give a flying fuck about the rule of law.

    That's what makes him a little scary in contrast to Hillary "business-as-usual" Clinton. The Devil-You-Know and all that.

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    Well said. Pretty much my thoughts. I am very concerned about what a Clinton presidency could mean (esp if the Dems control one or both houses), and I can believe a Trump presidency might ultimately be unremarkable, at least policy-wise. But his personality makes me suspect he will try even crazier, dangerous shit and expand executive power or precipitate a government crisis.

    Both are bad choices, and it's no reason to try to sweeten up Trump just because we know Clinton is awful.

  • Austrian Traveller||

    he will try even crazier, dangerous shit and expand executive power or precipitate a government crisis

    A valid concern regarding Trump, and of Hillary as well.

  • roversaurus||

    My hope is that when Trump tries to do something he will be opposed by Democrats *and* Republicans. There will be many Republicans who don't think they have to protect their brand by defending him.

    I would also like to see heads explode on the left. I'd like the intelligent people on the left to step back and think ... "maybe unrestrained power isn't such a good thing Those voters are *idiots*!"

    I'd like the intelligent left to stop claiming something is all ok just because it was decided by an election.

  • retiredfire||

    What, truly scares me about Trump is how easily he seems to be goaded into irrational reactions.
    Someone like Putin could, without too much effort, get him to do something really stupid by pushing the right button - and that really stupid thing could be, pushing the wrong button.

  • Bruce D||

    Hillary's not "business as usual". She's just as authoritarian or more than Trump. She's more experienced in government than Trump, which makes her more dangerous. Trump makes wild statements and then backtracks. He's more bluster than anything else, not really serious about a lot of what he says. Hillary, on the other hand, IS serious about what she says and she doesn't retract anything.

    I don't agree with Trump about changing libel law to sue the media. But I have little love for the "mainstream" media. The media unfairly attacks the right to keep and bear arms and endlessly repeats coverage of violent events, thereby stimulating further copycat killings. Plus, the media attacks freedom in plenty of other areas. I don't believe they should be regulated or restricted. In the long term it would be worse than leaving them be.

    But, I don't own any newspapers or TV or radio stations. However, I do own a few guns. If the choice is between Hillary and the media trying to attack me for owning guns and enacting criminal penalties against me vs. Trump attacking the media, I don't want to be threatened with criminal penalties regarding guns. Besides, the media is well-equipped to defend themselves. I'd rather they spent their resources defending their own freedom, rather than attacking mine.

    Besides, it'll be great and entertaining spectacle.

  • CE||

    Clinton is a continuation of the status quo-Bama. Which is why she is going to lose.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    Reason makes an article critical of conservatives.

    Right-sympathetic commenters: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LIBERALS?! WHY YOU NEVER SAY THEY ARE BAD!?

    Reason makes an article critical of liberals.

    Left-sympathetic commenters: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVES?! WHY YOU NEVER SAY THEY ARE BAD!?

    It's weird how some people define themselves more as opponents of the left or right rather than as libertarians. There's more than enough criticism of politicians to go around. And just because every article doesn't spend perfectly equal amounts of time critically examining both parties doesn't mean they are secretly in the bag for Tribe Red or Tribe Blue.

  • Big Chief||

    Sounds like another area of agreement between Trump and Hillary. Corporations, including the Post, aren't people! Citizens United is bad, everyone says so!

  • CE||

    I read yesterday that Citizens United is to blame for Trump winning the Republican nomination, even though he didn't have any superPACs raising money for him, and spent less than Bush, Cruz, Walker and Rubio. Because Citizens United encouraged the no-hopers to stay in longer because they were flush with cash. If the narrative doesn't fit, melt it down a little.

  • retiredfire||

    Trump had at least one super PAC - The Make America Great Again Super PAC.
    Here's what the former communications director said about Trump's run:
    http://www.xojane.com/issues/s.....n-defector

  • Mongo||

    your name is peter lol

  • Tundra||

    Jesus, Suderman. Did Trump steal a chick from you or something?

  • Cato the Younger||

    He seems two have to beats - Obamacare and Trump. He's done a good jon, I think, on Obamacare and you can argue he is doing a good job covering Trump too, but I just wonder why no one else on the staff has been giben the Hillary or Bernie beat. Not that we don't know that all three suck, of course, but how about some balance?

  • wareagle||

    someone on the staff actually had an article on "the libertarian case for Bernie" and with a straight face. Because everyone knows that socialism, democratic or otherwise, is just that close to libertarianism.

  • ||

    None of the three remaining candidates are remotely libertarian. If there's a libertarian case for Trump, there's also one for Bernie. In a "which is less totally awful" kind of way.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    I think the Libertarian Case for Bernie should be this: Bernie will never have the support from Tribe Red nor Tribe Blue. Both Tribes will actively oppose him, and sometimes the best you can hope for is political gridlock.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    I think his Obamacare articles are mostly him just copying Megan's notes, and poorly. She usually has interesting and well-researched things to say on the subject.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Cosmo, cocktails, signaling, etc.

  • JW||

    Sounds like a good party. My invite is in the mail?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    I'm intrigued by the "etc."....

  • mfckr||

    Shrug. I hate Bezos so I'm just going to think it's funny if he gets a black eye over this.

    Plus I'm sick of wealthy partisans vying to influence electoral outcomes as Bezos is attempting to do.

    So yeah, fuck him.

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    Yeah, it's super awesome when the government politicizes law enforcement to punish people who criticize presidential candidates. I mean, I'd bitch if I liked Bezos, but so long as the totalitarian deformation of law enforcement is used to oppress people I don't like, I'm cool with it

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Yeah. Trump defense is limitless.

  • mfckr||

    Both Bezos & Trump are self-interested dicks striving to game the system in ways favorable to them. Neither of their agendas are worth moralizing about.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    What's Bezos done?

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Plus I'm sick of wealthy partisans vying to influence electoral outcomes as Bezos is attempting to do.

    So you're joining the anti-Citizens United brigade?

  • mfckr||

    So you're joining the anti-Citizens United brigade?

    Not that I know of.

    I just have no sympathy for statists when bad things happen to them. And Bezos is a statist.

  • Cato the Younger||

    It's amazing how Big Business types appear to favor statism, but then, they are big, and the state is big so why can't the state do extraordinary things like they can? And, politicians cozy up to them so now they are thier new best friends. And, they seem to have forgotten when they were the upstart entreprenuer - either that or they are anxious to use there new Big Friends to stay in the Big Time and keep out others that might threaten their business.

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    Trump has continuously expressed support for authoritarian states even decades before running for president, but that's okay because at least he's not an SJW

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Perhaps the one good thing about the Trump candidacy, is that it's making it clear how many "libertarians" are total phonies who really just want small government for themselves and ONLY themselves.

  • Bruce D||

    How's that?

  • wareagle||

    it's obvious that Trump bloviating is just as bad if not worse than Herself sitting by and watching fellow Americans be killed then lying about it, worse than targeting women who were either assaulted or consented to involvement with Bill, worse that using your family's foundation to sell influence to the world's worst regimes.

    Jeezus on a flying biscuit, this shit is getting tedious.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Totally. Trump is awesome and we should just all vote for him because of how awesome he is and did I mention he's awesome?

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • wareagle||

    fuck you, jackass. I didn't say you or we should do anything. I said Herself is known to do the things Reason wets its pants over with Trump, but it fixates on Trump. Try reading next time.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Yeah the Hillary obsession is wearing a bit thin for us too, but we only have a few more years of it to get through.

  • wareagle||

    it's hard not to notice how accusations of pants-shitting come from the staff and/or commentariat when someone points out things that have actually happened, but it's considered reasonable discourse when this guy runs his mouth.

    Part of me still believes the biggest fear of Trump is his being elected and nothing disastrous happening. The political class and the punditry would be faced with the reality that there is nothing super secret magical about politics beyond the opportunity some see in it for self-enrichment.

  • JW||

    Part of me still believes the biggest fear of Trump is his being elected and nothing disastrous happening.

    Holy shit, Reason! They're onto you!

    Quickly, contact the Bilderburgs for new orders!

  • ||

    Part of me still believes the biggest fear of Trump is his being elected and nothing disastrous happening. The political class and the punditry would be faced with the reality that there is nothing super secret magical about politics beyond the opportunity some see in it for self-enrichment.

    I think there's real truth to this, actually.

    I think reason's political calculus rests on there only being a chance that this will happen, where there's also a chance he abuses his power in ways only heretofore imagined in an American President.

    I am sympathetic to your argument that there is certainty about Hillary's criminality, while the Donald's is as-yet hypothetical but, again, the Devil you know. We can plan for Hillary. We can't plan for the Donald.

  • Shirley Knott||

    It's election season -- of course it's tedious.
    When has it not been?
    There's nothing (literally nothing) about Trump or Clinton that's not tedious, yet for those who somehow think the election matters, there's nothing else to talk about.
    How could it be anything but tedious?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    There's nothing (literally nothing) about Trump or Clinton that's not tedious, yet for those who somehow think the election matters, there's nothing else to talk about.

    I dunno, I think the way that Trump has completely obliterated all of the accepted knowledge about modern political campaigns is actually quite fascinating, even if he is a pandering blowhard whose policies oscillate between '90s-era Democrat and full-on authoritarian, depending on what hour it is.

  • ||

    Yeah - if nothing else, he's blown the lid on the money-in-politics myth. He's spent barely anything compared to Jeb Bush. It's going to be hard to continue arguing that whoever has the most money automatically wins.

  • Aloysious||

    Trump = Putinism? Suderman, if you have inspired a flurry of photoshopped pictures of Trumps's head on Putin's body, I'm going to be seriously displeased with you.

  • some guy||

    Make no mistake. If Trump gets into office there will be plenty of pictures of him riding bears and wrestling tigers in your email spam.

  • some guy||

    Trump is so bad on property rights and free association. He's against free trade. He believes in monopolies. He's willing to consider minimum wage hikes. And he has personally benefited from cronyism his whole life. If he was a bit more racist you'd think he was a progressive Democrat.

  • John||

    Maybe I missed it. But where is the threat here? "We can't let him get away with it"? Is that the threat? If so, I don't see how that is a threat. What does that even mean? I take that to mean people shouldn't let him do this without speaking up and calling him out. What else does it mean? Hell if I know.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I will tell you, this is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon. Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise. He’s using The Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed."

    The implied threat is that he's going to start taxing Amazon like a brick and mortar retailer.

    I should say that Trump is probably 100% correct about this.

    Bill Gates learned from his mentor, Warren Buffet, the hard way--if you don't own media, the more money you make, the more the government will come after you. If you own media that can punish politicians who come after you, they won't come after you. That's why Bill Gates started making big forays into MSNBC and other media properties--and Bezos almost certainly bought into Washington Post for the same reason.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "That's why Bill Gates started making big forays into MSNBC and other media properties--and Bezos almost certainly bought into Washington Post for the same reason."

    I should have added, Gates made those forays into media in the wake of antitrust cases against Microsoft. Once he bought into that media, the pain mostly went away.

    Buffet had been doing that for years. He bought into the Washington Post, and he owned Cap Cities ABC, which he merged with Disney. That he's the richest media darling shouldn't come as a surprise.

  • John||

    I see what you mean. But it is legal for the President to try and change the tax laws. So I am not seeing why this is anything but just hard ball politics. Yeah, if you want to come after me, no worries, we can talk with Congress about those tax breaks you get once I am in office.

    Maybe I am cynical but I don't see how that is anything other than politics. Threatening is saying you are going to audit them or sick the FBI on them. And that isn't what Trump is doing here I don't think.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I see what you mean. But it is legal for the President to try and change the tax laws. So I am not seeing why this is anything but just hard ball politics. "

    It is hardball politics.

    And it would be incredibly naive to expect a presidential candidate to refrain from fighting back and taking off some heat in the thick of an election by not flexing his muscles.

    On the other hand, threatening to fiddle with tax laws because the media criticized you isn't the coolest thing you can do from a libertarian perspective. That's true, too, right?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Don't expect John to acknowledge the last paragraph. It's too close to criticizing trump.

  • Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe||

    See? Trump is even creating jobs for his enemies! And he hasn't even been elected yet!

  • GamerFromJump||

    Frankly, any taxes Amazon avoids are virtuous. They need to get away with murder; murdering Leviathan by starvation. It's clear-cut self-defense.

  • CE||

    It's chilling effects all the way down.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise.

    Last time I checked my receipts, I paid the sales tax on my purchases, not the retailer. Have I been doin it wrong all these years?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Yes. You are stealing my money from your own pocket. Stop it, thief.

  • SugarFree||

    He means Federal corporate taxes. Which Amazon wouldn't even pay in the first place since it's never turned a profit.

    So it's not just a threat, it's a particularly ignorant threat.

  • SugarFree||

    Or not. He might actually think as President he can force Amazon to charge state sales taxes, which only fucks over us, not Bezos, like you pointed out.

  • some guy||

    It would reduce the savings consumers see from buying from Amazon, which would cut into their gross sales. If he's really talking about corporate taxes, then it's all bluster. (I doubt he's ignorant on this particular subject.)

  • SugarFree||

    I imagine he's ignorant on a wide range of subjects.

    But yes, sales tax does cut in, which is why Amazon and other retailers have avoided it so long. At best you have Trump threatening to subject Amazon customers to a tax increase to fuck over a political opponent.

    It's a shitbag move.

  • some guy||

    I'm sure he's ignorant of a great many things, but I feel like he probably knows about Amazon's profitability and tax status. Then again, I'm not the one posting transcripts of what happens behind the scenes... At least the Hair isn't ignorant...

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Is he referring to the transfer pricing issue? I haven't read too much on that (international is not my area) but I believe the IRS has taken a pretty aggressive stance on that one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I know that Hillary Clinton's unfavorability ratings are historically high; it's just that Donald Trump's unfavorability ratings are even higher. I'd love to seem them both tracked against the media. I wouldn't be surprised if the unfavorability ratings of the Washington Post were even higher than Trump's.

    I bet the Washington Post is about as popular as banks and health insurers--and those industries are heavily regulated, in no small part, because they're so unpopular.

    I know progressives don't think corporations have the right to free speech, and even though I think the Washington Post has the right to print the shit they print everyday, it is shit. But I'll pinch my nose and stand up for their right to print it.

    I'll stand up for the right of rapists and arsonists to a trial and terrorists not to be tortured, too. How's it feel to be on the same list with rapists, arsonists, and terrorists, Washington Post? I wonder if they realize that one of the few groups of people that will instinctively stand up for them are the libertarians they demonize?

  • some guy||

    I wonder if they realize that one of the few groups of people that will instinctively stand up for them are the libertarians they demonize?

    Doesn't matter. There's so few of us and they are among the powerful. Why do they need us to stand up for them? If other powerful people make a concerted effort to destroy the WaPo, no amount of Libertarian support is going to stop it.

    Also, you know as well as I do that the WaPo thinks "the press" are a very specific, elite and small group of people who have real free speech rights, while the rest of us just kinda sorta have free speech most of the time.

  • Shit Pyrate||

    Spot on Ken.

  • John||

    I thought Bezos was a Libertarian? Trump is according to reason the most anti libertarian GOP nominee ever. So why didn't Bezos do this last fall when Trump first came onto the scene and was a threat to win? Why did he wait to do this until Trump had the nomination?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Please explain why over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And then do it again tomorrow.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tomorrow is Saturday. At least let him wait until he's back on the government's payroll on Monday.

  • John||

    I don't know. I am asking you. Why now? Why wouldn't have Bezos wanted to stop Trump before he had the nomination?

  • mfckr||

    It appears Bezos was described as a 'Libertarian Democrat' circa Aug '13: http://www.slate.com/blogs/wei.....ocrat.html

    Whatever that label might mean.

    In any event, he's been a Hillary supporter for at least a few years it seems. Likely making him far more Democrat than Libertarian.

    Ergo, he's a statist. And I'll be damned if I'm about to have ethical qualms about statists being 'bullied', persecuted, or worse. As I said, fuck him.

  • CE||

    Trump may be the least libertarian Repub nominee ever. There's a reason Christie flocked to his side instinctively.

  • John||

    Fair enough. So if Bezos is a Libertarian why didn't he do this before Trump got the nomination and there were other alternatives besides Hillary?

  • linflo||

    Why not ask the Amazon employees who the bully is.

  • Forks and Spoons||

    Why? Are they slaves that are chained to their oars?

  • CE||

    Basically. There was a big expose on it a few months ago.

  • Forks and Spoons||

    Basically? As in, they actually are, or, they are just too lazy to quit and find another job?

  • John||

    The problem with this is threefold. First, Trump has been a celebrity for 30 years. It is doubtful there is much dirt that hasn't already been published. Trump has been of interest to the tabloids and a great way to move copy for 30 years now. So I doubt they will find much. Second, the double standard between this and how Obama was treated is obvious and nauseating that I doubt anyone will pay much attention to it even if they do find something. Third the media seems to have no ability to show any judgement about Trump. They will jump on anything and act like it is some huge gaffe. So even if they do find something significant enough for the public to believe, they will over played their hands on smaller things so much that it will get lost as the public tunes it all out as the usual partisan outrage.

  • wareagle||

    #1 certainly applies to Herself, too, which dovetails nicely into #2. Why is her list of known transgressions secondary? Unlike Obama, whom no one wanted to vet, Hillary's been in the arena for a long time.

    We're debating between a guy who has said some stupid things and a woman who has done some horrible, if not criminal, things.

  • SugarFree||

    No, we fucking aren't. It only seems that way if you think Trump is somehow owed our vote. Fuck Trump and Fuck Hillary. There are more than two options.

  • wareagle||

    Yet, the bulk of the time is spent examining one of the options, almost exclusively on speculation on what that option might do. What the other option HAS done must be okay. Occasionally, we get the piece about other options. And what is this new strain of stupidity where anyone noticing Reason's hard-on for Trump is automatically a Trumpkin who is "owed our vote"? I never said that. Not. Once. He doesn't have my vote; why the hell would I demand that he get yours?

  • SugarFree||

    What the other option HAS done must be okay

    No, that's just black and white thinking on a mentally deranged scale. Criticising one is not endorsing the other. That's moronthink.

    No one on this board except two or three trolls and probably none of the subscribers are voting for Hillary, where there are a couple of dozen Trump fans or people that will blindly vote for the GOP candidate.

    Why waste words on an argument that's already been won?

  • wareagle||

    Criticising one is not endorsing the other.

    I never said it was but, again, don't let that stop you from projecting. Fixating on one while occasionally noticing the other, however, is hard not to notice. And if only a couple dozen people here might be Trump voters, why the obsession? Seems your last question should be directed at the staff if the Reason argument is to convince the commentariat to avoid both Donnie and Herself.

  • SugarFree||

    Bitch, that's exactly what you said.

    Yet, the bulk of the time is spent examining one of the options, almost exclusively on speculation on what that option might do. What the other option HAS done must be okay.

  • wareagle||

    I see reading comprehension has failed you. If someone on one side has actually done criminal things but you generally hand-wave them over your fixation about what the other side's guy might do, then it's not hard to see silence as getting close to approval.

    Someone did the Suderman math on Trump articles. I didn't make up the stats. And people here complain daily about the Trumpalanche of stories.

  • SugarFree||

    If someone on one side has actually done criminal things but you generally hand-wave them over your fixation about what the other side's guy might do, then it's not hard to see silence as getting close to approval.

    So it was what you said.

    Does Trump getting away with lying all the time make you think you can too?

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but voting for a third party only siphons votes away from Republicans! It is equal to a vote for a Democrat! So not voting for a Republican is voting for a Democrat, even if you don't actually vote for the Democrat! It's true! Ann Coulter said so, so it must be true!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yes, there are three! We can also throw our vote away in protest.

    "A choice of three for "democracy"!
    And they're all parasites!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LwDYdTBTQ

  • Forks and Spoons||

    Who ever said anything about owing Trump their vote?

  • Not an Economist||

    Supposedly, the Washington Post has 20 reporters looking into Trump. Do they have 20 reporters looking into Hillary? To be fair shouldn't they be looking at both with the same intensity?

  • Forks and Spoons||

    Supposedly. I doun't think that means what you think it means.

    Besides, who cares? WaPo doesn't have near the influence it used to have.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Trump’s admiration for authoritarian strength has been most visible in his praise for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, saying last year, "I've always felt fine about Putin. He's a strong leader, he's a powerful leader," and praising Putin’s political popularity.


    Here's a thing. This guy will say anything. Anything. Bernie's going down? Look at all those bereft potential voters - pro-minimum wage. Angry white voters? Build a wall! Turns out lots of people are pissed about immigration? I love Hispanics! Turns out a lot of the bad about immigration was teh jerbs? Jobs! Jobs for everyone! You get a job, and YOU get a job, and YOU get a job!

    If he'll say anything to get the office, regardless of what he actually feels or plans to do with the office, it works both ways. We don't know that he means what he says about Putin any more than we do about his economic plans.

  • mfckr||

    Trump’s admiration for authoritarian strength has been most visible in his praise for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, saying last year, "I've always felt fine about Putin. He's a strong leader, he's a powerful leader," and praising Putin’s political popularity.

    Lol. When Trump said those things, they came off only as observations of Putin. It didn't appear that Trump was gushing over Putin nor his autocratic machismo.

    Does Suderman have Aspergers or some shit?

  • JW||

    Suderman has the Aspergers?

    "I've always felt fine about Putin. He's a strong leader, he's a powerful leader,"

    Those are 3 affirmative statements in a row praising Putin. That's not observing, that's objective affirmative statements in context.

    Suder-Man probably dishonestly didn't quote his condemnation of Putin immediately following that statement.

    Wait....

    After Mr. Trump said he took the Putin comments as good news, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough pressed him on Mr. Putin’s record. Mr. Putin, said Mr. Scarborough, is “also a person who kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries” and asked if that should be a cause for concern for the endorsement. Mr. Trump responded that the Russian president was a “leader, unlike what we have in this country.”

    Mr. Scarborough repeated the original question, saying, “again, he kills journalists that don’t agree with him.”

    “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe,” Mr. Trump said.

    Huh. Nope.

    Mr. Scarborough asked if Mr. Trump would condemn Mr. Putin for killing journalists, Mr. Trump said, “oh sure, absolutely.”

    Oh, there is the distancing. He'll get right on that.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/.....ng-leader/

  • mfckr||

    Um, Trump was clearly trolling there lol. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious to you.

    But you can also tell when he gives a few serious descriptors of Putin around 1:10-1:15 that he's just objectively enumerating a few traits about the guy, nothing more. There's no intonation of admiration or awe present. I've seen him do the same in a debate before when he was asked about Putin and Kim Il-Jong or whoever.

  • mfckr||

    Trump trolls journalists frequently—esp. ones he doesn't like that much.

    It was more frequent earlier in his campaign, with less as time went on.

    And now of course he's into his serious persona.

  • JW||

    Trump was clearly trolling there lol. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious to you.

    Really? Whew! I was worried there for a second. That'll teach me to take a guy at his word for decades.

    This overreach will be of great comfort when the survivors are marched into the Trumps. "My camps will be very classy. The best."

  • mfckr||

    Maybe try developing a sense of humor instead and being less of a literal-minded sperg.

  • some guy||

    Obama was a blank slate upon which each voter could write his own hopes and dreams. Trump is a cluttered wall of graffiti on which every possible hope and dream has been written multiple times with different levels of legibility.

  • CE||

    And let me tell you, those jobs will pay a heck of a lot more than 15 bucks an hour.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I'm going to guess that Trump wants to be seen as uttering a credible threat.

    How could be be a great dealmaker if the other side doesn't take his threats seriously?

    The point of threats is to indicate what could happen if you don't cut a deal with him.

    If people can safely ignore your threats, what's the incentive for a deal?

    So I'm guessing Trump is seriously considering retaliating against Bezos unless he cuts a deal and agrees to rein in the Post.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    And in this case it wouldn't be an explicit deal, nothing that could be proven. Bezos would just spontaneously agree to go easier on Trump and print a few more anti-Hillary pieces.

  • mfckr||

    Yes, but it's easier for some people here to assume that Trump isn't terribly capable of rational deliberation to this extent. And that he's simply exploding bombastically with conspiratorial accusations and paranoid rumor-mongering against whatever seems threatening at the time. So, that's what they're going to see.

  • some guy||

    This is just political grandstanding. Bezos is not Trump's intended audience here, nor is the WaPo. If you want your "threats" to be taken seriously you make them in private.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I don't know, Trump does a lot of stuff in public, he frequently uses the press to communicate his messages.

    And having uttered a public threat, does he want to be seen as climbing down?

    Would he want a rival businessman/celebrity to be able to say, "I stood up to Trump and won"?

  • Loki||

    TRUMPTARD SIGNAL: LIT!

  • SugarFree||

    How many more are you looking for? SIV, Acosmist and Winston are all on the night shift.

  • Loki||

    I figured John, Domestic Dissident, & lulztopian at the very least would be here. I see that John's already here. He can always be counted on to defend his man crush and go full Trumptard.

  • JW||

    There's always room for more cake.

  • JW||

    There's video of the event.

  • libertreee||

    Reason continues to Putin bash without any doing any fact checking. 2/3 of journalists who have been murdered in Russia died during the disastrous rule of US puppet Boris Yeltsin in the 1990's. Many others during the administration of Putin's political rival Mendevev.

    Many journalists were war casualties during the suppression of the Chechnian jihad. Others were victims of personal violence. IOW, there is little evidence of Putin's hand in their deaths.
    When Putin is accused of these things, it is equally or more likely to be the work of Putin's enemies, the Oligarchs who rose to power during Yeltsin's rule around the Russian central bank and who were imprisoned or fled Russia under Putin.
    Yes Russia is technically a one party authoritarian state, but not because of Putin. There are 3 minor parties in the Duma but they are simply nuts, and have no real constituencies. The real power struggle is within Putin's United Russia party between the left liberals and the conservative factions. The liberals want integration with the West-meaning the corrupt IMF and the EU. Putin wants a multipolar world. He simply does not want Russia to be an American client state.

    Putin is


    Others

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • Loki||

    Wow, a Putin shill, this is a first...

    Many others during the administration of Putin's political rival Mendevev.

    I assume you meant Madvedev, who was not Putin's "political rival" but practically his hand picked successor.

    During this time, Medvedev befriended Vladimir Putin.

    In November 1999, Medvedev was hired by the Russian presidential administration, where he worked as the Deputy Chief of Staff. In the 2000 Presidential elections, Medvedev was Putin's Campaign Manager.
    ...
    On 10 December 2007, Medvedev was informally endorsed as a candidate for the forthcoming presidential elections by four political parties: United Russia, Fair Russia, Agrarian Party of Russia and Civilian Power, and was officially endorsed by the United Russia Party on 17 December 2007. Medvedev's candidacy was backed by the popular outgoing President, Vladimir Putin, thus giving a significant boost to his popularity. The 2008 presidential election, held on 2 March 2008, was won by Medvedev with 70.28% of the popular vote, and he was inaugurated on 7 May 2008.

    Although Medvedev did not run for a second term as President, Medvedev was appointed Prime Minister by President Vladimir Putin

    Emphasis added. If you're gonna shill, at try to get your facts straight. You were wrong right out of the gate and it went downhill from there.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Wow, a Putin shill, this is a first...

    Well, if you ignore Richman, and all the Ukraine articles...

  • Loki||

    Richman's not a Putin shill, just a moron.

  • KevinP||

    Hillary Clinton isn't a fan of the First Amendment either:


    Hillary Clinton Equates Gun Control Opponents With Terrorists


    Quote:
    During a CNN "town hall" yesterday, Hillary Clinton said she was disappointed that Congress did not pass new gun control legislation following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December 2012. "I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation," said the former secretary of state and presumptive presidential candidate. "We cannot let a minority of people—and that's what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people."

    Evidently Clinton's idea of a more thoughtful conversation about gun control involves equating disagreement with terrorism while claiming some opinions are so dangerous that "we cannot let" people hold them.
  • Austrian Traveller||

    Hillary isn't as threatening as Trump becasue she's just saying what she needs to sday to her base to get elected.

  • Bruce D||

    No, Hillary is serious. That's the difference between her and Trump. Trump is goaded into saying things by the press, makes wild remarks and then backtracks. Hillary never backtracks. Hillary is a gun-control extremist. She's a true believer.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    "We cannot let a minority of people—and that's what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people."


    Bathrooms. It always has to get back to fucking bathrooms, doesn't it.

  • Abu Nudnik||

    This is spam, malware, or worse. Do not click the link.

  • Loki||

  • CE||

    It's almost as if they're mocking Reason's spam filters, putting the spam in bold font.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    +1 Strong tag.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Thank you for this very important reminder, Pete McAdoodle Suderweigel. I almost forgot in the ten minutes since you reminded us.

  • Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe||

    Sideman has been crying about Trump for months. When is he going to introduce his own line of hankies? He could start with "The Trump Crier".

  • Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe||

    s/Sideman/Suderman/

    Damn spell check....

  • Abu Nudnik||

    a) There was no threat
    b) The Post has hired 20 people to did up dirt on him, according to Bob Woodward.
    c) Your website has lost its grip.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Not sure how long you've been here, but it has been sliding in this direction for years, and it's worse now than ever.

  • Forks and Spoons||

    You're in the tank for Trump, aren't you?

  • KieraArcher||

    Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $120 per hour.

    I work through this link. Go here--------------------- http://www.earnmore9.com

  • CE||

    As if Clinton would never use the IRS or the FBI as a threat to make people heel.

  • Real American||

    so Trump will simply continue the policies and actions of the current regime when it comes to stiffing a free press and free speech. got it.

  • Guestus III||

    Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

    If there is one thing more tiring than an endless stream of Trump posts, its the Red-Team Tony equivalents with their version of BUT HILLLLLLLARBOOOSHARY!!

    Trump gets clicks. Reason gets advertising dollars. They spend those dollars on the foundation, which advocates for libertarian causes. End of story.

    But it is good to see some thoughtful discussion and funny shit in between the "shit-on-the-author posts for not expressing my exact viewpoint" posts on every goddamn fucking article. Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. So, thanks to the funny and smart posters.

  • John||

    There was a post last night on the effects of tariffs on the economy. It was directly critical of Trump and the debate was very reasonable and in no way critical of the author. That is because it was a reasonable criticism of Trump.

    Suderman doesn't do that. Suderman writes exaggerated smug horse shit. And he gets called on it. The tone and content of the debate is only as good as the tone and content of the story it is discussing. If Suderman were capable of writing anything serious about Trump, the debates that result would not be so nasty and less serious.

  • roversaurus||

    This particular critique of Trump is legit.
    Yes, he is doing the same thing as Obama and other politicians. What is bold about this one is that it is so very, very much out in the open and obvious.
    The fact that this doesn't disqualify him in most peoples eyes is frightening ... but Obama's IRS scandal should disqualify him too. The fishing for climate warming deniers should disqualify every attorney general involved. Lots of crap the government does should frighten people ... but it doesn't.

  • Bruce D||

    It's that a lot of people, including libertarians, aren't happy with the media, which continually attacks freedom in many areas. Though we are against censorship and intimidation, it is hard to muster sympathy for those who so often attack freedom when they themselves are attacked.

  • Guestus III||

    Sure, and I agree this is not a very good post. But this is the blog, not the magazine, and the staff are kicking out, what, 20+ of these a day, with most pretty obviously not even edited? It kind of goes with the territory that a significant handful of posts are going to be shit. And I don't have a problem with pointing out disagreement, but I rarely see a post go by (and I read most), good or bad, where someone does not:

    -Not only post that they disagree and the article is shit, but accuse the author of being a terrible author AND PERSON in general, not a real libertarian, in the tank for Bernie/Obama/whatever
    -Reason has really slid
    -Cocktail Parties!!!

    And of course, posts on Trump, immigration and abortion (in that order) turn into a massive shit show of comments, which is not surprising for the latter two, but I think it odd to see so many Trump defender types in an ostensibly libertarian publication.

  • Restoras||

    You spelled Cocktail Parties!!! wrong....just sayin'....

  • Guestus III||

    Kochtails? Cock Tales? COCKATALS111!!!11!11 ?

  • Harun||

    Devil's Advocate

    What is the best strategy for rewarding cooperation and punishing defection in the prisoner's dilemma?

    Tit for Tat.

    I think we have to accept that Trump may be the Tat for Obama's IRS's Tit.

    If you don't make Democrats aware that these tools can be used against them, they will do what they did with the IRS and Lois Lerner: allow them to remain unpunished.

  • Harun||

    To be clear, I wanted rule of law instead, but that's not happening.

    So, we're down to tit for tat.

  • mfckr||

    I vote for option likely to introduce the most societal unpredictability.

    Hillary's a non-option given I already know what 4-8 yrs of a Hillary presidency will be like—boring, and not much different from the last 4-8 yrs.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Trump’s Threat Against The Washington Post Is Yet Another Reminder That He is a Bully and an Authoritarian
    Trump's lack of respect for freedom of speech is deeply worrying.

    Why worry?
    If Trump the Grump is elected, there won't be any freedom of speech.
    That's one other issue the little people in Amerika will have to worry about.
    Isn't fascism wonderful?

  • jerryg1018||

    WaPo trying to dig up dirt on Trumps is bullying. Standing up to bullies is how you slap them down.

  • vince||

    Hitler, Chavez, Putin and Trump... The Constitutional Road to Tyranny

    Donald Trump has been using government to threaten and intimidate opponents his entire life. Now we're about to put him in charge of the same government apparatus that Barack Obama has been abusing for 7 1/2 years. Yeah, this should turn out well...

    www.imperfectamerica.com

  • jerryg1018||

    WaPo definitely needs to investigate Trump taking all those legal deductions on his income taxes. WaPo is learning Trump fights back. Obama used the IRS against his enemies, just imaging what Trump can do by turning the IRS loose on the main stream media.

  • jbsnc||

    Another pathetic article. The biggest business in the world by very, very far, is the US Federal Government. 10s of thousands of jackals, Democrat, GOP, and foreign, 'raid' for riches that is grossly disgusting. The Clinton's, without doubt among the Payola royalty, along with most career national politicians teamed with 'let's make a deal' business people, pursue their wealth and power just as staunchly as the super jerk Trump. Can the author describe fairness, justice or truth??? American media had clearly started to die by the 60s.

  • Bruce D||

    I don't think the federal government should be used to intimidate the media. But the media unfairly attacks my right to keep and bear arms, and stimulates copycat killings via excessive coverage of violent events. They tend to attack freedom more than they defend it. So, while I don't think they should be censored or intimidated, I have a tough time feeling sympathy for them. The media wants freedom for themselves, but not for others. I have a tough time shedding tears for them.

  • VartAndelay||

    One candidates bloviates and a pant-shitter worries he favors killing journalists.
    Another candidate is inarguably responsible for the death of an ambassador. To name just one.

  • NatashaJames||

    My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do----------------- http://www.earnmore9.com

  • jerryg1018||

    "As with nearly all Trump remarks, it is a kind of word salad. But even still, it is difficult to read this as anything other than a threat to use the power of the federal government to crack down on a bothersome political critic."
    WaPo didn't have any problem with the IRS and their campaign against conservatives and the Tea Party. WaPo is just a propaganda arm of the Obama Administration and is fearful of what Trump will do when he becomes President.

  • HarrietTurnbull||

    I'm making over $8k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do.------------------------ http://www.earntimes.tk/

  • SezWhom||

    The quote from Trump is not at all unreasonable, and makes no threat to Bezos beyond that Amazon may be due for an anti-trust examination. And perhaps it is. Remember when Bill Clinton didn't just threaten to break up Microsoft, but actually attempted to do it? (But lost.)

    Reason has some insightful articles. This wasn't one of them.

  • GamerFromJump||

    99% of anti-trust "investigation" is simply the government protesting the lack of opportunities to wet its beak.

    Graft opportunities are rather lessened when a business basically lives online. Witness the current crusade against Uber and Lyft, which is transparently about protecting the taxi medallion racket.

  • Rizqirgi||

    Setelah proses awal dilakukan, maka bijih besi diproses pada dapurtinggi. Dapur tinggi mempunyai konstruksi yang cukup besar dengan ketinggian mencapai 100meter.

    ongkos konstruksi baja
    jasa konstruksi jembatan

  • Rizqirgi||

    yakni denganmembuang sebagian besar karbon dan kotoran-kotoran (menghilangkan bahan-bahan yang tidakdiperlukan) yang masih ada pada besi kasar.

    www.sentrabesibaja.com
    Daftar Harga Besi Hollow Dari Distributor Pabrik

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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