MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Mike Flynn Volunteers His Scalp to the Deep State

Who the hell is really running Washington? Explore the topic on tonight’s Kennedy at 8 p.m. ET on Fox Business Network

If you're not watching Kennedy (Fox Business Network weekdays 8 p.m. ET, with repeats at midnight), you are missing some important and still-too-rare libertarian analyses of the daily news insanity we all live in. Earlier today I linked to the eponymous host's revealing interview yesterday with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) about Obamacare-replace and his libertarian critics; on the same broadcast she also interviewed the great Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on his one-sentence bill to eliminate the Department of Education. You can watch that here:

Tonight's program, as you would expect, is filled with discussion about the resignation/firing of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn in the wake of intelligence-community leaks showing that he lied to the American people and Vice President Mike Pence about the contents of a late-December phone conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Was it really only one month ago that I was on Kennedy talking about Donald Trump's shockingly open war with the IC? The resignation of Flynn—brazen and sloppy prevaricator/hysteric though he be—raises all kinds of additional uncomfortable questions about the Deep State and its tactics.

I am on the Party Panel tonight with Wall Street Journal U.S. Editor Glenn Hall and comedian/podcaster Ben Kissel, talking about the Flynn fallout, Trump's approval ratings, Playboy's return to #AlwaysNude, and various Valentine's Day strategies. Other people commenting on the Flynn situation include Judge Andrew Napolitano and radio commentator/Iraq War vet Bryan Suits. The host will also celebrate Feb. 14 by talking about the morality/philosophy of assisted-suicide regulation with Jonathan Hoenig! Meanwhile, tomorrow's show is tentatively scheduled to include a certain black-wearing libertarian….

Photo Credit: ABC News

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.

  • Derpetologist||

  • JayU||

    If it was a polar bear the left might actually get mad about it.

  • commodious rebrands||

    #blackbearsmatter, racist

  • Pan Zagloba||

    That's what happens when you name your bear Muhammed.

  • Rhywun||

    When did wikipedia start sourcing their articles from The Onion?

  • Libertymike||

    Speaking of Judge Napolitano, I was very disappointed to hear him assert that Trump's EO was unreviewable. In fact, his position is certified anti-constitutional clap-trap.

  • The Fusionist||

    The problem is when he suggests that immigration exclusion power is delegated to the Pres directly via the Constitution, rather than indirectly by a 1952 statute.

    In exercising this statutory power, the President is limited by the constitutional rights of green-card holders, who actually have ties to this country, and perhaps by a statute from 1965 against national-origin discrimination re immigrant visas.

    Also, I suppose that foes of affirmative action might have a problem with immigration preferences for minority religions. Foes like...the progs who object to preferences for Christians and Yazidis persecuted in the Muslim world (and I suppose Sunni in majority-Shia countries and vice-versa).

  • Libertymike||

    Article II just does not have any provisions which accord the President unreviewable power.

  • The Fusionist||

    Other than the power to grant pardons and reprieves, sure.

  • DenverJ||

    He's "pardoning" them from becoming wrapped up in the immigration system, and "reprieving" them of the ability to travel here.

  • Bra Ket||

    Green card holders don't have much by way of rights. They can be declared inadmissible and blocked at the border for whatever reason the govt wants, where a citizen obviously can't be.

  • kbolino||

    Sure, if Congress changes the law to say as much. As it stands, the executive branch is generally supposed to treat green card holders like citizens at the border. There is a difference between "the Constitution has granted the government this power" and "the Constitution has granted the President the authority to exercise this power without regard to duly enacted statutes".

  • Juice||

    Maybe he wouldn't have made such a great SC justice after all.

  • C. Anacreon||

    But I am looking forward to his next great role, as host of TV's Divorce Court.

  • Derpetologist||

    Alternet: First Reported Massacre of Afghan Civilians Under Trump Takes at Least 18 Lives

    It's nice the prog media is pretending to care about these things again.

  • american socialist||

    Who did the massacre?

  • Not an Economist||

    The claim is an American airstrike killed a bunch of civilians. Not really a classical massacre and I'm not sure I trust the sources since they have good reasons to lie.

  • Rhywun||

    Yeah, Alternet?! Please.

  • Libertymike||

    It would also be nice if GOP and Trump apologists would not complain if the carnival barking, big government and eminent domain loving crony-capitalist was prosecuted for war crimes and / or impeached.

  • american socialist||

    I though progs said obama got us out of war here. Anyway the article was a lot of hear say...id need more evidence than just relying on alternet

  • ||

    "Meanwhile, tomorrow's show is tentatively scheduled to include a certain black-wearing libertarian…."

    You're going have Kmele Foster on the show!? I can't wait!

  • Derpetologist||

  • JayU||

    Umayyad Caliph Umar II.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Jewelry that only white people can wear?

  • SQWRLZ://cdn.panopticon.gov||

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I wonder if Jewish white people have to wear yellow pins.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Jennifer Aniston's boss?

  • Mike Schmidt||

    Mike Judge

  • commodious rebrands||

    Hah. Didn't know that. Don't think I've ever seen him on screen.

  • Mike Schmidt||

    Yeah, it's a great cameo. Next time you watch Office Space, I bet as soon as you hear his voice the light bulb will come on. He uses his "Mr. Van Dreesen" voice; the hippie teacher from Beavis and Butthead

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    I do know that the girl behind this push is doing it to draw attention away from her face.

  • Derpetologist||

    Maryland considers teaching kids that boys are presumed guilty in rape accusations;
    Like Connecticut, doesn't define 'sexual activity'

    "Affirmative consent" is a fuzzy concept even for adults, which is why one of them taught 10th graders in California that they must say "yes" every 10 minutes during sex or it becomes rape.
  • Juice||

    Once every 10 minutes? So basically once?

  • esteve7||

    :|

  • Brochettaward||

    Oh look at the big man over here bragging.

  • C. Anacreon||

    It's why every Maryland boy must learn to emulate Johnny Fuckerfaster.

  • Brochettaward||

    Dumber than any anti-drug propaganda they used to force feed kids. I remember in elementary school we had a sad clown named "Mr. No" who used to show up to lecture about staying away from drugs. I imagine he went home and drank himself stupid every night; his soft sobbing only ending as he slowly lost consciousness. Is DARE still a thing? Has it been melded with SJW nonsense to create a heaping dose of super derp?

  • commodious rebrands||

    I imagine he went home and drank himself stupid every night; his soft sobbing only ending as he slowly lost consciousness.

    Look at the big man over here bragging like he doesn't.

  • Brochettaward||

    GET OUT OF MY HEAD

  • Rhywun||

    The program briefly considered the name "Junior Anti-Sex League" but reconsidered.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ++ ungood

  • GILMORE™||

    a certain black-wearing libertarian….

    (gasp) Johnny Cash? Zorro? Dread Pirate Roberts?

  • Libertymike||

    Paladin?

  • The Fusionist||

    The Witch-King of Angmar, aka the top Nazgul?

  • dschwar||

    The Undertaker?

  • DenverJ||

    Damnit

  • Chipwooder||

    Gary Player?

  • Tony||

    Oh stop it with the deep state. It's the only thing keeping this ship afloat as the American people in their infinite wisdom elect a walking, bloated orange catastrophe as head of state.

    You people hate democracy anyway. What do you think is going to run the libertopian state? Not panderers to public will, that's for damn sure.

  • american socialist||

    What actions have trump done that would have sank america if not for the fed bureaucracy?

  • Tony||

    It's early yet. Not too early for serious nonpartisan people to already be talking impeachment, though.

  • The Fusionist||

    OK, then which "serious nonpartisan people" are advocating impeachment?

  • american socialist||

    Is this like obama and bush were going to be impeached?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Remember when Team Blue had those fapping sessions where they held a mock impeachment hearing of W? Good times. Too bad they never had the balls to stop LARPING and follow through with it.

  • Libertymike||

    If you are the President, and you have given the green light to multiple military raids in foreign nations that result in civilian deaths, that, in my view, qualifies.

    Remember, the constitution does not authorize the use of military force in foreign nations. It certainly does not give the President the green light to use military force against people who have not declared war on the United States nor does it authorize the President to use military force absent a Congressional declaration of war.

    Moreover, the constitution does not authorize Congress to create short-cuts or cop-outs, like the War Powers Act.

    The point is that for liberty minded folk we must hold all public sector actors to a very high standard of behavior the breach of which should presumptively be removal from office.

  • american socialist||

    Well than all of them except maybe jimmy should be impeached. But yet i dont see them being held accountable

    Tony cant use this reasoning otherwise he would need to have called for obama impeachment which he didnt do

  • Libertymike||

    Of course, Tony would not agree on the overall point. My comment to him was made, somewhat in jest because he knows that there was far more impeachable material for Obama than we have with Trumpy, albeit, it has only been 26 days.

  • Libertymike||

    Hey, Tony, can you believe that we agree on the talking impeachment subject?

  • american socialist||

    What would he be impeached on?

  • american socialist||

    So you are just making chit up and got nothing. Got it

    What would you impeach him on?

  • american socialist||

    Hate democracy? Arent you the one that wants results overturne when you dont like them.

    You lost get over it

  • Tony||

    Are you implying that you won? You supported Trump? Can I put that on the record?

  • The Fusionist||

    I think he was saying that you lost.

  • american socialist||

    Nope. I voted for jill not hill. Your leader lost, i wasnt attached to mine

  • american socialist||

    Oh btw i was in a swing state with significant electoral votes. Had greens and libertarians voted for her she would have won

    But i dont support corrupt politicians and orange blowhards

    Lolololol

  • Bra Ket||

    I hate democracy. It is tyranny of the 51%. At best, though it's typically constrained by collusion among career politicians to give disproportionate influence to a much smaller number still.

    As for what who "runs" the libertarian "state", how about competition instead of monopolies on every service?

  • Roland Blunt||

    Glad to see that secretly recording a private citizens phone calls and then leaking them to the press is back in style...

  • Libertymike||

    General Flynn has been feeding at the public trough almost the entirety of his adult life.

    Private citizen? Child, please.

  • Roland Blunt||

    He was a private citizen at the time. Kiss Da Baby

  • Libertymike||

    No, he was already nominated for the position, so he was not a private citizen.

    Why do you want to defend a parasite who has not done anything in his life upon a voluntary and consensual basis?

  • C. Anacreon||

    Hey Roland,

    Are you related to Rasta Smokedee Blunt?

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think recording the phone calls of a foreign ambassador is always fair game.

  • Roland Blunt||

    I concede that..it's the 'leaking to the press' that is disconcerting

  • Libertymike||

    Why? The public is entitled to know everything a public sector actor says in any communication, be it telephonic or otherwise.

  • Roland Blunt||

    'public sector actor'

    Troll

  • Libertymike||

    I have been here almost 10 years. I have never used another name. Ask around as to whether I am a troll.

  • Careless||

    Mikes a nut, not a troll

  • Libertymike||

    Thank you.

  • GILMORE™||

    The public is entitled to know everything a public sector actor says in any communication

    that's absurdly broad; and i doubt it would be desirable even if it were true, which its not.

    obviously presidents have privileged communications with council, as do any public officials. and i doubt every negotiation between foreign leaders should necessarily be transparent by design. i assume if you spent 5 seconds thinking about it you could find more angles.

  • Libertymike||

    A lot more than 5 seconds.

    Why should the subjects of Leviathan be kept in the dark? For the good of the subjects?

    Please, child.

  • Roland Blunt||

    Considering that the recordings of the phone calls of a foreign ambassador would be classified

  • The Fusionist||

    Even the dirty talk with his mistress? Because I thought...I mean one might find that very entertaining...that is, if I listened to it. Which I wouldn't.

  • Roland Blunt||

    I concede my original post in its entirety

  • Derpetologist||

    Ever wonder what a person whose bio says " Karen Topham, a writer, educator, theatre director, and LGBT advocate, was the nation's first teacher to transition on the job successfully" write? Well wonder no more.

    The main character, the ironically named Sam White, has a radio show on the college station during which she makes such pronouncements as "Dear white people, this just in: Dating a black person to piss off your parents is a form of racism." Her comments are generally humorous but always within her snark there is an element of anger: why at this time in history do I still need to tell you people this stuff?

    Sounds like a real knee-slapper.

  • Libertymike||

    Would it constitute oppositional defiance for a white male college student to date a sister?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Blacks only get mad when it is a black man and a white woman.

  • Brochettaward||

    Go ask a black chick what she thinks on that subject and get back to me, Bubba.

  • C. Anacreon||

    I heard they only get really mad if the white chick is a fat bleach-blonde with too much blue eye shadow.

  • commodious rebrands||

    When I was with my ex she told me she was glad to be living where we were, because in some places a white man with a black woman would not be looked upon favorably by black folk.

  • Rhywun||

    Don't get east Asian males started on this topic.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Hopefully she marries someone named Hatt and hyphenates.

  • The Fusionist||

    Georgetown Watch - The proslavery speech by Jonathan Brown, the Muslim Georgetown prof, has been covered by the Christian News Network.

    But if it's been covered by Georgetown's student paper, I haven't been able to find the article.

  • american socialist||

    What was the rationalization for proslavery?

  • The Fusionist||

    "Brown stated in the discussion that what some might call slavery in Islam differs from what is recognized in the historical American context, because it was "rarely racialized" and "slaves had a huge regime of rights." He said that some "slaves in numerous circumstances became the actual rulers or were used as the administrative elite."...

    ""What's the difference between someone who is captured in a raid in the steppes of Central Asia, brought to Istanbul's slave market, sold to an owner—who, by the way, might treat her badly; might treat her incredibly well," he outlined. "She's going to bear him children. She's going to be a free woman. She's going to be the mother of his children. If he's high status, she's going to be high status. If he dies, she might be a very desirable wife."

    ""What's the difference between that and some woman who's a poor baker's daughter who gets married to some baker's son without any choice because no one expects her to have any choice?" Brown asked. "And that baker's son might treat her well; he might treat her horribly."

    ""The difference between these two people is not that big. We see it as enormous because we're obsessed with the idea of autonomy and consent, would be my first response," he asserted. "It's not a solution to the problem. I think it does help frame it.""

  • american socialist||

    Damn

  • The Fusionist||

    And this isn't some random guy off the street, either:

    "Jonathan Brown Jonathan Brown is the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and he is the Director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding."

    But really, it's all a big misunderstanding

  • Bubba Jones||

    He is right to distinguish historical Islamic slavery from the chattel slavery practiced in the Americas.

    But he needs to point out that current Islamist slavery is like being in the Deep South in 1850.

  • JeremyR||

    Yeah, the historic Islamic slavery was much worse.

  • JeremyR||

    I mean, for instance, sex slaves were always okay. The whole harem thing? The women in there weren't there voluntarily, you know.

    For another, it was common to turn men into eunuchs.

    Slavery in the US was terrible, but it was mostly economic - for farm workers.

  • Juice||

    Brown stated in the discussion that what some might call slavery in Islam differs from what is recognized in the historical American context, because it was "rarely racialized"

    Because that's the part that made it wrong.

  • WakaWaka||

    That's weird. I thought the whole owning people concept was what made it wrong

  • Careless||

    I like the thought process there: "we treat our women so badly, slavery isn't a big difference to them"

  • commodious rebrands||

    What's the difference between someone who is captured in a raid

    She's going to be a free woman

    Uh, I see a major flaw in your reasoning, professor.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Unless, and I'm certain this is the rationale: you're going to be raped captured. It's going to happen. Whether or not it's murder floggings in addition to rape forced marriage, that's on you. But we got nothing to do with any of that.

  • DenverJ||

    Meanwhile, tomorrow's show is tentatively scheduled to include a certain black-wearing libertarian….

    Hitler Johny Cash?

  • Brochettaward||

    For all the talk about a 'Deep State,' I'm really amazed at just how not competent they are. I mean, they are only getting away from this because a Republican - Trump at that - is in office. If this were a Democrat, all sorts of questions would be raised about their behavior. Christ, the media lost its shit when McCrystal's lackies were quoted mocking White House staff in Rolling Stone. They were deathly concerned about the signal it sent about civilian leadership over the military and all.

    They blatantly and obviously leaked to a bunch of media shills. This is hardly Machiavellian type shit. They're using the spook equivalent of brute force to get their way. That shit is only going to get them so far.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    What if it's in coordination with Obama and/or his minions who until recently were employed in government? The ex-regime running operations to undermine/topple the new regime?

  • Long Woodchippers||

    What if it's in coordination with Obama and/or his minions who until recently were employed in government? The ex-regime running operations to undermine/topple the new regime?

  • Brochettaward||

    I hope you die of Adiposis Dolorosa.

  • Ted S.||

    Sad fat? ;-)

  • Brochettaward||

    Go have sex with your mother. Knock her nasty ass up and have a child as stupid as you are so you can know your father's pain.

  • american socialist||

    Hey tony!!!

    Jill not hill!!!

  • GILMORE™||

    Bryan Suits: Wearing a suit. a first. And he's got a well groomed beard, which amazingly matches his suit/shirt-color scheme.

    We managed to ignore his stream of consciousness gibberish commentary (which is also unusual), because he just looks SO DAMN GOOD. He looks like he's "found himself". I would buy him a scotch just for being so damn *together*.

    I can't applaud him enough.

    this reaction, btw, is based on the fact that the 4 or so time i've seen him previously he was unshaven and dumpy and wearing a sweatshirt or something. IOW, he looked like a radio personality.

  • Shinin' Pete||

  • GILMORE™||

    Matt, flanked by "Lex Luthor on the way to a nightclub" and Ben Kissel (giving off a very 'in the closet' vibe)

    He's rocking the slate suit, violet shirt and cyan blue tie.

    this is the third time IN A ROW he's been running with this whole 'pink/violet shirt, some version of blue tie' combo. every time we kind of go, "eehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh well it....... depends"

    we're just not crazy about it. the purple tie is the natural win with the violet shirt; the navy (or royal) tie goes better w/ pink shirt and charcoal suit. None of them like the cyan tie. But he keeps going back to the well. I suppose its nice on a "lighthearted, colorful' angle, which is fine as a tv-show guest. I thought it was perfect sort of thing when appearing on MSNBC and appearing as the "token libertarian"; you want to be 'fun' when the progs are trying to demonize you. Here its not quite so necessary, tho i suppose when you're flanked on one side by "boring" and the other by "evil villain", it has some merits.

  • DenverJ||

    You know who else was flanked on one side by "boring" and the other by "evil villain"?

  • Ted S.||

    Paul Lynde on The Hollywood Squares?

  • GILMORE™||

    Mini-me?

  • GILMORE™||

    Eva Braun?

  • commodious rebrands||

    Dr. Mrs. The Monarch?

  • Juice||

    I feel sorry for them.

    Really? Why?

  • commodious rebrands||

    It's bad enough I have all these white interruptions between comments, and now you're leaving indented comments under them.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    A race of Muslims? Would that race be white, yellow, brown or black?

  • GILMORE™||

    Lastly = Kenndy looks *great*

    Did we say that "red" set her on fire, years ago? i think we did. Pale skin, black hair.... add red, and you get insta-Diva. this is especially nice.

  • DenverJ||

    Stay away, I saw her first.

  • The Fusionist||

    No, *Mr.* Montgomery did.

  • DenverJ||

    Waa

  • DenverJ||

    Waa

  • DenverJ||

    Waa

  • SQWRLZ://cdn.panopticon.gov||

    You fed it, see what happens?

  • DenverJ||

    Sigh. I know. And the thing is, I told him that if he wanted to get attention, then make a valid comment.
    And he actually has. That little bit he wrote about Americans being brainwashed by tv and movies into thinking the Intel guys are the good guys was actually pretty spot on. But, then he goes and... derps everything up.

  • The Fusionist||

    At least AC's drugs don't make him all paranoid.

  • DenverJ||

    "Obi Wan Kenderpi"

  • commodious rebrands||

    Dope-i Wanker-nope-i.

    Get on Mike M's level.

  • DenverJ||

    Well, Mike obviously has mad skills.

  • commodious rebrands||

    We all have our crosses to bear. Mike M especially.

  • The Grinch||

    Reason's a little read magazine showcasing a little followed political philosophy and the dogcatcher in a small midwestern town has more power than Gillespie and Welch combined. Dominating the comments at this website through sheer monomania does not power make.

  • The Grinch||

    In all seriousness you need psychiatric help and hopefully it would do you a world of good if you'd seek it out. I honestly wish you the best and I don't particularly like seeing someone coming unraveled but you aren't blameless here.

  • The Grinch||

    You need help guy. Take care and god bless.

  • SQWRLZ://cdn.panopticon.gov||

    Christ, man... DO NOT ENGAGE!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Matt, could you please stop by Bill Maher's show? It is right down the road from you.

    The regular conservative dipshits on his show are just embarrassing.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Who does he have on?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A recent episode featured Tomi Lahren.

    Her commentary has garnered widespread attention: in late 2016, The New York Times described Lahren as a "rising media star"[1] and BBC News called her "the young Republican who is bigger than Trump on Facebook."[4] Her commentary is widely polarizing, being seen as "either righteous and rousing or obnoxious and infuriating

    Wikipedia

    Easy on the eyes though. Just really stupid yet eminently fuckable.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Eugh. Platinum blonde. Pass.

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    Well, by his account, she has one up on him.

  • GILMORE™||

    Ben Kissel, making very try-hard attempt at pretending he loves them wimmin.

    he's probably straight as I95, but he's just giving me the wrong vibe.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Well, yeah, 'cuz you're a dude.

    Wait, you are a dude, right?

    ...preemptive dibs on GILMORE, just in case.

  • DenverJ||

    I thought Gilmore and Crusty were an "item".

  • GILMORE™||

    Wait, you are a dude, right?

    now you're making me feel uncomfortable. I like to think of myself as a cisheteromale-with a splash of "fabulous"

  • Brochettaward||

    ...with a splash of "fabulous"

    This is a bit like saying I'm not gay because it was just the tip.

  • GILMORE™||

    I accept you as gay and there's nothing for you to be ashamed about.

  • The Fusionist||

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    I would imagine one that read: Ask me about your millstone

  • esteve7||

    What's the point in firing Flynn. The radical leftists will never be happy, there is no use even trying to. As one of them put it, Flynn is the appetizer, and Trump is the entree.

    They have no desire to do anything but act like screaming fucking toddlers because they still can't accept they lost, so they will go kicking and screaming and throw temper tantrum after temper trantrum until they get what they want. How about you just pull the Obama line of STFU, I won.

  • The Grinch||

    It's hard to tell exactly what's going on with all of the bullshit being slung but if he did deceive Pence and Trump over his call he deserved to be shitcanned. Maybe the boss just no longer felt he could be trusted to be straight with him.

  • commodious rebrands||

    You lie to #2, you're taking a #2 on #1.

  • Brochettaward||

    This is an administration that will piss on your leg and tell you its raining. Gladly. Who the fuck cares what the media reports here? Just fucking deny and obfuscate and let the storm pass. What are you scared of? The Wonder Twins McCain and Graham? They let themselves get boxed into this controversy in the first place. And if I'm not mistaken, didn't Flynn tell Trump about earlier about the contents? I don't know or care.

    Even if Flynn lied somewhat on the contents of a phone call, you could just as easily quietly take care of that without giving the media a scalp they've so desperately wanted. This is the lefts first big win in a while. It feeds the entire bullshit narrative they've been building for months, and it makes them look more credible than they really are at a time when they've been floundering.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Even if he did lie to them -- about something which there is no evidence that it was even significant, btw -- it still makes no sense to fire him at this point.

  • Brochettaward||

    Strangely, for a guy who has been pretty adept at outmaneuvering these people and their usual tactics, he has made two huge blunders to me. First, in apologizing for the pussy grabbing comments. You never, ever apologize to the left because it's like being in shark infested waters and dumping a bucket of chum out there. Second, here. The average Trump voter doesn't give a shit.

    I think another huge mistake, though not in the same category, is Trump surrounding himself with too many political hacks who are pulling their typical bitch in-fighting routine. I'm not sure they really bring much to the table. I mean, they sure as shit aren't giving him sage advice on how to execute his policies or preparing any actual legislation to get shit done, from the looks of it. What the hell are they there for? Trump can build connections in Congress. He's good at schmoozing people in person. It's hard to find someone who met him who walked away not liking him (I have always found him obnoxious and punchable, among many other things).

    It adds me to my firm belief that Trump is more of an idiot savant whose personality was perfectly suited for this weird moment in history rather than the cunning manipulator others make him out to be.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Strangely, for a guy who has been pretty adept at outmaneuvering these people and their usual tactics,

    Seriously dude.... just stop. He's not a master negotiator or a skilled politician. He's not even average in those areas.

    He won in the primaries because the GOP field was balkanized and the Dems & media (repeating myself) wanted him to be their opponent in the general, providing free media time and crossover votes in open primary states.

    He won in the general because Hillary epically collapsed and he carried 3 big states by razor thin margins. Pure luck.

    Trump can build connections in Congress. He's good at schmoozing people in person.

    Nobody who has/wants a future in politics would touch him with a 10 foot pole. Schmooze or not.

    It's hard to find someone who met him who walked away not liking him

    You kidding me? You have to be kidding.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Yes, well, when we're sitting in one of your tacky buildings, rolling in your billions, then you can go on all you want about how Trump's an idiot.

    Until then.....

  • RAHeinlein||

    When did the "Topical Storm" become America's Funniest Home Videos?

    Libertarian moment....

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Goddammit Peanuts! I have been neglecting you lately. I promise to make up for it!

  • The Fusionist||

    Yay.

  • The Last American Hero||

    pa$$w0rd

  • Brochettaward||

    Non-troll version: #BREAKING US will not insist on two-state solution in Mideast: White House official

    America will stand for it. Most Americans don't know what the two-state solution is and are pro-Israel. Trump administration is first administration to recognize reality for what it is on this issue.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Two-state solution: Palestine is Turkey's problem. Israel is Israel's problem. #solved

  • commodious rebrands||

    Bah. I meant Jordan's problem. I am bourbon's problem. Maybe the other way around. Piss off.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump doesn't give a fuck about Israel unless he puts a shitty casino on the Dead Sea.

  • Brochettaward||

    Non-troll version: #BREAKING US will not insist on two-state solution in Mideast: White House official

    America will stand for it. Most Americans don't know what the two-state solution is and are pro-Israel. Trump administration is first administration to recognize reality for what it is on this issue.

  • The Fusionist||

    OK, fine, I doubt I'll get an answer, but what were the anti-Semitic elements in Trump's platform?

  • The Fusionist||

    You said Trump "campaigned on a deeply anti-Semitic platform." What were the planks of that platform?

  • The Fusionist||

    That's your way of saying you aren't going to explain what was anti-Semitic about Trump's platform?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    One could argue that "Wall St bankers" is code for Jew Bankers a'la Ron Paul.

    Although Trump apparently has no problem with Goldman Sachs retreads in his cabinet. His campaign rhetoric struck common anti-Semitic chords although Trump obviously does not eat his own dog food.

  • The Fusionist||

    Elizabeth Warren denounces Wall Street, is she an anti-Semite?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, but I don't accuse Trump of anti-Semitism either.

    In fact, the Squaw and the Trumptard are just populist vote whores.

  • chemjeff||

    His campaign rhetoric struck common anti-Semitic chords

    Okay, I am absolutely no fan of Trump, but I don't think this is a fair criticism of him. He was and still is a pretty ardent supporter of Israel after all.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm pretty OK with not insisting on anything and letting them solve their own damn problems.

  • The Grinch||

    Good idea...don't send them money and let them handle their problems themselves.

  • GILMORE™||

    Have you ever heard of the "AFP News Agency" before... or anything called "News Agency" which wasn't either a) some parody/troll thing, or b) run by communists?

  • GILMORE™||

    oh, right. Agence France Presse.

    never mind. but fuck them anyway.

  • GILMORE™||

    Most Americans don't know what the two-state solution is

    I think that's right. And i don't think many people really pay attention to foreign affairs issues (including the pundit class) to really explain why it became the standard nomenclature of diplomacy in the region, or why it was assumed to be the 'best path forward'.etc.

    The "two state solution" was something designed in the wake of the failure of the PLO and other resistance movments, as an peaceful way for israelis and palestinians to reconcile their disputes. It was based on the presumption that the "Palestinian Authority" (and its main party, Fatah) could be raised up as a viable negotiating power which represented the interests of ALL palestinians.

    The thing that actually fucked the 2-state solution was not settlement building, Israeli intransigence, or anything like that = it was the failure of the Palestinian Authority to really mature into an entity that represented anything except itself and a crew of foreign-aid-dependent Fatah cronies.

    When Hamas won the elections in Gaza in 2006, it was a rejection of the PA in representing 'all palestinians'. They ended up going to war w/ Fatah, and it has been that disunity more than anything else that has enabled Israel to effectively "do whatever the fuck they want" because they have no coherent opposition to negotiate with.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Gaza never had much in common with Judea & Samaria other than both areas spoke Arabic and were occupied by Israel. They've officially split themselves apart more than 10 years ago.

  • The Fusionist||

    Because nobody wants to risk being overwhelmed by your sheer intellectual firepower?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Libertarian populism has always been anti-Semitic. I might be the only one here who posted on the old Liberty Forum of 1995-2005 - which was pro-Paul anti-Semitic (Jewish banker) to the core.

  • commodious rebrands||

    So... you're the only paleo-libertarian anti-semite here?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, but I miss the Liberty Forum. It was so much more entertainment than H&R.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Forums are bound to be.

  • The Fusionist||

    It would be strange, because it would mean that PB has grown much crazier than his usual self.

  • BakedPenguin||

    STOP FUCKING FEEDING IT.
    STOP FUCKING FEEDING IT.
    STOP FUCKING FEEDING IT.
    STOP FUCKING FEEDING IT.
    STOP FUCKING FEEDING IT.

    It's not hard. Stop fucking feeding it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    If your purpose is socking you are not very creative.

    If your purpose is discourse you are not libertarian.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I've never used reasonable to block anyone until just now blocking dajjal. I could get used to this.

  • GILMORE™||

    IT LIKE HAVING THE POWER OF A GOD. A GOD THAT SMITES THE DISFAVORED INTO OBLIVION. ALSO, EASY HTML

  • Rhywun||

    So true.

  • commodious rebrands||

    I don't mind Tony. I don't mind Buttplug. But between that zilch and AM, reasonable is sine qua non for posting here.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I don't see this as anything libertarians should be terribly happy about. Flynn wasn't targeted because he's game for a war on Islam. He was targeted because he's made clear that he doesn't see a new Cold War with Russia as a smashingly good idea. And that's a violation of the new beltway consensus.

    And let's not blame this entirely on the left. There were plenty in the "all-war-all-the-time" crowd of the GOP who were all too happy to stick a knife in this guy.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    There was a piece yesterday at the Washington Beacon suggesting Obama's holdovers didn't want Flybb to expose the Iran deal.

    http://freebeacon.com/national.....ust-flynn/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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