MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Threatens Iran, Calls Russia Probe a 'Big Hoax,' and Lashes Out at Lawyer Michael Cohen in Increasingly Unhinged Twitter Rants: Reason Roundup

Plus: Will bank-crypto kill Bitcoin?

Collage of posts from @RealDonaldTrump/TwitterCollage of posts from @RealDonaldTrump/TwitterTrump's got his hand on the button, all right—the "send Tweet" button, that is. In a series of increasingly unhinged weekend statements that spilled over into Monday morning, the president insisted that his version of reality is the only one we can trust and that anyone who disputes it is simply beholden to the "Fake News," the "Corrupt Media," the "Department of 'Justice,'" and "Crooked Hillary." In Trump's reality, talking loudly on Twitter counts as diplomacy, everyone was out to get Trump from the beginning, and anything negative published about not just Trump but about Russian antics in general is just spin from "13 Angry Democrats," the "Fake News Media" (words he has tweeted disparagingly seven times since July 20), and others caught up in the FBI's "Witch Hunt."

On Monday morning, Trump fired off an array of repetitive and rambling tweets accusing Obama-era Justice officials of inappropriately seeking a warrant from a FISA court to look into Carter Page's activities, using the infamous dossier—paid for and disseminated (at various points) by Trump opponents on the right and the left—as a pretense. Over the weekend, the FBI released hundreds of pages of files related to Page, an energy consultant who became an adviser to the Trump campaign and also a confidential informant to the FBI about Russia matters. They show the shadowy world of FISA warrants being used against Page in the same shadowy way FISA warrants and courts generally are.

Trump also opined on Twitter over the weekend that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election was "all a big hoax" orchestrated by folks invested in Hillary Clinton becoming the next president.

And then there was—tucked between this typical fare—what seemed like a threat of nuclear annihilation against Iran. Cue the cable news and Twitterati with "We're all going to die!"

Almost a year ago, Trump set off a round of panicked prognosticating when he promised to unleash "fire and fury" on North Korea. But now North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and the U.S. president are show-biz-style besties, posing for photos and singing each other's praises despite the fact that little material has changed between the two countries.

Perhaps bolstered by this pseudo-diplomatic display, Trump tried the same tack with Iran, tweeting Sunday evening that if Iranian President Hassan Rouhani ever threatened the U.S., he would "SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE." Trump's all-caps message continued with a declaration that America would no longer "STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"

His tweet seems to have come in response to recent Rouhani comments warning America not to mess with Iran.

But despite the freakout from folks stateside, the world—including Iranian leaders—shrugged.

Meanwhile, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen claims to have audio of the president discussing his payoff to alleged former fling Stormy Daniels. Trump responded by tweeting that it was "inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client—totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!"

FREE MARKETS

Bitcoin badgered by bank cryptocurrencies? The European Union's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is warning that "if banks and central banks were to issue their own cryptocurrencies it could be bad news for the likes of bitcoin," notes Forbes.

"The arrival of permissioned cryptocurrencies promoted by banks, even by central banks, will reshape the current competition level in the cryptocurrency market, broadening the number of competitors," committee members wrote in a new report. "However, the market power of banks in traditional banking services might be used to limit competition in the cryptocurrency market through pre-emptive acquisitions or predatory pricing schemes."

QUICK HITS

• Sen. Rand Paul says he's genuinely undecided about Trump's Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh.

• Will Mike Pence usher in the Handmaid's Tale after all?

The Summer of Snitches continues: White man calls cops on black man for "trying to break in" to the latter's own business.

Photo Credit: Collage of posts from @RealDonaldTrump/Twitter

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Trump's got his hand on the button, all right—the "send Tweet" button, that is.

    So we can trade fear of nuclear war with the Norks for fear of some Iranian conflict. And by we I mean Twitters.

  • ||

    Hello.

    The 'I hate everyone' edition of the morning links.

  • Just Say'n||

    Iran= good

    Russia= literally Hitler

    Hey, Russiaphobes, you realize that Iran is Russia's closest ally in the Mideast, right? Try to square your nonsense here

  • Kivlor||

    I hold almost the inverse opinion. I can square that by realizing that Iran =/= Russia, and that countries with vastly different peoples and values can work together for common purposes. Should be the same for any lefty holding the beliefs you describe.

  • Just Say'n||

    So you hold that:

    Iran= literally Hitler

    Russia= good

    That doesn't square either, since the two countries work in tandem in the Mideast

  • Kivlor||

    Almost inverse. Iran isn't "literally Hitler" but they're bad. I'm not a fan. I'm still opposed to most of our meddling with them, so I'm not particularly hawkish RE: Iran.

    But my answer still resolves the issue quite well. Good people sometimes work with bad people if it is in their interests. Now apply that to the world stage. Geopolitics is not so black and white as to make that impossible or confusing.

  • TuIpa||

    ok Cathy.

  • Happy Chandler||

    I guess your getting your war boner on today?

  • Just Say'n||

    Do you not read what you respond to?

  • Happy Chandler||

    You see, that's the thing.

    You cry war boner when anyone dissents on the Russia policy, even though the only guy who ever wanted war with Russia is John Bolton.

    But, when actual nuclear war is threatened, you bring it back to Russia. You don't question the threat. Trump brings us closer to war than any other candidate.

  • Just Say'n||

    What kind of nonsense is this?

  • Just Say'n||

    So you don't read what you comment on

  • Just Say'n||

    "You cry war boner when anyone dissents on the Russia policy, even though the only guy who ever wanted war with Russia is John Bolton."

    Yeah and Bolton is in the administration which, in addition to all the aggressive actions we've taken against Russia, makes your position that Trump is soft on Russia exceptionally dumb.

    "But, when actual nuclear war is threatened, you bring it back to Russia. You don't question the threat. Trump brings us closer to war than any other candidate."

    So you most definitely don't get the notion that we shouldn't have a war posture with Russia or Iran? That is what I said. And I was demanding that Russiaphobes like yourself explain your stupid inconsistency on wanting "something" more on Russia, but not on Iran. That's stupid. My point is consistent: no belligerence with either country.

  • Happy Chandler||

    There's a large large area between where Trump is and belligerence.

  • Just Say'n||

    With regards to Iran?

    Of course not. You're referring to Russia, because you're just reciting Democratic Party talking points.

    www.npr.org/2018/07/20/6306593.....-on-russia

    Trump is too bellicose with both nations and you are an unbelievable hypocrite, Chandler Bing

  • Happy Chandler||

    The rhetoric is related. Putin knows Trump is waiting for the heat to die down.

    Why would Trump meet with a foe in private, with no advisors or even a note taker?

    Putin is playing the long game. Trump is playing Go Fish.

  • Happy Chandler||

    PS, you can call me "Commissioner" or A.B.

    The only Bing in MLB baseball was Bing Miller. He ain't me.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Conciliatory toward Russia? TEASON!! Tough on Iran? LUNATIC!!!

  • Just Say'n||

    To be fair, anyone who is aware of the administration's policy toward Russia and doesn't think that history began in 2016 would view both policies toward Iran and Russia as needlessly aggressive.

  • ||

    Literally, everything began in 2016. Like, literally.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Which handily accounts for everyone acting like a bunch of 2 year olds.

  • Zeb||

    ++

  • perlchpr||

    *applause*

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Look at Knott implying that she is not acting like a 1 year old.

  • Oli||

    Trump acted that way long before 2016 though. But hey, exceptions prove the rule.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Funny when lefties get so upset by what Trump says.

  • Oli||

    Funny when Putin lovers call others lefties.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Well, at least all the bad, mean, unfair stuff.

  • Jerryskids||

    Funny, I was going to point out the opposite. Just last week, Trump was being smart by not telling Russia "Knock it off or else" because there is no "or else" - why would Trump be dumb like Obama with his "red line", letting his mouth write checks his ass can't cash? If there's really nothing we can or will do about Russia trying to influence our elections (tu quoque, whatabout, but Hillary) why bother getting all swole and acting like there is something we can or will do about it? It just makes us look silly and weak and sad! and dumb! to the rest of the world.

    And now here he is telling Iran if they don't STFU, he's going to rip their head off and shit down their neckhole? What happened to Trump's wisdom in not letting his mouth write checks his ass can't cash? Why not take his words at face value if he's insisted so many times he means what he says? He doesn't, the fat-headed loudmouth talks shit 24/7 and lies every time he opens his mouth, but still. The guy claims you should take his words at face value. Except for when you're an idiot for thinking he means what he says. So which one is this? Do we believe what he says or shrug off his spewing random nonsense?

  • Just Say'n||

    www.npr.org/2018/07/20/6306593.....-on-russia

    You should probably know what you're talking about before offering an opinion.

    Trump has been needlessly aggressive toward Russia and Iran.

  • Kivlor||

    But... but... Trump met with Putin! They had a MEETING! That proves that he's not been aggressive toward them at all and he's really Putin's puppet. Because two hostile nations have never sat down to talk about their issues or places they may have common ground ever.

  • TuIpa||

    ok Cathy.

  • Jerryskids||

    To be fair, I was mostly addressing John.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, aggressive. "Needlessly", that's a matter of opinion.

  • Just Say'n||

    Justify the aggression

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    White man calls cops on black man for "trying to break in" to the latter's own

    Sounds like time for Beer Summit 2.0.

  • Eddy||

    It was a lemonade stand, so Lemonade Summit it is.

    Let's hope one of the parties is buddies with the President.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    I'd vote for wood chipper or shotgun blast to the face.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump Threatens Iran

    DON'T FUCK WITH TRUMP, IRAN! ONLY RUSSIA CAN DO THAT!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Will Mike Pence usher in the Handmaid's Tale after all?

    One can only hope. I hear it's very good.

  • Eddy||

    The book is OK, though you won't have orgasms to it unless you're a feminist.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    On Monday morning, Trump fired off an array of repetitive and rambling tweets accusing Obama-era Justice officials of inappropriately seeking a warrant from a FISA court to look into Carter Page's activities...

    Shit, are we in favor of FISA court shenanigans now? I can't keep up.

  • damikesc||

    They oppose it until Trump is in office. Then they support it.

  • SIV||

    Shit, are we in favor of FISA court shenanigans now? I can't keep up.

    Julian "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" Sanchez is a big fan of FISA and the rest of the National Security surveillance state. I hear Cato is working on a policy paper to repeal the 4A.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A Georgia state lawmaker is facing multiple calls to resign after he shouted racial slurs and took off his pants during a segment which aired Sunday on Sacha Baron Cohen's controversial new show, "Who is America?"

    Republican state Rep. Jason Spencer repeatedly yelled the N-word and mimicked a Chinese tourist while taking a photo up the skirt of an actor pretending to be a Muslim woman during the show. He also exposed his rear end in an exercise to ward off a potential terrorist while shouting, "USA mother----r."

    https://goo.gl/83HDHP

    I think this is LoveCons1789. He lives in Georgia.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not me. I dont use the word "nigger" and I certainly dont use the "N-word", whatever that is.

  • sarcasmic||

    What about towel-head, or sand-nigger?

  • Rich||

    Porch-monkey?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic took that word back.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Is that the "T-Word" and "S-Word" respectively?

  • sarcasmic||

    No idea. They're slurs against Muslims, so I figured they'd be part of your regular vocabulary.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I dont think other races of people are worse than my mutt race.

    I didnt think Anarchists like you were so racially woke.

  • sarcasmic||

    Muslim is not a race, idiot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I never said Muslim, idiot.

  • sarcasmic||

    sarcasmic|7.23.18 @ 9:47AM|#

    No idea. They're slurs against Muslims, so I figured they'd be part of your regular vocabulary.

    loveconstitution1789|7.23.18 @ 10:34AM|#

    I dont think other races of people are worse than my mutt race.

    Ever heard of implication? Seriously. Quit while you're behind.

  • sarcasmic||

    And yeah, a guy who will clearly define what he believes the proper role of government should be is an anarchist. Sure, dood.

    Try something new. Your ad hominems serve no purpose other than to let others watch you dodge and weave, rather than get to the point. The only one who looks bad when you call me an anarchist is you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You dont like a Constitutional Democratic Republic that the USA was formed as.

    Its okay dood. Just embrace your inner monkey and be a loud and proud Anarchist.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't like what it has become.

    Let me know when you're ready to grow up and have a conversation like an adult.

    I'll be here.

  • sarcasmic||

    It could be interesting if you could actually debate ideas instead of shouting "ANARCHIST" from the rooftops.

    Ideas like natural law vs legislated law. Ideas like the laws that society follows, whether they are legislated or not, and the legislated law that society ignores. How are they enforced? Society enforces laws that are not legislated, and plenty of legislated law is not enforced.

    Stuff like that.

    Or you can call me an anarchist.

    I'd like to have a conversation.

    Are you going to converse like a grown up, or call me names like a child?

  • sarcasmic||

    That's what I thought. I'll talk with the crickets.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We have already had this conversation Sarcasmic, which is how I got you pegged.

    Its also very telling that you are an anarchist and hide it, while peddling nonsense to attack Libertarian discussions.

    The reason people dont talk to you is because you dont talk to others. You're a little Anarchist like that. You want the World to burn.

    Good luck with that.

  • sarcasmic||

    We have already had this conversation Sarcasmic, which is how I got you pegged.

    No, we did not. You simply said I'm a stupid anarchist and claimed victory.

    There was no back and forth. No sharing of ideas. You claimed superiority and walked away.

  • sarcasmic||

    I provided you with links to people with PHDs who say the same thing and you dismissed it.

    Heck, you've dismissed Adam Smith, Hazlitt and Bastiat. And Hayek as well.

    I want to discuss ideas. You want to wave your hand.

  • sarcasmic||

    Others have made similar comments and you waved them away as anarchists.

    You don't debate. You assert, call names, and walk away.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    sarcasmic|7.23.18 @ 11:59AM|#
    Others have made similar comments and you waved them away as anarchists.
    You don't debate. You assert, call names, and walk away.

    I provided you with links to people with PHDs who say the same thing and you dismissed it.
    Heck, you've dismissed Adam Smith, Hazlitt and Bastiat. And Hayek as well.
    I want to discuss ideas. You want to wave your hand.

    Oh Sarcasmic, you throw out all those names but you never are able to fit them into discussions since you're not into discussions. You're a roving anarchist. It funny when you zoom around and try and undermine and misrepresent the Constitution and Libertarianism.

  • sarcasmic||

    never are able to fit them into discussions since you're not into discussions.

    Project much?

  • sarcasmic||

    The reason people dont talk to you is because you dont talk to others.

    I'm sarcasmic. I quip. It's my shtick. And plenty of people talk to me. I have friends here whom I have met in person. Shot guns with. Shared meals. Some will be helping me move this weekend.

    Can you say that?

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, shit. Zeb? I need help moving! Saturday! JD will be there! I'll email you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would I meet with a bunch of anarchists like you from Reason?

    Why would I want to meet a bunch of Lefties that write for Reason?

    I would rather do other things with my time like get Libertarian minded Americans elected or persuade people about Libertarianism.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't persuade anyone with your name calling. You give libertarians a bad name.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who cares what you think. You're an anarchist, so own it. Its not a bad name. Its describes people like you who want anarchy.

    Good luck with that.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're an anarchist

    Like I said... No arguments. Just name calling.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who cares what you think.

    You'd be surprised.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why would I meet with a bunch of anarchists like you from Reason?

    For one thing we're not anarchists. For another we like to eat really well. We also have lots of guns and have fun shooting them. When we get together the food is incredible and the recreation is REALLY FUCKING LOUD.

  • sarcasmic||

    And we debate ideas instead of calling each other names. We're mature like that. You should try it.

  • TuIpa||

    yeah, it really only looks like you're upset about what he said

    "I HAVE FRIENDS!!! I DO!!!" LOL

    and the diarrhea like stream of posts just cements it

  • sarcasmic||

    Now it all makes sense. lc is Tulpa.

    Cool. One more to ignore.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Now it all makes sense. lc is Tulpa.

    It's actually Just Sayin'. That's why it didn't show up here until LC posted your comment below.

  • Just Say'n||

    Another false conclusion reached by the professor who brought you "broad conclusions based upon anecdotal experience makes perfect sense". You and John should get a beer sometime, since you both defend such a stupid idea

  • Just Say'n||

    Amazingly, professor, sarc makes the argument that I argue with him below. But, then somehow flips later in my argument with him.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I notice you only love the 1789 version of the US Constitution.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution has been amended multiple times and the US Constitution includes all Amendments.

    Last time I looked, Lefties started the KKK, Jim Crowe laws, and fought for slavery.

  • damikesc||

    I certainly dont use the "N-word", whatever that is.

    Naggers?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maybe. I didnt wait around for Sarcasmic to flip the letters.

    Seeing him in that dress would just ruin his Anarchist schtick for many.

  • Rich||

    Spencer ... mimicked a Chinese tourist while taking a photo up the skirt of an actor pretending to be a Muslim woman

    Emphases added. FAKE NEWS!

  • Don't look at me.||

    He forgot to put on black face.

  • Rat on a train||

    They're both guilty of cultural appropriation.

  • Eddy||

    "Spencer was defeated in the Georgia Republican primary earlier this year."

    Even if he doesn't resign or get expelled, Republican voters have already washed their hands of him. Unless he get's re-elected as an independent or something, he's gone.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    RINOs getting kicked out of Congress.

    Maybe he will go back to being the Democrat he is.

  • Rich||

    White man calls cops on black man for "trying to break in" to the latter's own business.

    Sheesh, Elizabeth -- Was the black man *unarmed*? Did the police *shoot* him?

  • perlchpr||

    It's SF, so presumably the black man was unarmed.

    According to his tweet on the incident, the four cops who came to investigate the call had their guns "almost drawn", though.

  • Eddy||

    When *isn't* a cop's gun almost drawn? Only when it *is* drawn, I'd say.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    On Monday morning, Trump fired off an array of repetitive and rambling tweets accusing Obama-era Justice officials of inappropriately seeking a warrant from a FISA court to look into Carter Page's activities, using the infamous dossier—paid for and diseminated (at various points) by Trump opponents on the right and the left—as a pretense

    To be fair, Trump was right about the US Government spying on him.

    It is interesting that a British spy who tried to influence the US election 2016 was not indicted by Mueller though.

  • Happy Chandler||

    He didn't spy.
    He didn't commit a crime.
    He was hired to do a job. That's legal.
    The Russians weren't hired.
    They provided illegal in kind donations.
    They were asked for and provided stolen materials to a congressional candidate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Wow Chanadler Bong, good job.

    Those Russians worked for free? Were they actually Russians? Who hired them?

    You understand that this is about finding foreigners (Christopher Steele or Russians) trying to rig a US election?

    The US media gets stolen documents all the time and prints them.

  • Happy Chandler||

    1) iktor Netyksho, Boris Antonov, Dmitriy Badin, Ivan Yermakov, Aleksey Lukashev, Sergey Moirgachev, Nikolay Kozacheck, Pavel Yershov, Artem Malyshev, Aleksandr Osadchuk, Aleksey Potemkin, and Anatoliy Kovalev. They are employees of the Russian government.

    2) Christopher Steele was hired to do a job. That job was legal. There was no in kind donation, there was no theft, etc. Christopher Steele's citizenship has as much relevance as the guy running the copy machine at the local Kinko's (sorry, FedEx Office, right?). He was hired.

    3) When documents are stolen, those who steal them are investigated and prosecuted. Those who worked with them are also prosecuted. People, such as theoretically a Congressional candidate who ask for and receive stolen materials commit a crime in doing so.

  • Nardz||

    Narrative!

  • Azathoth!!||

    They provided illegal in kind donations to the DNC

    FTFY

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Conservatives Reject Unilateral Disarmament In The Face Of Liberal Social Fascism
    Case in point, one James Gunn. He's a tiresome lefty jerk who jumped on Twitter to cheer Rosanne's recent defenestration by the SJW mob. Except it turns out he had a whole bunch of icky tweets from a decade ago lurking on the Interwebs, and some conservatives dug them up. Oops. He just had his pointy head stuck on a figurative pike and I just don't care.

    Not even a little. Not anymore.

    Cultural war is hell, and I propose it be hell first and foremost on the liberals who started it.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I don't like it, but the New Rules are what the New Rules are, and I propose we cram them down the left's throat to make the foie gras of liberty.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Here's the deal.

    We owe them no respect.

    We owe them no obedience.

    They are not our moral superiors.

    If they come for us, we come back for two of them.

  • damikesc||

    I dislike them also, but if the Left is never harmed by them, they will never stop.

    ...then again, I thought if they were subject to punishment due to idiotic sexual harassment laws they'd stop pushing them, but I've been wrong thus far...

  • Ghatanathoah||

    It's pretty much the same as those conservatives who push for tougher and tougher policing and think nothing bad will happen to them. Then they get busted on a minor possession charge, or have a no-knock raid kick down their door because they got the wrong address.

    People compete to look "tough" on whoever their culture-war boogeymen are. They insist on bigger and bigger penalties for smaller and smaller offences. And then they are shocked, just shocked, when those penalties start applying to them.

    No one is willing to admit that the offences have gotten so small that everyone is a target because that would involve looking weak.

  • perlchpr||

    Three felonies / thoughtcrimes a day!

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's pretty much the same as those conservatives who push for tougher and tougher policing and think nothing bad will happen to them

    No, actually it's not. People pushing via the Constitutionally approved methods for tougher law enforcement are not anything like insane SJW twitter mobs destroying peoples lives for saying something they don't like.

    One requires arrest, trial and proof. The other is leftist mob violence.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Apparently a bunch of celebrities went on their Twitter accounts to conduct a tweet-purge the day he got cut loose. Could just be a coincidence, but I'd be curious to see what was in those tweets that made them delete-worthy.

  • perlchpr||

    Everyone keeps bring up Roseanne in the context of the Gunn thing, and it really doesn't make much sense as a comparison.

    Roseanne made her show ending tweet "now", as it were.

    Gunn made the tweets that ended his movie series 10 years ago.

    If someone says something horrible directly to you, it's pretty reasonable to believe that's how they feel now. If you have to go look up something horrible someone said 10 years ago, there's not nearly the sort of urgency to it. It makes more sense to find out if there's been a change in 10 years time, as opposed to 10 minutes time.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Roseanne made her show ending tweet "now", as it were.

    Gunn made the tweets that ended his movie series 10 years ago."

    This is rather hilarious the hair splitting that is going on here. Gunn attacked Ben Shapiro over out of context tweets that he sent ten years ago. Not seeing what's different here?

    Gunn probably shouldn't have been fired, but he got consumed by a mob that he has instigated before. No one should mourn Robspierre for getting a taste of the guillotine that he's imposed on others.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Can't spell Robespierre without Robby.

  • perlchpr||

    Gunn attacked Ben Shapiro over out of context tweets that he sent ten years ago. Not seeing what's different here?

    *shrug*

    I hadn't heard that part of the story.

    I still see a distinction between the two incidents. YMMV.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I had a GREAT meeting with Putin and the Fake News used every bit of their energy to try and disparage it. So bad for our country!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 22, 2018

    I forget, how did Fake News react when at the Olympics Bush got in Putin's face about Georgia?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    If you have issues with the Carter Page FISA application, then you have issues with FISA generally,

    Put me down as yes and yes.

    because there's zero indication there's anything unusual about this application,

    Yeah, that's pretty much the problem.

    other than the fact that its target worked on a U.S. presidential campaign.

    I'm sure nobody will ever abuse that kind of power.

  • damikesc||

    I bet Dems won't mind if Trump does the same to them.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's not if, but when. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. FISA courts are a threat to freedom and democracy.

  • Jerryskids||

    But Trump can't do the same to them, Trump doesn't control the DoJ. The DoJ is part of the Administrative State and they attacked Trump as "not one of us", an outsider they knew wasn't housebroken the way most every career politician is. They generally frown on the GOP because the GOP likes to talk big about reining in the AS, but they really don't have to do much more than keep an eye on them, they know barking dogs don't bite. Trump seems to be a real threat, though.* They've got Jeff Sessions as their fearless leader and he's thoroughly housebroken, he can be led around by the nose. "Go get the druggies, Jeffy boy! That's a good doggie!"

    *Maybe. Or maybe we're all socialists now. As long as we have the right Top Men in charge.

  • Happy Chandler||

    If they have probable cause. If a democratic staffer was an agent of a foreign power, by all means he should be investigated.

  • Nardz||

    *cough* Huma *cough*

  • damikesc||

    They are giving immunity to Hillary's campaign manager to go after Trump's one-time campaign manager.

    Both did the EXACT SAME THING.

  • Happy Chandler||

    I think you're thinking of Tony Podesta, who is John's brother. He wasn't part of the campaign, so would be outside of Mueller's mandate.

    There have been no allegations of money laundering against Podesta (either brother).

    Nice try, though.

  • Just Say'n||

    It should be noted that if you don't have a problem with the Carter Page FISA then you must concede that you take the Fusion GPS dossier at face value, despite the fact that the only things that have been confirmed in the political document is information that was already public.

  • Happy Chandler||

    And you must believe that all those redacted pages are blank. Trump can see the application and declassify it himself. If there's nothing there, why hasn't he?

  • Just Say'n||

    So you defend the use of political research for attaining a FISA warrant?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Of course. You use all the evidence you can get. Of course, it's evaluated based on trustworthiness of the source, independent verification, etc. If someone has bragged about being a Kremlin advisor, that's also evidence. Also, previously having been recruited to be an unwitting agent. You write that it was a document written for a political rival, which was done.

    It is not the basis for a conviction. It is the basis for further investigation. We're talking probable cause, not reasonable doubt. If he hadn't been an agent of a foreign power, it would have been clear, and the case would have been closed.

    Complaining about the FISA warrant really shows that the procedural defense is all that is left, not actual innocence.

  • Just Say'n||

    The dossier has not been verified. Two years in

  • Happy Chandler||

    Or, the verification has not been declassified.

    But, it is evidence, properly presented, of probably cause.

    Nunes said that it wasn't written that the dossier was political. It was clearly stated.

    Nunes wrote that the Isikoff article was used as a second source to the dossier. The article is referenced under a heading that makes it clear that it was used to document Page's false denials.

    Nunes' memo is totally contradicted by what we see in the application. Nothing in Schiff's is. If you are still following Nunes' lead, you are indifferent to the truth or totally blinded.

  • Just Say'n||

    The only basis for the FISA was the dossier and news reports that were briefed about the dossier. The only argument is that there is more supporting information that has been redacted.

    All you have to hang your nonsense on is the dossier

  • Happy Chandler||

    You know what's in all of the redacted pages?

  • damikesc||

    Or, the verification has not been declassified.

    Comey said it was unverified just last year.

    You know, a year after the application was made.

    But, it is evidence, properly presented, of probably cause.

    It is, at best, third-hand hearsay. The meetings he had? Nobody can verify they happened.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That's why you investigate. How can you prove something without investigating?

    Probably cause isn't proof.

    You don't know what's in the redacted portions. Without clearance, none of us do. And, if any of us do, we can't say anything about them.

    So that leaves us with.....
    The only stuff unredacted is the stuff in the public domain. Duh.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The warrant application is heavily redacted but the key point of a warrant to issue is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

  • Libertymike||

    Note that the text of the amendment does not authorize:

    (1) searches to be conducted without the consent of the party to be searched;

    (2) searches to be authorized without notice and an opportunity to be heard; and

    (3) government employees deciding whether a warrant shall issue.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are some types of searches and seizures that are clearly banned by the 4th Amendment which are currently law enforcement SOP.

    Terry pat-downs ("Stop-and-frisk");
    Searches outside the scope of the search warrant;
    Seizure of items not listed on the warrant....

  • Libertymike||

    No automobile exception either.

    Its just too fucking bad that the "contraband" might get away.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I did forget the K-9 "hit" exception, as that is unconstitutional too.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    In a series of increasingly unhinged weekend statements that spilled over into Monday morning, the president insisted that his version of reality is the only one we can trust and that anyone who disputes it is simply beholden to the "Fake News," the "Corrupt Media," the "Department of 'Justice,'" and "Crooked Hillary."

    Beautiful, ENB.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hillary did mishandle classified information which violates federal law and the FBI and DOJ refused to charge her even though they prosecute numerous people mishandling classified information.

    Sounds crooked to me.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    bullshit - she just operated a private server just like the Bushpigs did when they "lost" 22 million emails.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Private servers to handle classified information does not negate her illegal behavior.

    Furthermore, FOIA prevents using methods to avoid archiving government business to be later released to the public.

    Hillary's a crook and that is another reason why she lost the election.

  • Don't look at me.||

    LOL.

  • perlchpr||

    I'm perfectly comfortable prosecuting the Bush administration and even the former President himself if you have evidence that they also violated the Espionage Act.

    "But Bush did it!" is not an excuse for Hillary to have done it.

  • Just Say'n||

    Julian Sanchez should stop referring to himself as a "civil libertarian". I find it incredibly hard to take him seriously anymore

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I honestly can't tell if his tweet is serious or tongue-in-cheek. Given his position, I had hoped for the latter. But it's certainly not clear that he's not actually defending FISC in this case.

  • Just Say'n||

    I agree. I would hope that he is being tongue-in-cheek, but considering how he has pushed back against Congress for investigating these agencies I'm not certain anymore. I still don't understand what is so egregious about Congress investigating executive agencies, which is their prerogative.

  • Libertymike||

    He is not a libertarian.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Congress has investigated in a way to transparently protect the President, who is not a civil libertarian.

    While complaining about the warrant of Page, Congress passed and Trump signed an expansion of FISA.

    Protecting the powerful while exposing the citizenry is not a matter of liberty. It is protecting the powerful.

  • Just Say'n||

    Congress can investigate in any manner it sees fit. Congress does not answer to the executive branch.

  • Happy Chandler||

    This Congress does.

    But, to claim that the Congress who expands FISA for the little people while investigating it for the powerful is libertarian is crazy. Libertarians aren't supposed to be in favor of special rules for the powerful. If it's good for the terrorist, it's good for the President.

  • Just Say'n||

    You are aware that a higher percentage of your fellow Democrats reauthorized FISA than the Republicans, right?

  • Happy Chandler||

    I'm not a Democrat.

  • Happy Chandler||

    House: GOP 191 aye, 45 nay.
    Democrat: 65 aye, 199 nay.

    Senate: GOP 43-7
    Democrats: 7-26.

    So...your accuracy is as expected.

  • Juice||

    Of course San Francisco has an upscale gourmet lemonade stand.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kids cannot sell lemonade on the street in SF without a lawyer helping them, and who would want to really?

  • Happy Chandler||

    You can never be sure when you're buying a cup of yellow liquid on the streets of SF.

  • Mike Laursen||

    One morning in San Francisco, I just wanted to buy my kids their usual donut shop fare: cake donuts with chocolate frosting and a chocolate milk. It was going to be a special morning treat while their mother ran in the Bay to Breakers.

    We stop by the local neighborhood donut shop and the closest thing they have is, like, an artisanal Belgian chocolate with a hint of cardamom. I ask if they can get chocolate milk and the guy at the counter, with the tattoos and rings in his ears says, "We don't have that. But our barista can make a hot chocolate and then ice it down."

    Kids ate it begrudgingly, and what would have cost maybe six bucks in a real donut shop cost well over twenty.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Why didn't you go to All-Star or Happy if you were looking for donuts? They're all over the City.

  • Rich||

    Would someone *kindly* develop an AI-tweeter for Trump so he can get back to doing The People's Business?

  • Shirley Knott||

    I would prefer he continue tweeting. The less attention it gets from 'TOP MEN' the better the people's business goes.

  • Rich||

    Decent AI would realize this and refuse to tweet.

  • lap83||

    I read that as A-lowercase L - tweeter....like twitter for Al Qaeda?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Al Bundy?

  • Jerryskids||

    AlGore-ithm.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Summer of Snitches continues: White man calls cops on black man for "trying to break in" to the latter's own business.

    I would thank a person who saw something suspicious where it look like a business was being broken into.

    Police arrive and investigate to find no crime committed.

    Only racist Lefties turn something like this into something racial.

  • Zeb||

    I suppose it's possible that racism motivated the call. But it doesn't seem like there is any particular reason to think so. I would imagine that people occasionally call the cops on white people who they think are acting suspiciously too. Focusing on a tiny handful of specific incidents and just assuming that racism is involved because of the races of the people involved is ridiculous.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The only ways its racism is if the person calling hates the suspicious person based on skin color.

    It could be a do-gooder who is overly scared of the World.
    It could have been that the caller has good reason to be suspicious.
    It could be that the caller was crazy (not surprising for San Francisco)

  • Don't look at me.||

    You mean not all people in San Francisco are pure of heart?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Does not appear that San Franciscans are the New Soviet Man/Woman after all.

  • Nardz||

    Being woke means that all things in life are determined by, and come down to, skin color.

    Reason is now woke, thus they realize that race is the most important thing in the world.

  • damikesc||

    And, Drezner, I notice that Iran has been threatening the US for decades. I guess we fell down to this level long, long ago.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If you have issues with the Carter Page FISA application, then you have issues with FISA generally, because there's zero indication there's anything unusual about this application, other than the fact that its target worked on a U.S. presidential campaign.
    — Julian Sanchez (@normative) July 22, 2018

    If only.

  • Jerryskids||

    And we all know if you have problems with FISA generally, you're an unpatriotic America-hater no better than the NFL players who refuse to kneel for God, the Flag, and the National Anthem.

  • damikesc||

    Meanwhile, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen claims to have audio of the president discussing his payoff to alleged former fling Stormy Daniels. Trump responded by tweeting that it was "inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client—totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!"

    I would question how this recording being leaked wouldn't violate attorney/client privilege in every conceivable manner, is NDA's are hardly illegal or even unusual.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Current thinking is that it was leaked by someone on Trump's team, waiving the privilege. The other possibility is that Cohen wasn't acting as Trump's lawyer in this instance. Either way, it was not held up by the special master.

  • damikesc||

    Mueller's people have ZERO benefit of the doubt.

    And given that Cohen specifically WAS his lawyer in regards to the Daniels NDA, that makes no sense.

    Mueller giving Podesta immunity to go after Manafort shows what a shit show he is running. I do not trust anything they have without an extensive paper trail.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Cohen was the lawyer to the shell company. Trump said he had nothing to do with that.
    Mueller didn't do the Cohen search. That was SDNY.
    Trump's lawyer talked about it. That waives privilege. What the SDNY US Attorney wouldn't have had access to, they now do. Because Giuliani talked about it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Sen. Rand Paul says he's genuinely undecided about Trump's Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh.

    DON'T OVERPLAY YOUR HAND, SENATOR.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If you have issues with the Carter Page FISA application, then you have issues with FISA generally, because there's zero indication there's anything unusual about this application, other than the fact that its target worked on a U.S. presidential campaign."

    ----Julian Sanchez

    Well, looking at the FISA application, there's the fact that the FBI appears to have been running interference for the Clinton campaign, and some people might take issue with the FBI being used during elections that way--even if they don't have a problem with FISA generally.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Anybody else into Roman history?

    Remember that time the Praetorian guard sold the empire off to the highest bidder?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....s#Emperor_(193)

    Some people have problems with that kind of thing, even if they don't have a problem with FISA courts generally.

    Incidentally, IF IF IF the FBI were to sell the empire off for other reasons, rather than a simple cash sum, even people who don't have a problem with the FISA courts generally might have a problem with that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The FBI and government is pretty incompetent all the time, so lying on warrant applications is business as usual.

    Trump was a threat to Hillary for anyone actually paying attention to the run up to election 2016. Some in the FBI clearly were fearful of Hillary not winning and decided to become traitors to the Constitution to do so.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Gracci brothers, I think, is a better comparison to what is happening here. The Patricians violate norms in response to the Gracci brothers, as tribunes in the House of Tribes, violating norms by passing law without the consent of the Senate. The end result is the elimination of all norms.

  • damikesc||

    Think of how much would be still unknown had Hillary won.

    Harvey Weinstein would be a massive Hollywood power player.
    The sheer sleaziness of the FBI would be unknown.
    How bad the CIA is would not be fully known.
    The belief that intel services would spy on a campaign for President would be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

    Lots of folks hitched lots of wagons to a Hillary win.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    As I've said up-thread, I honestly can't tell if Julian is being serious or tongue-in-cheek.

    Given the history of secret courts in other parts of the world, NOBODY should be surprised that they are being used for political gain. That's the problem with "FISA generally."

    Secret trials are the tools of despots, dictators, and state authorities looking to cling onto power. FISA in it's guise of "national security" is really no different. Of course politicians are going to abuse that power to help them politically. We've essentially legalized Watergate by accepting FISA.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think the emphasis of Sanchez's argument is meant to be on opposition to FISA entirely.

    I don't think he's trying to say that opposition to FISA generally is crazy--so there's no sense in opposing what the FBI did in its warrant application.

    I think he's trying to say that if you oppose what the FBI did in its warrant application, you should oppose FISA entirely--like he does. In his enthusiasm to push opposition to FISA generally, he's glossed over some serious problems with the warrant application.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    One would hope based on his position. It's worded clunkily, at best. That's my opposition to "Twitter generally."

  • Ken Shultz||

    You mean that other people may present your statement in ways that it wasn't intended?

    If I hadn't known Sanchez's writing so well--for him having been a regular staff writer here at Reason and Hit & Run for so long--I wouldn't have known what he probably meant.

    Yeah, tweets are so short, you can change their meaning by changing their context.

  • John||

    Given the history of secret courts in other parts of the world, NOBODY should be surprised that they are being used for political gain. That's the problem with "FISA generally."

    I think that was always certain. Although we may never know, I do not think Trump is the first victim of this. They did it to other political figures.

  • damikesc||

    It, actually, makes one more suspicious of downfalls of lots of other people now.

    I question now whether ANY "problem" any public figure faced was legit or due to the intel community trying to cause them problems.

  • Happy Chandler||

    How was the Trump campaign hurt in any way? All Strzok would have had to do is make one call to the New York Times, and Trump would have been sunk. Instead, the FBI said there was no evidence of connection between the campaign, which there was.

    Trump was protected by the FBI. There were no actions shown to be taken against Trump because of animus. Everything done in the investigation was by the book.

    The actions that hurt Hillary, though, were insubordination and against protocol.

  • John||

    How was the Trump campaign hurt in any way?

    It wasn't. But since when does "no harm no foul" make government abuse of powers okay? Also, the fact that Trump wasn't hurt and they didn't leak anything is, given the partisan nature of the investigation, pretty conclusive proof they didn't find a damn thing and Trump is entirely innocent of wrongdoing.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Maybe it means that they're doing it by the book? There has been enough released since then that, if it had gotten out, would have sunk Trump. Starting by "If it's what I think, I love it."

  • John||

    We know they are not doing it by the book. the FISA application failed to tell the court the origins of the Steele Dossier and cited news reports that used the dossier as confirmation of its veracity. The FBI committed a fraud upon the court to get the FISA warrant. They were not doing it by the book. You just don't mind because you think the FBI going after political opponents of an administration is okay, as long as your side is in charge. I don't think that is going to work out very well for you.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Read the fucking application. It clearly said that Steele was hired by a rival politician looking for dirt on Candidate 1. Plain English.

    The Isikoff article was used for the quote where Page denied the meeting. Clear as day.

    Nunes is a fraud. He was already busted coordinating with the White House.

  • Just Say'n||

    Isikoff admitted that his article was based upon being briefed by Glenn Simpson about the dossier. So the corroborating proof of the dossier was a reporter that was reciting what he was briefed on....from the dossier author

  • Happy Chandler||

    They wrote in the application that the Isikoff article was from the same source as the dossier, but they were not referring to the article to corroborate the dossier.

    Like I said in THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING POST, the article was included for Page's denial. It's right there in the heading, Page denies reports of meetings. This has been known since February, when the Schiff memo was released. In each case, Schiff was proven right.

    Continuing to rely on the Nunes memo just shows you are indifferent to the truth.

  • damikesc||

    Maybe it means that they're doing it by the book?

    They said they verified the dossier claims in every single application.

    They lied every single time.

    Nothing they've done holds water at this point. The ENTIRE investigation should be ended.

  • Happy Chandler||

    They accurately described the dossier.
    They referenced many pages that you don't know.
    You're full of shit.

  • Happy Chandler||

    They accurately described the dossier.
    They referenced many pages that you don't know.
    You're full of shit.

  • Happy Chandler||

    They accurately described the dossier.
    They referenced many pages that you don't know.
    You're full of shit.

  • Happy Chandler||

    They accurately described the dossier.
    They referenced many pages that you don't know.
    You're full of shit.

  • Rich||

    "I am very concerned about his position on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. This is not a small deal for me. This is a big deal. Kavanaugh's position is basically that national security trumps privacy. And he said it very strongly and explicitly. And that worries me."

    So, with all due respect, then why TF are you undecided?

  • Ken Shultz||

    People who say they care about the Fourth Amendment, but don't care about the FBI using opposition research in a warrant application . . . might be full of shit.

    I'm just sayin'.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    I'm just sayin'.

    I knew it!

  • Eddy||

    "Always keep tight hold of Nurse, for fear of finding something worse."

    Translation: "Keep tight hold of Brett, or the next guy could be someone the Democrats will vet."

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's naive at best to think that Kavanaugh is not just going to give the answers that Senators (especially Rand, if his vote is perceived as going to matter) want to hear. I don't know what there really is to keep an "open mind" about in the process after you've reviewed his body of work. And that body of work, when it comes to 4A, stinks. His testimony isn't going to tell you anything compared to his history.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Can we still stomach Animal House?

    "What was portrayed as simple, raunchy fun back in 1978 can easily look like sexist, racially insensitive boorishness when viewed through contemporary eyes."

    The article helpfully points out, scene-by-scene, which bits of comedy you are still allowed to find funny.

  • Rich||

    Fast forward another 40 years:

    "What was portrayed as sexist, racially insensitive boorishness back in 2018 can easily look like simple, raunchy fun when viewed through contemporary eyes."

  • John||

    Let's hope so.

  • John||

    One of the great lines in that movie is when they are at the black bar with the girls from the women's college. They show a shot of Otis Day and the Nights singing a lyric that consists of something like "babamaomao" and then cut to Peter Riegert asking his date "what do you major in?" to which she answers "primitive cultures". The comic timing of it is perfect. It is just subtle enough to not be offensive. If they beat you over the head with it, it would not have been funny. But they do it just perfectly and it cracks me up every time I see it.

    In addition to all of the over the top comedy in that movie, there are a ton of subtle lines like that. That movie is one of the best comedies ever made.

  • Don't look at me.||

    sexist, racially insensitive boorishness = funny.

    Sorry, but it's true.

  • Echo Chamber||

    According to the author, destroying private property because you don't like what the owner is saying is still considered a 'good' form of funny

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Taboo can be funny. Its why dick and fart jokes get some comedic traction.

  • John||

    Of course, it is. The funniest things are those things where we laugh at ourselves.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    The funniest things are those things where we laugh at ourselves.

    Says the guy who turns into a giant baby when someone points out something funny he accidentally did.

  • John||

    I meant ourselves in the general sense. I didn't mean me. That is different.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I recently read a review of The Simpsons by a millennial type who had never watched it before. They watched several best of seasons, apparently, and couldn't stand it--because of Homer. You see, Homer isn't the kind of person anybody should like or laugh about. He's stupid, abusive to his kids, . . .

    It's as if being a socially responsible reviewer meant you had to shove a stick so far up your ass that you can no longer even acknowledge the existence of satire.

  • John||

    You really have to feel sorry for that person. What a dreary awful existence they must have. I understand that at some level their parents and society are to blame for them being like that. But eventually, you have a responsibility to think for yourself. How can anyone not grow up at some point and understand how badly their teachers and parents lied to them?

  • Ken Shultz||

    All the old folks say Swift was a great writer. I gotta tell you, I don't get it. There isn't anything funny about eating children.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Taylor Swift wrote a song about eating children?

  • John||

    Haters gotta hate hate hate.

  • sarcasmic||

    Eaters gonna eat eat eat eat eat...

  • perlchpr||

    That would be hilarious.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Children are sweet , sweet, sweet!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Is this where I insert a joke about legs not spreading far enough apart?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Well, Animal House in retrospect is obviously problematic.

    Instead, we should be watching tolerant, inclusive movies like Blazing Saddles.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    They said you was hung!

    And they was right.

  • Eddy||

    So...you're saying the characters aren't role models, the activities portrayed are often immoral and/or illegal, and there's a general lack of taste?

    Does that sum up the appeal...oops, I mean, sum up the Deeply Concerning Issues of the movie?

  • Just Say'n||

    @edkrayewski

    "If Mueller has something on Trump Russia, and the Monday presser strongly implied that that something was solid, why wouldn't he move on it after Monday? If the president is actually totally compromised by Putin I don't see how Mueller sticks with his timeline after the presser

    Which suggests there's not a there there. If there were, Mueller wouldn't be taking it slow. Am I missing something?"

    Ed Krayewski is a Russia bot

  • Just Say'n||

    www.pbs.twimg.com/media/DilnnXIXcAo30Hc.jpg:large

    And now he's anti-media? Putin's puppet, clearly

  • Just Say'n||

  • Just Say'n||

    Stupid links don't work

  • lafe.long||

    get rid of the www. at the beginning.

  • Just Say'n||

    Won't let me do that

  • lafe.long||

  • lafe.long||

  • lafe.long||

    I miss krayewski.

    *sniff*

  • Horny Lizard||

    Am I missing something? Yes, the facts.

  • Just Say'n||

    Which are.......

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Give him a minute. He needs glenn simpson to tell him.

  • John||

    Trump threatened Iran. Now reason goes into full peacenik mode. Doesn't Trump know he is only supposed to threaten Russia? It is remarkable that reason doesn't get whiplash from going from all war all of the time and ranting about Trump's "strange softness on Russia" to now going back to your usual, "how dare anyone pick on Iran" stance.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Muslims, dude. Think of the Muslims.

  • Just Say'n||

    You don't know that yet. They haven't written any articles about Iran. The hypocrisy will be too glaring if they did take such a position.

  • John||

    They have written a ton of articles about Iran. And all of them are in defense of the regime and the need to make peace with them. That is fine except that all that got thrown out the window when it came to Russia.

  • Just Say'n||

    In the past. But, now that they love "BIG WAR" will see if they maintain that position

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Remember, kids, the "rational" position on the iran deal was to take what they offered, because the only either choice was war. The only other choice.

  • sarcasmic||

    Iranian people are pretty darn cool. It's their government that sucks.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Persian Anarchists unite!

  • sarcasmic||

    Um, yeah. Because saying an Islamic theocracy sucks is the same as being an anarchist. Dude, you need a new shtick.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic wants to inform all you idiots that Muslim is not a race!

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes. And the same could be said for all people who live under oppressive states.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not necessarily. Some cultures just suck.

  • Just Say'n||

    Which ones?

  • sarcasmic||

    If I answer this with specifics I know I'll get bombarded. However there are a few cultures where everyone I've met from them were complete assholes. Mostly with regards to how women are treated.

    Not all cultures are equal. That cannot be denied.

  • Just Say'n||

    Seems like you're making conclusions based upon anecdotal experiences.

    Not all cultures are equal, which is true, but that doesn't mean that inferior cultures should be met with American aggression.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Seems like you're making conclusions based upon anecdotal experiences.

    Holy fucking fuckballs! What kind of douchebag asshole does shit like that?

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm sorry, did you have a point here?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    I'm sorry, did you have a point here?

    Yes, you're an idiot.

  • Just Say'n||

    Witty, thoughtful, and not a douche-bag are not words that I think anyone has ever used to describe you

  • sarcasmic||

    Penis vs dick! Who will win?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Witty, thoughtful, and not a douche-bag are not words that I think anyone has ever used to describe you

    I have, apparently, a reputation to uphold.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes. Cheerleader

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Yes. Cheerleader

    I've always kinda liked sarcasmic so I don't mind being his cheerleader for now.

  • Just Say'n||

    You should really read the conversation if you think you were cheerleading for sarc

  • sarcasmic||

    You should really read the conversation if you think you were cheerleading for sarc

    You should read the conversation. He jumped in when you implied that anecdotal experience isn't something one should make conclusions upon. Then the pissing contest started.

  • Just Say'n||

    "implied that anecdotal experience isn't something one should make conclusions upon"

    Amazing that this is a controversial position.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    You should really read the conversation if you think you were cheerleading for sarc

    You said:

    Seems like you're making conclusions based upon anecdotal experiences.

    This is a silly thing to say considering that everyone on Earth makes 99.99% of their decisions this way. Calling out sarcasmic for doing what everyone does makes no sense.

    You also said:

    Not all cultures are equal, which is true, but that doesn't mean that inferior cultures should be met with American aggression.

    The fact is, sarcasmic didn't and never has advocated for American aggression. It's odd that you decided to insert it into the dialogue.

    Now, I could have put that in a more conversational tone, but as you pointed out earlier I have, apparently, a reputation to uphold.

  • Just Say'n||

    John: Trump threatened Iran. Now reason goes into full peacenik mode. Doesn't Trump know he is only supposed to threaten Russia? It is remarkable that reason doesn't get whiplash from going from all war all of the time and ranting about Trump's "strange softness on Russia" to now going back to your usual, "how dare anyone pick on Iran" stance.

    Sarc: Iranian people are pretty darn cool. It's their government that sucks.

    Me: Yes. And the same could be said for all people who live under oppressive states.

    Me: Not necessarily. Some cultures just suck

    So, John thinks Iranians are "bad" from anecdotal experience and Sarc said they're "good" off of anecdotal experience.

    I think you have a logical fallacy here professor nimrod

  • Just Say'n||

    Every time I read one of your arguments, Sparky, it's always striking how unabashedly dumb they are

  • sarcasmic||

    Every time I read one of your arguments, Sparky, it's always striking how unabashedly dumb they are

    And every time you get backed into a corner you start calling people names.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yup. I started with the name calling.

  • Just Say'n||

    $park¥ The Misanthrope|7.23.18 @ 10:33AM|#

    I'm sorry, did you have a point here?

    Yes, you're an idiot.

    The two of you should start making sense

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Every time I read one of your arguments, Sparky, it's always striking how unabashedly dumb they are

    It's because they are beyond your intellectual capabilities. In any case, there's a simple solution to your plight.

  • Just Say'n||

    Ah, yes, you are so wise professor nimrod.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't think John said anything about the Iranian people, and I trust him to have an open mind with regard to such things. Jesus, just look at the conversation the two of us had under this one.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is what you were responding to:

    "Trump threatened Iran. Now reason goes into full peacenik mode. Doesn't Trump know he is only supposed to threaten Russia? It is remarkable that reason doesn't get whiplash from going from all war all of the time and ranting about Trump's "strange softness on Russia" to now going back to your usual, "how dare anyone pick on Iran" stance."

  • Just Say'n||

    *Sarc: Not necessarily. Some cultures just suck

  • sarcasmic||

    I've always kinda liked sarcasmic so I don't mind being his cheerleader for now.

    Gimme an Ass!

    Ass!

    Gimme a Hole!

    Hole!

    What does that spell?

    sarcasmic!

    Woo hoo!

    *dance around a lot*

  • sarcasmic||

    Seems like you're making conclusions based upon anecdotal experiences.

    What else can I base them on?

    but that doesn't mean that inferior cultures should be met with American aggression.

    I never used the word "inferior," nor have I advocated for American aggression.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Some are more equal than others

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "However there are a few cultures where everyone I've met from them were complete assholes."

    Argentina. Everybody else in South America hates the Argentines.

  • sarcasmic||

    Argentina. Everybody else in South America hates the Argentines.

    Never met any Argentinians. Met a few people from Chile. They were cool.

  • Just Say'n||

    Well I met a few people who were Chilean and they weren't cool. Ergo, my anecdotal experience cancels out yours.

    It would, of course, make more sense to just assume that people are good in general, rather than forming opinions based upon anecdotes, but universal principles are passe.

  • sarcasmic||

    It would, of course, make more sense to just assume that people are good in general

    I don't like to assume. It always bites me in the ass.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's better to make broad assumptions based off of one off encounters

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    It's better to make broad assumptions based off of one off encounters

    Since you are such a hardcore individualist, I'm sure you'll stop using the following words as nouns: liberals, Democrats, progressives, conservatives, Republicans, the alt-right, Americans, Europeans, Iranians, any other nationalities, Catholics, Muslims, any other religious followers, blacks, whites, any other races. Because to come to conclusions based on group membership is unseemly.

  • Just Say'n||

    That is perhaps the dumbest attempt at a "gotcha" ever.

    I'm talking about not labeling "good culture" versus "bad culture" based upon anecdotal interactions from people in that culture. You are talking about me not labeling people based upon their own self-identified label.

    Stop. This is hilariously bad logic

  • Just Say'n||

    "Because to come to conclusions based on group membership is unseemly."

    Yes, it is unseemly to label all members from that group as "bad" based upon a few interactions with other members from that group. That's the fallacy that underlines bigotry

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    That is perhaps the dumbest attempt at a "gotcha" ever.

    Yeah, I know, everybody thinks it's ok when they do it and wrong when others do it.

  • Just Say'n||

    Oh my God, you really don't understand the logic here.

    Congrats on defending the position that justifies John labeling all Muslims as coming from a bad culture

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Congrats on defending the position that justifies John labeling all Muslims as coming from a bad culture

    This has got to be the dumbest attempt at a "gotcha" that I've ever seen.

    John labels Muslims based on whatever information he has. Other people with opinions different from John's label Muslims based on whatever information they have. For some reason, you can't understand different people having different opinions about different cultures. You apparently believe that if I have one opinion on some culture/people and you have a different opinion then one of us has to be right and the other wrong. As seen here:

    Well I met a few people who were Chilean and they weren't cool. Ergo, my anecdotal experience cancels out yours.

    Because you're the only person who thinks this way. Here's a tip for you: it's possible for different people to think different things about a great deal of subjects based on their experiences.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Other people with opinions different from John's label Muslims based on whatever information they have"

    Yes and that is called a logical fallacy.

  • Just Say'n||

    Your argument boils down to: "there is no problem making broad conclusions based upon anecdotal experiences" and I say: "that is the definition of a logical fallacy and bigotry, no less"

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Yes and that is called a logical fallacy.

    Which logical fallacy is it? Which logical fallacy states that if two people form differing opinions on groups of people based on members of that group one of them is wrong? Please provide a link so I can peruse .

  • sarcasmic||

    It's better to make broad assumptions based off of one off encounters

    I make my decisions based upon the information that I have. If that information is anecdotal, then so be it. Sometimes it's all I've got.

  • Just Say'n||

    Then you have no problem with John labeling Muslims as coming from a bad culture? Because that's what you are endorsing with that logic

  • loveconstitution1789||

    sarcasmic|7.23.18 @ 11:19AM|#
    It would, of course, make more sense to just assume that people are good in general
    I don't like to assume. It always bites me in the ass.

    sarcasmic|7.23.18 @ 9:47AM|#
    No idea. They're slurs against Muslims, so I figured they'd be part of your regular vocabulary.
    loveconstitution1789|7.23.18 @ 10:34AM|#
    I dont think other races of people are worse than my mutt race.

    Ever heard of implication? Seriously. Quit while you're behind.

    You make bad assumptions, which is why your thoughts fail you.

  • Just Say'n||

    Christ, I didn't even see that comment.

    Now his whole anecdotal experience stuff makes even less sense

  • sarcasmic||

    You make bad assumptions, which is why your thoughts fail you.

    It could be interesting if you could actually debate ideas instead of shouting "ANARCHIST" from the rooftops.

    Ideas like natural law vs legislated law. Ideas like the laws that society follows, whether they are legislated or not, and the legislated law that society ignores. How are they enforced? Society enforces laws that are not legislated, and plenty of legislated law is not enforced.

    Stuff like that.

    Or you can call me an anarchist.

    I'd like to have a conversation.

    Are you going to converse like a grown up, or call me names like a child?

  • sarcasmic||

    You make bad assumptions, which is why your thoughts fail you.

    You make bad edits. That's why your accusations fail you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I can't edit. Reason hates second chances.

    If you spent as much time on your Mini-Anarchy thingy as you do on being so butt-hurt, you might get more Nanarchist buds to take down the US of A.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well I met a few people who were Chilean and they weren't cool. Ergo, my anecdotal experience cancels out yours.

    No, it means we have different opinions. I never said my opinion was fact. Take a sedative. Jeez.

  • John||

    Maybe. If that is true, then we ought to be helping them overthrow their government. Or at least encouraging them. I hope they do.

  • sarcasmic||

    Americans are pretty cool for the most part. But their government sticks its dick into so many things around the world that from the outside one could easily think it is imperialist. Not to mention the prison population, use of traffic enforcement for collecting revenue from the poor, asset forfeiture, etc.

    Heck, but your logic people looking in might say the exact thing you just said, only about us.

  • John||

    If the Iranian Mullahs want to encourage Americans to overthrow their government, I wish them luck. The encouragement only works if the people really want to do it, in which case the government deserves to be overthrown.

  • sarcasmic||

    What if the people are so beaten down that they see no hope?

  • John||

    Sucks to be them I guess. We can't do it for them. They have to do it themselves or it won't work.

  • sarcasmic||

    They have to do it themselves or it won't work.

    Yep. Which is why Iraq and Afghanistan didn't work.

  • John||

    Exactly sarcasmic. We can kill people and break things and make it so that no one wants to screw with us but we cannot make countries into something that the people who live in them do not want.

  • sarcasmic||

    We can kill people and break things and make it so that no one wants to screw with us but we cannot make countries into something that the people who live in them do not want.

    Wow. I never expected that from you. I am pleasantly impressed. No sarc. My respect for you just went up an notch.

  • John||

    Thanks Sarcasmic. And perhaps I have never made that clear, but I have thought that for a long time. The lesson of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is that you can't remake countries. Those wars failed not militarily but because the government treated them as aid programs with guns.

    For me it was very instructive to be in Iraq and then right after it go to Germany. Iraq showed me how hard it is to remake a country or defend people who won't defend themselves. Germany showed me that one of the biggest lies we tell ourselves is that the US "rebuilt Germany and Japan after the war." That is bullshit. We help off the Soviets and set the conditions that allowed them to rebuild but ultimately it was the Germans and Japanese who rebuilt their countries not us. Our failure to understand that has gotten us into all kinds of trouble.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sometimes a government can be so powerful that it cannot be overthrown. It can collapse, like the USSR or Ancient Rome, but not be overthrown from within or without.

  • John||

    Governments fall when the people they govern not only realize it needs to go but understand that they are not alone in believing that. Governments like the old USSR or North Korea or Cuba today depend upon everyone thinking they are alone in hating the government and resistance is futile. The moment everyone realizes that they all hate the government and stand up in unison, the government is doomed. This is why large-scale demonstrations are such a huge threat to such governments. They show people they are not alone.

  • sarcasmic||

    The moment everyone realizes that they all hate the government and stand up in unison, the government is doomed.

    Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that's how Ancient Rome or the USSR fell. They collapsed under their own weight.

  • John||

    The USSR collapsed when everyone realized that they were not alone in hating the system. Once Gorbachev started allowing criticism of the system, the system was doomed. Rome was occupied by foreign invaders. To the extent it collapsed, it collapsed because people lost faith in it and were no longer willing to defend it.

  • Michael Cook||

    The part of the Carter Page FISA document we can now see has been redacted over the line the line that names the critical source on which the FBI relied to convince the judge. Undoubtedly the name covered up was Christopher Steele, who was sourcing a Russian-produced dossier bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign via Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Loretta Lynch, and so forth.

    That history is pretty well established, if totally unknown to much of the American public because the MM monopoly refuses to report it. They'd rather focus on real news, like Maria Butina and Stormy Daniels. Maria was at best an ex patriate Russian desperately trying to make it as a lobbyist for anything to get paid by anybody. Stormy is Stormy. Robert Mueller is the type of strong arm prosecutor who will threaten your personal lawyer to death if he doesn't hand over anything damaging he has on you of any kind, notes, recordings, voice mail. anything. That's Bob.

    The canon of judicial ethics asserts that: "The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that justice is done." Wow, that is so not-Bob!

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Everybody is so angry.

  • Just Say'n||

    They're stealing your schtick

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He also doesnt like people.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Well then, all those worthless cunts should just fuck off. Go find somewhere else to bitch and moan about how much the world sucks and how shitty the Reason staff is. There are plenty of other places on the Internet that are serious about polishing Trump's knob and do a more satisfactory job of it. It would be better off if the fucking cock eaters would do the world a favor and just die.

  • Just Say'n||

    There's that sunshine

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    I have, apparently, a reputation to uphold.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Will Mike Pence usher in the Handmaid's Tale after all?

    It's a terrifying possibility, indeed. The best way to prevent this — besides protesting in a red robe, of course — is to contact your US Senators and get them on record promising to oppose Kavanaugh. If there is any chance at all he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the most brilliant piece of Constitutional law in the past half century, he must not be allowed on the Supreme Court. In fact, he doesn't belong there regardless since he was nominated by an illegitimate President who "won" a hacked election.

    #Resist
    #StopKavanaugh

  • Just Say'n||

    Haha. The parody here is a little too heavy handed. You need to work on this one

  • Don't look at me.||

    Is it? IS IT?

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    What Trump meant was "I REALLY WANT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THEN MY KISSING PUTIN'S BUNG-HOLE LAST WEEK AS NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER KISSED A FOREIGN LEADER'S BUNG HOLE BEFORE!"

  • Just Say'n||

    Ever.

  • Eddy||

    Not since Yalta, anyway.

    Or the Ping-Pong tour of China.

    Or the Apology Tour.

  • Just Say'n||

    Or whenever an American president visits Saudi Arabia or China

  • Sevo||

    TRUMP HATES TESLA!
    "Tesla to suppliers: We want our money back"
    [...]
    "Tesla is reportedly asking for refunds from suppliers in an aggressive tactic designed to help the perpetually money-losing company turn a profit.
    The Palo Alto, Calif.-based electric vehicle maker has requested an unknown amount of cash back from suppliers for work done since 2016, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
    The move reflects Tesla's increasing urgency to become profitable after losing more than $4 billion over the last six years."
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/
    2018/07/23/tesla-suppliers-refunds-
    profits/817740002/

    I know it's got nothing to do with Trump, but you can't get anything published without a dose of TDS.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Did the suppliers not supply them stuff?

    On what basis are they asking money back?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "[Trump's] tweet seems to have come in response to recent Rouhani comments warning America not to mess with Iran."

    ----ENB

    That's an awfully . . . um . . . kind characterization of what Rouhani said.

    "America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars," Mr. Rouhani was reported saying.

    ----WSJ

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/tr.....1532321498

    That appears to be a threat of war against the United States should the Trump continue to impose sanctions on Iran.

    It comes on the heels of an earlier threat by Rouhani to disrupt the flow of oil through the Persian gulf--presumably using the Iranian military.

  • Just Say'n||

    Can someone square the concept of supporting sanctions while supporting free trade? Because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially since free trade has always been sold on the premise that it deescalates international conflict

  • Ken Shultz||

    One of the most effective peaceful defenses against aggressors in history is the alliance. The framers, in their wisdom, knew this, and they made it so that our senate can join alliances through treaties. One of the treaties we've joined into by thoroughly constitutional means is the NPT. As a means to enforce that treaty on our enemies, sanctions can be a less violent means to defend ourselves than war.

    Sanctions, like wars, can be used well or used badly. I can support or oppose a war without questioning whether wars can be fought in a libertarian way--since they all involve the use of government force. Sanctions are the same way. If you want to argue that they're unlikely to be effective in this case, that argument is probably stronger than the suggestion that sanctions, unlike wars, can never be supported by real libertarians because they all disrupt trade.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The framers, in their wisdom, knew this, and they made it so that our senate can join alliances through treaties."

    And yet, George Washington warned of foreign entanglements in his farewell address and the use reneged on its first ever ally (France) in order to avoid foreign war

  • Just Say'n||

    I see your point on sanctions, but if the argument is that trade brings about peace then wouldn't it also hold that sanctions bring about war?

    Sanctions are also imposed so haphazardly. Is there any good reason why we should sanction Russia and Iran, but not China?

  • perlchpr||

    Is there any good reason why we should sanction Russia and Iran, but not China?

    "We can't afford it."

    Does "pragmatic" count as "good" for the purposes of your question?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yes, they come with complications, and they are usually best avoided. Some treaties are better than others, however, and some treaties are terrible. Some may be desirable in certain situations. If we can use one to pressure an enemy like Iran into foregoing its nuclear ambitions without going to war, that will be a good thing.

    Argue for or against them on the merits, but it's hard to argue that treaties should never be entered into--just like it's hard to argue that we should never go to war.

  • Libertymike||

    Applying the principle, "one of the most effective peaceful defenses against aggressors in history is the alliance," to Iran does not square.

    Iran does not have a history of interfering with the internal governance of the United States. We know that the US does have a history of interfering with Iran's internal governance.

    Iran does not have a history of making war against the neighbors of the United States. We know that the US does have a history of making war against Iran's neighbors and upon mendacious pretexts.

    Iran does not have a history of imposing sanctions against the neighbors of the United States which result in the deaths of several hundred thousand people as gleefully attested to by Madeline Albright.

    Of course, there are gullible Americans who ignorantly regurgitate the Neo-Cohen propaganda that "Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terra" in the world.

    How many thousands of people in Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Bahamas have been murdered by drone strikes ordered by the mullahs?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Iran is willing to suffer a tremendous amount of pain for the ability to enrich their own uranium, and they already have the capability to launch multistage rockets.

    They're a signer of the NPT, and they're subject to it. The purpose of the NPT is prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons before they're launched against their United States--not after.

    As far as the argument against hypocrisy goes, I don't give a shit about that. The United States should pursue its own security interests--regardless of whatever we've done in the past.

    Because we engage in drone strikes, lie to our grandmothers, and give the Kardashians their own TV shows is no reason to forego our interests in regards to Iran developing nuclear weapons.

  • Libertymike||

    Our interests are better served by not being hypocrites and by not meddling.

    Our interests were not well served by overthrowing Mossadegh and imposing the Shah on the Persian people.

    Our interests were not well served by confiscating billions from productive people in order to prop up the Shah and finance Savak.

    Our interests were not well served by standing by the Shah and pissing off millions of Persians.

    Result: Khomeini and the mullahs.

    BLOWBACK

    Common sense says lay off or else.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Our interests are better served by not being hypocrites"

    This is a tu quoque fallacy. It does not compute.

    Here, let Norm McDonald explain it to you. Check in at 1:40

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3PpS8ZZouM

    "The worst thing about Bill Cosby wasn't that he was a hypocrite"

    "I think that most rapists are probably hypocrites".

    Hypocrisy has no relevance to foreign policy. The idea that we shouldn't do what's in the best interests of our own security because it would be hypocritical has no rational basis.

    Stick to arguing that something isn't in our best interests--and not because it's hypocritical. Even if you want to use a moral argument, find a better one than that. Whatever you're against because it's immoral is still immoral regardless of whether it's also hypocritical.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Persians tried to conquer the known World.

    Iranians seized Americans at a US Embassy and kept them as hostages.
    Iranians now have troops outside their borders spreading their fight.
    Islam is NOT a religion of peace.
    Iran has threaten the USA with utter destruction multiple times.
    Iranians are now actively seeking nuclear weapons and missiles to carry nuclear weapons.

    Put me down as skeptical about Iranian peacefulness.

  • Libertymike||

    Again, has Iran made war against America's neighbors the way the US has with Iran's neighbors?

    Has Iran made drone strikes against hospitals and weddings in Bermuda, the Bahamas, Canada, and Mexico resulting in the deaths of thousands?

    Has Iran overthrown a democratically elected American President as we have done in Iran?

    Has Iran poured billions of dollars into such murderous, totalitarian outfits like the CIA, the DEA, the FBI, the NSA, and the IRS?

    Your skepticism does not align with the facts.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Again, has Iran made war against America's neighbors the way the US has with Iran's neighbors?"

    I don't see what this has to do with anything--other than a hypocrisy arguments, which really doesn't impress me, but, yeah, Iran is waging war in Syria and in Yemen.They're an aggressive menace to their neighbors--including Lebanon.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Has Iran made drone strikes against hospitals and weddings in Bermuda, the Bahamas, Canada, and Mexico resulting in the deaths of thousands?"

    Does the name "Hezbollah" mean anything to you?

    Not that the hypocrisy arguments is any more persuasive than any other tu quoque.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Has Iran poured billions of dollars into such murderous, totalitarian outfits like the CIA, the DEA, the FBI, the NSA, and the IRS?"

    The correct answer is "yes".

    Why do you ask?

    The question isn't whether they're better people than we are. The question is what's in our security interests.

  • Echo Chamber||

    "the mother of all wars"
    Rouhani wants to see the sequel of that in his country?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Iranian currency has lost half its value in the last six months, and there are massive demonstrations in the streets. The only means they have to buy their people off is through oil sales, and U.S. pressure on our allies to refuse to buy their oil has meant their oil sales have dropped some 12% over that time. Meanwhile, they're fighting a proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and they're still trying to put down the opposition to Assad in Syria.

    Blaming the United States for all their problems is an obvious way to try to keep his head off of a pike, but they're running out of options--and as Trump ramps up further pressure on Iran's economy (even making inroads with their ally, Putin), things are likely to get worse before they get better.

    One of the questions that supporters of Obama's deal with Iran never seemed to answer was this: If their nuclear ambitions matter so little to the Iranians, why are they willing to suffer so much for the ability to enrich their own uranium?

  • tommyboy||

    I'm a little tired of reading that about how every time a cop is called on someone that its because of racism. As an average white dude, I've been confronted by cops many times.

    I've had police enter a business late at night because I left the front door unlocked while I was bringing in computer parts. They got a call that someone was concerned about the lights on at that time of night. I've been stopped at gunpoint, while exiting customer premise during off hours. We generally install new systems and do system maintenance during off hours.

    When I was in college I was surrounded by 5-6 police with tactical gear when I was delivering a pizza. I was dressed in my Pizza Hut uniform, had a pizza bag in hand, but was made to get on my knees because they were looking for two black men that had guns. Although, I had a legitimate reason to be in the apartment complex and clearly did not fit the description, I was detained and ID'ed at gunpoint.

    Most of the stories we see are great examples of minorities getting caught in the clutches of self-righteous SJW's that believe they are empowered to make others conform to their will. Rednecks and other non-POC malcontents get caught up in these crusades also, they just tend to not make the 7 o'clock news when it happens. Nine times out of ten, if you scratch any one of these petty dictators, you will find that they bleed leftist red.

  • John||

    A lot of it is how you are dressed and the circumstances of where you are. If you are dressed badly and look shady and go somewhere where people generally are not, people are going to be suspicious and call the cops no matter what your race. This is also true if you are a young male or a male in general. Women generally don't have the cops called on them.

  • Eddy||

    "I was going to call you, officer, I just wanted to make sure I have enough evidence against this prostitute!"

    Wait, only undercover vice cops get to use that excuse.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Will Mike Pence usher in the Handmaid's Tale after all?"

    Despite appearances, I don't think these people are actually retarded.

  • John||

    If they are not retarded but are just pretending to be for whatever reason, does it really make any difference?

  • John||

    The remarkable thing about the Trump FISA issue is that it pretty much confirms every prediction libertarians made about FISA when it was passed. FISA is a secret court that ended up being used for partisan purposes just like Libertarians said it would. On top of that, it was used against Donald Trump, many of whose supporters likely supported FISA when it was passed. Reason it seems to me has a tremendous opportunity to not only get a great I told you so but to convert a lot of people who once supported FISA over to their side of being against it. Reason really can say "we told you this would happen and sure enough it happened and happened to you."

    Instead, reason is totally soft-peddling the story and sending out Shackford to shill for the FBI and claim that we just don't know and should give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. It is not only unprincipled, it is also blowing a huge opportunity to turn people against FISA, which is something I always thought reason wanted to get rid of.

  • Don't look at me.||

    But, Trump!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    But trump.

  • John||

    That is all you can say. I would be willing to bet that a large majority of the people who voted for Trump supported FISA when it was passed. It being used to try and frame their candidate is what the kids call these days a "teachable moment" if there ever was one. This is a chance not just to score points but actually convert people on the other side to the libertarian side. And reason is showing no interest in doing so. I guess they either think FISA is okay as long as it is abused against the right people or they would just rather lose than have the support of icky Trump voters or maybe both.

  • Libertymike||

    Its amazing and embarrassing. A great opportunity is being fumbled away because Trump.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The GOP is responsible for Obamacare because they didn't have a national health care plan.

    You have to accept the iran deal or you have to go to war.

    Liberals shouldn't be uncivil because that can be used as justification by conservatives to do the same.

    Taxpayers should support abortion because it's cheaper than welfare.

    It's proper appalling when Obama Trump appeases dictators like Putin.

    Just because there's no compelling evidence in the unredacted portion of ehe page FISA application, doesn't mean that surveillance wasn't warranted; investigations are meant to prove someone's innocence, ya know.

    Wokatarian Moment.

  • John||

    It really is. My other favorite is how Szork's texts don't mean that the investigation was partisan. Reason is actually giving cops the benefit of the doubt. So, I guess if it turns out that some cop has a ton of racist texts on his phone, that doesn't in any way mean that he is unprofessional or out to get black people.

    It really is a new low.

  • Tony||

    Trump is the top cop.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Not according to Wapo. Only the deep state can save us now.

  • John||

    He wasn't when this happened, Obama was.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That's different.

  • Kivlor||

    It's almost like Reason doesn't have principles, but it does have principals. And those principals were not supporters of Trump...

    Nah. Couldn't have anything to do with that.

  • TuIpa||

    ok Cathy

  • Eddy||

    Butt Trump.

  • Eddy||

    Yes, Reason really ought to take the role of the scientist in the monster movie whose warnings were ignored until it was too late (or *almost* too late?).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    John, how else are the LINOs working at Reason gonna get rid of Trump?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    But, Trump!

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I see that Welchie Boy and his French wife are off vacationing in Paris.

    If we're really lucky, maybe they'll love it so much that they never come back to Trump's America again!

  • Ride 'Em||

    Perhaps Rouhani should talk to the last guy who promised the mother of all wars. That would be Saddam. On second thought I guess he can't talk to Saddam.

    That aside I don't think Russia is really an ally of Iran. It is my guess Russia's strategy is to destabilize the middle east to stablize its economy. It doesn't want Iranian oil to come on the market and lower energy prices.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "On Monday morning, Trump fired off an array of repetitive and rambling tweets "

    Which you didn't actually provide any examples of, lest people not think they're rambling?

    I'm starting to get really, really tired of these articles where you complain about something Trump has said, and only link to criticisms of it, and not to, you know, WHAT HE SAID.

    This is an extremely disreputable journalistic practice. If you're going to criticize something somebody has said, quote it, provide links to it.

  • Jayburd||

    I know where there is an upscale lemonade stand you can burglar and no one will call the cops.

  • Michael Cook||

    Tomorrow Trump should fire Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein. Their temp appointed replacements should be told to get busy un-redacting every document reluctantly produced by the DOJ or FBI. Once it is clear that there never existed any reason to suspect Carter Page or any other Trump associate of colluding with Russia other than paid rumors from Hillary partisans, Trump should declare that the Mueller investigation was bogus to begin with, it chased off into the weeds, it has done nothing but terrorize whoever it could into confessions on technicalities, and now it is time to shut it down.

    The day after that, the President needs to appoint a new special counsel who is truly a model of probity and integrity and who will assemble a legal team not from the Beltway and New York City law firms, but from across the nation. These lawyers will be zealous truth seekers. The new special counsel team will have a broad mandate to investigate everything that certain people (whose security clearances are now being revoked) such as McCabe, Clapper, Comey, etc. have been seditiously up to as far back as the Uranium One deal.

    This team will have the complete Mueller/Weissman nasty tool kit, to including everything they need for spying, unmasking, granting selective immunity, turning a blind eye to friends of the President, strong-arming, all manner of threatening (to include family members who might be charged with SOMETHING), and judge shopping techniques in media-friendly towns.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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