MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Howard Schultz Exposes the Ugly Entitlement Driving Democrats: Reason Roundup

Plus: Another way the E.U. "right to be forgotten" is risky, and Baltimore cuts back on pot prohibition

MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS/NewscomMIKE SEGAR/REUTERS/Newscom

The chance that Howard Schultz will actually have any notable effect on the 2020 election is tiny, but the mere possibility of candidates sidestepping the two-party system always draws a nasty show from some majority. Schultz, a longtime CEO of Starbucks who left the company in 2018, said on Sunday that he's seriously considering running for president as an independent candidate. And people from the two ruling political parties are indignant, as they are any time someone has the audacity to not fall into one of their ranks.

If there's one thing both can agree on, it's that third-party or independent challengers and voters should be shamed. Don't they know serious people pick the poison that makes them the least sick but never question why we're poisoning ourselves in the first place?

"None of the explanations coming from Howard Schultz or his advisers answer a very simple question: if he thinks he has a winning message, why can't he run in the Democratic primary? Why does he get to skip that contest? Just because he's a billionaire?" tweeted podcaster Jon Favreau in a post that's gotten almost 40,000 likes.

But none of the questions like these from Favreau and other angry liberals answer a simple question: if Schultz knows his message and politics are out of step with prevailing Democratic orthodoxy and expectations—and Democrats haven't stopped pointing this out since he announced—then why should Schultz run as a Democrat? If both he and seemingly everyone in liberal media agree that his policies hearken back to something that the Democratic Party has passed by, doesn't it make sense to step away from the party? And what's everyone so worried about, anyway?

If the people persuadable by Schultz's platform are really such unimportant relics, then their rallying around a Schultz candidacy shouldn't make a difference to the Democratic candidate. If they are a large and central enough constituency that Schultz's candidacy poses real problems, then Democrats need to reconsider why their party's potential candidates could scare this constituency off. And if the answer is that there's no way for one party to appeal to both whatever crowd its imagined that Schultz will capture plus the younger, more left-leaning, less market-friendly, and Old White Man-averse segments of its intended electorate than that's all the more evidence that Schultz is doing the right thing by splitting off.

Democrats in the Trump era seem to feel more entitled than ever to votes from anyone to the left of lead Republicans. But there are still plenty of people who oppose Trump and yet don't feel obligated to support a Democratic candidate unconditionally. Ignoring that issue is one of many misfires from the party and its mouthpieces in 2016, and it looks like they're doomed to repeat it again.

"It's insane that a single person can credibly threaten to upset the apple cart of presidential politics just in virtue of being rich," tweeted Vox editor Matthew Yglesias, calling the goal of Schult's potential candidacy "something like a billionaire's veto on elections, where if Democrats dare challenge plutocracy too fundamentally they'll be blocked by a self-funded spoiler."

But again, these dastardly billionaires can't and won't ever be spoilers without appealing to a significant number of people at the same time as a Democratic Party candidate alienates or fails to inspire voters. And if they do appeal to a significant number of people as Democrats don't...that's democracy in action, not some unfair and dystopian loophole. Democrats should stop acting like its beneath them to have to actually appeal to voters and persuade and join together a viable coalition.

In other 2020 presidential election developments, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is reportedly having troubles getting her presidential campaign off the ground and a new ABC/Washington Post poll finds 56 percent of respondents saying they would "definitely not" vote for Donald Trump in 2020.

FREE MINDS

Another way the E.U. "right to be forgotten" is risky. "If the surgeon about to operate on you has been disciplined for neglecting patients, wouldn't you like to know?" asks Stewart Baker at Volokh Conspiracy. "Well, the mandarins of European Union privacy law beg to differ. Google has been told by a Dutch court not to tell anyone about the disciplined doctor, and there seems to have been a six-month lag in disclosing even the court ruling."

FREE MARKETS

Baltimore cuts back on pot prohibition. "Jailing people for marijuana possession is a vast and ongoing moral failure," said Baltimore State Attorney Marilyn Mosby. The city has announced that it will stop prosecuting for marijuana unless there's evidence of intent to distribute. Mosby told NBC that "there is no public safety value" in prosecuting possession cases, which disproportionately hit black Baltimore residents, and that these cases are "costly and counterproductive to the limited resources we have in the city of Baltimore."

QUICK HITS

  • Yearly PSA:
  • Perhaps we've found the real reason why President Donald Trump is eager to get American troops out of Syria and Afghanistan: He wants to station them at the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his ongoing political theater there. Several thousand additional troops will be deployed to the border, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
  • A pair of doctors is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene with an emergency stay of an anti-abortion law in Louisiana.
  • At The Bulwark, Molly Jong-Fast explains the current riff between anti-immigration hardliners and Trump-first loyalists in the Republican Party after the president caved on the wall and the shutdown.
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham is betraying Congress, writes Conor Friedersdorf.
  • Oleg Deripaska is getting a lot more scrutiny as the Trump administration lifts sanctions on his company.
  • Harvey Weinstein's lawyers were in court this week fighting a class-action sex trafficking lawsuit against Weinstein. "Two New York federal judges already have ruled that the [2015 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act] can be used in suits against Weinstein, including one who did so on Monday," reports the Associated Press.

Photo Credit: MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS/Newscom

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.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Sen. Lindsey Graham is betraying Congress, writes Conor Friedersdorf.

    and no one likes congress so lindsey graham is a hero?

  • ||

    Hello.

    Harvey who?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Harvey Wallbanger?

  • Dillinger||

    '82 Brewers

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Sen. Lindsey Graham is betraying Congress, writes Conor Friedersdorf.

    Putin has something on him.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Google has been told by a Dutch court not to tell anyone about the disciplined doctor

    cue the hate for... google, i imagine somehow

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This was not an intended consequence of the law, therefore it must be the implementors fault.

  • Bee Tagger||

    While I am not a fan of Schultz (and think his appeal to voters will be very limited) there is a weird sense of entitlement in the way Democrats have been discussing the votes of those people who might theoretically vote for him if he runs.

    entitlement is a good word to use

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Got yelled at by my old lefty high school history teacher in 2016 for promoting GayJay because that should be done at a "better time than during the presidential election". Total entitlement.

  • Kevin Smith||

    Why would you ever think a presidential election is a good time to support a presidential candidate?

  • Number 2||

    Because Democrats like John Kerry, Michael Bloomberg, so Murphy, John Corzine, Patty Murphy and the late Frank Lautenberg are all adamantly opposed to billionaires using their personal wealth to win elections!

  • Bee Tagger||

    The city has announced that it will stop prosecuting for marijuana unless there's evidence of intent to distribute

    they're creating an incentive to bogart

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    More terrible economic news.

    40% of Americans only one missed paycheck away from poverty

    Tragic. But what else can be expected when the President is a Russian intelligence asset who immediately destroyed the Obama economy just as Paul Krugman predicted?

    #DrumpfRecession
    #UnbanPalinsButtplug

    PS — We Koch / Reason libertarians know what will fix the financial problems of the poorest 40% of Americans: more immigration.

  • Don't look at me!||

    It's so crazy it just might work.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    It's really not crazy though. Reason and Cato studies consistently show immigration has plenty of economic benefits and no drawbacks.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And according to Corona commercials all those Latinas are hot tamales.

  • JWatts||

    Well, I'd have to give some credit to the Corona commercial. At the very least, it's probably the least biased source.

  • Sevo||

    This 'one paycheck from starvation' bullshit has been around as lefty whining forever. Note:

    "The findings, from economic advocacy group Prosperity Now,..."
    That's not 'findings', that's an op-ed.

  • ||

    I have a decent amount of dough in U.S. in bank accounts and cash and I'm not even American or an illegal!

    So I find it incredible Americans don't have money in the bank account. To me, we're not getting the full picture.

    This AOC 'people work 100 hours but can't fee their kids' nonsense is beyond belief. If you're working 100 hours and can't buy Spaghetti-O's something is definitely wrong with you.

  • ||

    Heck, my immigrant father managed to buy and sell land in the U.S. and have money in the five digits. We would go to Vermont every so often to check in on the things. I borrowed that cash to start my own business.

    I'm hearing a lot of little violins these days.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Is it true that the Canadian tax man would like to have a word with you and shake you upside down until all the rest of your money falls out?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So I find it incredible Americans don't have money in the bank account.

    No, it's basically right.

    The personal savings rate is low and getting lower.
    http://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT

    Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24.....check.html

    And just anecdotally, it used to be the case that a car loan was a 3-year or 4-year term, rarely 5-year. Now it is common to see 7-year and even 8-year car loan terms, which is absurd. With an 8-year loan, the car has lost almost all of its value before it's even paid off! But I think the reason is because fewer and fewer people are buying cars with cash, and so in order to boost sales, the car dealerships extend the term of the loan to make it seem more affordable with lower payments. But that just places the buyer into deeper debt.

  • H. Farnham||

    Honestly, I think this is the greatest opportunity for libertarians to effect change towards more liberty. If people who value personal accountability and individualism really made the effort to set the example, advocate for, and help their neighbors with personal financial literacy and independence, then it could have massive affects in society overall. The general trend towards ever increasing consumer debt and financial ignorance leads individuals to a feeling of helplessness. More often than not, individuals in that situation look to government to solve their problems.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Even those making over six figures said they struggle to make ends meet, the report said. Nearly 1 in 10 of those making $100,000 or more said they usually or always live paycheck to paycheck, and 59 percent of those in that salary range said they were in the red.

    Anyone who thinks this is an income problem is a retard.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Anyone who thinks this is an income problem is a retard.

    To be fair, living in a major urban area these days is expensive as shit, especially when it comes to housing costs. For young families, the choice is often getting something way out in the exurbs, or some shithole closer to work.

    But yeah, if a lot of these Millennial/Gen Zers would spend less money at their stupid boutique restaurants and bars every week, a lot of them wouldn't have to worry as much about meeting their bills.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly Red Rocks.

    I see young adults eating at fine restaurants where I eat and I'm lower rich as fuck.

    I can see a special occasion but if these kids are out paying $50 for a steak on a regular basis, they have no financial sense.

  • 0x1000||

    Old man claims to be rich, sees others enjoying same restaurant as him, judges an entire generation. Definitely not entitled or collectivist though.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    There is truth in stereotypes.
    Looks at numbers on how many kids cook their own dinner or pack a lunch more than 50% of the time.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Old man claims to be rich,

    Nope, never said that.

    sees others enjoying same restaurant as him, judges an entire generation. Definitely not entitled or collectivist though

    What's the current level of consumer debt, again?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These generations are complaining about money problems and tweet about all the places they go out.

    Its really easy tracking their stupid spending.

    Part of the reason that Im rich is because I eat cheap most days. My family makes large meals and freezes most of it to be cooked as we want to eat them. It gets per meals costs down to $2-3 per meal for good food.

    Take your own water and make your own mixed juices rather than buying expensive retail drinks that cost $2 a pop.

    Do that for 20 years and you save a bunch of money.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a spending problem.

    I saved money in the military and we didn't make shit in pay.

    To be fair, all our housing, food, and medical were taken care of.

  • Sevo||

    "The personal savings rate is low and getting lower."
    It's been rising for the last 15 years.

    "Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck."
    "...according to a recent report from CareerBuilder."
    'Nuff said

  • Jerryskids||

    Unless your paychecks are 3 months apart, you're not going to suddenly be living in poverty over 1 missed paycheck. In a tight? Sure, but getting a disconnect notice from the electric company, a barrage of "past due" notices, your landlord knocking on the door while you're scrounging under the couch cushions for spare change is hardly "poverty" except in the minds of the "living wage" nutjobs who insist absolutely every last person in America is entitled to an above-average income guaranteed.

  • H. Farnham||

    Not living in poverty??? Apparently you've never had to try using your smart phone without wifi or a data plan... or try listening to music on an fm radio because you can't afford any more iTunes downloads... or how bout having to walk well over three quarters of a mile to work because you can't pay for an uber. These are the types of atrocities that should only exist in the third world. #fightforfifteen.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    But again, these dastardly billionaires can't and won't ever be spoilers without appealing to a significant number of people at the same time as a Democratic Party candidate alienates or fails to inspire voters. And if they do appeal to a significant number of people as Democrats don't.... that's democracy in action, not some unfair and dystopian loophole. Democrats should stop acting like its beneath them to have to actually appeal to voters and persuade and join together a viable coalition.

    Their ideology says they represent the 99%. They will never get 99% of the vote, but their ideology says they are entitled either to it or to the power they would get if they received those votes, hence their reaction. They represent you whether you like it or not.

    They represent the 99%, the represent "the environment", they represent "future generations" - they represent all those without the voice necessary to object to being represented by them and to choose someone else.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The chance that Howard Schultz will actually have any notable effect on the 2020 election is tiny...

    He's already having a huge one.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    He's affecting the campaigns, maybe. Political talking points, a little. But the election, not a bit; it hasn't happened yet.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...he wants to station them at the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his ongoing political theater there.

    Still preferable.

  • Don't look at me!||

    +100

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    It's a good, scientific test and learn opportunity.
    Does increased military presence on the border decrease drugs and border hopping?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Does increased military presence on the border decrease drugs and border hopping?

    At least the TDYs would be cheaper, especially if they're using Guard or Reserve manning days.

  • Jerryskids||

    Yes, but it's more than offset by the increase in "sex trafficking", IYKWIMAITYD.

  • Conchfritters||

    Perhaps we've found the real reason why President Donald Trump is eager to get American troops out of Syria and Afghanistan: he wants to station them at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    I think if you asked most soldiers where they would rather be, a majority would pick Texas over a Mid East shithole.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Have you been to El Paso?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I will el paso on El Paso.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Nice vicinity to Hatch, NM.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    New Mexico would be nice if it weren't for all those new Mexicans.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Better food.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>weird sense of entitlement in the way Democrats

    do everything. the (R) jerks too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...the current riff between anti-immigration hardliners and Trump-first loyalists in the Republican Party after the president caved on the wall and the shutdown.

    A riff born from the inability to read a 3D chessboard.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If Schultz knows his message and politics are out of step with prevailing Democratic orthodoxy and expectations—and Democrats haven't stopped pointing this out since he announced—then why should Schultz run as a Democrat?"

    We have a system dominated by two parties in no small part because of Duverger's Law and single member districts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law #Mechanism

    Let's not pretend we don't know this or understand its implications . . . er . . . if you don't understand this, read up on it for goodness' sake.

    This is why the Socialist Party never had a chance of being elected. The best they could hope for is that either a Democrat or a Republican would lift their party platform issues and absorb them making socialism their own, and that's exactly what happened when FDR lifted the Socialist Party platform of 1928.

    http://libertarianmajority.net/ socialist-party-of-america-1928-platform

    Libertarians have little or no hope of ever being elected because of single member districts and Duverger's Law. Our best hope will always be that someone from the two major parties lifts our platform to draw in our support and make our platform their own.

    This is also why Schultz has little or no hope of becoming president as an independent. If Schultz were to win, his independent party might become one of the two new dominant parties, and the party he supplanted would become like the Libertarians or the Greens.

  • Mithrandir||

    To be fair, Schultz's collection of insane social policies with some real talk of cutting spending would be better than the complete and total repulsiveness of the Dems right now.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah. Schultz would be much further to the right than the Democrat will be--even if he's still to the left of Trump if only because to win the primaries, the candidate will need to be more social justice warrior and more socialist than his or her competitors--in order to win the delegates in states with closed primaries. Meanwhile, Schultz is wealthy enough that he doesn't need to compete with Democrat candidates for donations from Democrat donors. But even apart from that?

    In 1992, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote.

    This gave him zero representatives in the electoral college, but it deprived George W Bush of districts and states that he would have won outright otherwise.

    Bush could have carried California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania sans Perot, each of which Bush carried four years earlier.

    For that reason alone--Democrats are right to do everything they can to stop an independent from sucking away support from the Democrat candidate. If Schultz runs and gets five percent of the vote, that may be more than enough to give Trump the election. It would certainly give Trump a huge advantage.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I butchered that, but you get the drift.

  • Mithrandir||

    Agreed. Maybe this is what the Dems need to knock some sense into them, though I'm skeptical at this point if they're even capable of honest self-reflection. The entitlement we're seeing now from them is exactly the same as the entitlement that was spewed toward Stein and Johnson voters after the 2016 election.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats have lost all sense, they never had.

    If you are even considering voting for Democrats, the future of that Party is Kamela Harris, Liz "1/1024? Warren, Joe "Fuck you Ni&" Biden, Hillary "Weekend at Bernie's" Clinton.

    Trump partly made that happen.

  • Mithrandir||

    I would never consider voting for a Dem that didn't seriously talk about entitlement reform and spending cuts (this can be read as I will never vote for a Dem). I'll probably still end up voting for the Libertarian, though of the Libertarian is bad and Schultz actually gives concrete details on spending cuts I might entertain the thought.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Since Dems will never be serious about entitlement reform...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And by "reform" I mean cuts.

  • Mithrandir||

    Yep, exactly that

  • Number 2||

    "This gave him zero representatives in the electoral college, but it deprived George W Bush of districts and states that he would have won outright otherwise."

    Wrong Bush.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Besides the system effects noted by Dueverger, I remember some adage about how Americans confuse sports, religion, and politics.

    When we treat politics like sports, then by god we expect only two teams. Any more would just mess up the field.

    On the other hand, when we treat politics like religion, we rally 'round the messiah. Parties, and their number, matter less.

  • eyeroller||

    We have a system dominated by two parties in no small part because of Duverger's Law and single member districts.

    That seems like it should be true, but it isn't.

    Canada and the UK also have single-member plurality systems, but they elect people from third parties.

    It's a distinctly American problem. It's probably a combination of American culture and bad ballot laws.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Baltimore cuts back on pot prohibition.

    "We want our law enforcement to concentrate on beating citizens for different reasons."

  • Dillinger||

    wtf is "betraying Congress"?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "A cold snap in the teeth of global warming is no more unusual than a cool day in summer. Both happen," one climate scientist said.

    Are record snowstorms proof that global warming isn't happening?

    Funny how evidence of rare super cold winter storms cannot possibly factor into the climate change equation.
    Whatever Happened to Global Cooling?
    They were sure back then without sufficient evidence and they are sure today without sufficient evidence.

  • Conchfritters||

    This is the coldest day in HISTORY!! (checks, notices that climate data only goes back 110 years)

  • Don't look at me!||

    But guess what caused the heat and drought in California.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Nancy Pelosi's armpits?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nancy Pelosi's snuke?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    " tweeted Vox editor Matthew Yglesias, calling the goal of Schult's potential candidacy "something like a billionaire's veto on elections, where if Democrats dare challenge plutocracy too fundamentally they'll be blocked by a self-funded spoiler."

    If Democrats dare challenge plutocracy too fundamentally. LOL. Go read the responses on that twitter thread. These people are so enclosed in their little bubble that they have no clue that the majority of the country sees them as batshit crazy.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The stupidest thing about the party establishment chimpout over this is that this same thing--a billionaire populist running as an independent--is the only reason the Dems ended up with a two-term President in the 1990s, and subsequently gave Hillary Clinton the delusion that she deserved to be President herself.

    Don't expect a limp noodle like Favreau to demonstrate any kind of self-awareness about this, however.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    But The Avengers!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "I'm telling you baby, you always double down on 11."

  • double ham fisted||

    It's like splitting aces.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Don't they know serious people pick the poison that makes them the least sick but never question why we're poisoning ourselves in the first place?

    We all have IBS. The only cure is to starve to death.

  • Conchfritters||

    Whoa, wait, Weinstein is a sex trafficker?? Tha fuck does that term even mean now? Sucking fat blob's dick to get a role in a Tarantino movie is sex trafficking?

  • AlmightyJB||

    All sex is sex trafficking.

    http://abc6onyourside.com/news.....teen-girls

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sex trafficker:

    One who has sex in traffic?

  • ||

    I hope quoting Sad Beard is merely to show how retards think.

    Because I don't see any reason why to ever mention him.

  • SIV||

    This is MAGA comments!

  • Don't look at me!||

    I am literally shaking right now, I can't even.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Maybe you should learn to code.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Code of Bushido?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A1Z26 Code?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    01000010 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010010 01011001 Code?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Code of Hammurabi?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    The Code of the West!

  • Jerryskids||

    I hab a code and I stayed hobe from work until I feel better.

  • Conchfritters||

    This is literally all of us now.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Aka literally genocide.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Finally!

    maga.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    But again, these dastardly billionaires can't and won't ever be spoilers without appealing to a significant number of people at the same time as a Democratic Party candidate alienates or fails to inspire voters

    Don't be dumb, everyone buys their votes these days.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I was Ambassador to Afghanistan. This deal is a surrender.

    Despite how disastrous Drumpf has been on domestic policy, we must remember to denounce his cowardly, irresponsible, Putin-dictated foreign policy as well. President Hillary Clinton would right now be handing the Taliban its final and decisive defeat. Instead we have a Russian puppet who's flushing more than a decade and a half of progress down the drain.

    #StillWithHer
    #LibertariansForStayingInAfghanistan

  • CatoTheChipper||

    This is why it is so important that the #Resistance get behind Kamala Harris and give her their full support now. Not next week, but NOW.

    Kamala is for the people. She checks all the right boxes and we can count on her to prosecute America's wars with all of the zeal that she prosecuted criminals as California AG and with the strategic brilliance of her prosecution of Catholics as US Senator. Kamala checks all the right boxes and she is a genuine progressive.

    The only thing that could stop her is wavering and indecision among Democrats. Look at her opponents:
    - a billionaire capitalist white man who pretends to be progressive. Democrats must loudly shame this poseur NOW.
    - a surfing Hawaiian woman who pretends to be progressive but argues against America's Responsibility to Protect. She says she is of color, but she looks white and is homophobic.
    - a failed candidate in Texas race for US Senate who pretends to be a Latino progressive, but is really a white man with a wishy-washy history of supporting America's wars.

    OBL: If you are really interested in Afghan liberation, it's past time for you to endorse Kamala Harris.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Catholics = Catholic sex traffickers

    On re-reading my note above, it appears to suggest that Kamala has some animus towards Catholics in general. Kamala respects the First Amendment and the freedom of conscience. Like all progressives, Kamala understands that conscience has no place, however, in the administration of justice. Neither do Catholic sex traffickers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Well, Kamala potentially keeps Black Americans from fleeing the Democratic Party right now.

    Not sure why since her Mom was Tamil Indian and her Father was Jamaican.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    woke DNA sequences

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

    The Tamil Tigers used terrorism like suicide belts to assassinate two World leaders.

    Kamala Harris has some suicide bomber blood in her.

  • Jerryskids||

    Kamala Harris has the female and black boxes checked off - anybody know when she's scheduled to go on the Ellen show and drop the bombshell about that one time back in college when she had a brief period of sexual experimentation with the girl next door?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    OBL: If you are really interested in Afghan liberation, it's past time for you to endorse Kamala Harris.

    I've been calling Harris my first choice for President (assuming Hillary Clinton doesn't run) for months now.

    #LibertariansForHarris

  • Conchfritters||

    Even if Hillary doesn't run, isn't it still her turn?

    #stillwithher

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Hillary Clinton is the rightful President of the United States since she won the 2016 election by 3 million votes despite Russian hacking and a biased pro-Drumpf media. It was her turn then, and it will be her turn in 2020 if she decides to run.

    If she doesn't run, though, all I can do is vote for the best available Democrat. Right now that appears to be Kamala Harris.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Perhaps we've found the real reason why President Donald Trump is eager to get American troops out of Syria and Afghanistan: he wants to station them at the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his ongoing political theater there. Several thousand additional troops will be deployed to the border, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.

    Sorry but this sounds like a galactically stupid complaint.

  • JWatts||

    "Sorry but this sounds like a galactically stupid complaint."

    Which part of Trump did you miss. Even when Trump does something that on surface makes logical sense, it must be opposed because Trump did it.

    Sure some people might point out that Troops in Syria are a far worse thing than Troops in Texas. But they don't understand #TehResistance

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is reportedly having troubles getting her presidential campaign off the ground

    Not surprising. Democrats and the media only like "mavericks" when they're Republicans undermining their own party.

  • Don't look at me!||

    The media has already made their choice , and it ain't you baby.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Feel the Burn?

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Tulsi Gabbard doesn't support America's wars.

    That's all you need to know to assess her probability of success, which is zero.

    There are differences between successful Democrats and successful Republicans: how fast they want to grow the welfare/warfare state, the relative split of resources to be squandered on welfare and warfare (55/45 versus 60/40 are the respectable limits; the argument is at the margins), the distribution of the welfare spoils, and the ideal place for America's next war.

    But no Democrat or Republic can succeed if she actually questions the American Greatness that makes the US the Indispensable Nation with the Responsibility to Protect, which requires the application of kinetic military resources under US command wherever benighted souls oppose American interests. War is the health of the state. Team America!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You might have something there.

    Trump mentioned multiple times on the campaign trial about leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why Rubio and Cruz were running. To keep the endless wars going.

  • John||

    I never would have believed it until my second tour in Iraq but the amount of money that is made off of US interventions abroad is so great that there is no way it doesn't greatly influence the elite consensus that the US must play policeman to the world. I don't think that it is as simple as pure greed. I think the people who argue for this really believe it. But, their believing it is often just them looking for a rationalization to justify the money they make and also the importance that these interventions give their proponents. If there was less money to be made, people would think a lot more clearly about them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I see the logic in fighting the enemy in foreign lands to keep the fight away from the USA. The problem is that what these people call enemies are not necessarily enemies.

    Saddam Hussein was not really my enemy. Iran kept Iraq in check and vice versa.

    The other problem is that these Neo-Cons have been at it for so many decades that the World is seriously violent now. Before WWII, much of the 3rd World was very isolated and not able to cause much trouble.

    Protecting shipping routes is important but had oil prices remained high, we might have developed fracking tech faster and became the oil exporter we have become. The Middle East oil prices would drop and the Muslim fanatics would have less money to spend to kill us.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The major party whiners can't seem to grasp the idea that voters deprived of the option of choosing an independent or third party candidate may just not bother to show up at all, so to assume that all of the votes cast for such a candidate were "stolen" from the major parties is bullshit.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Imagine the silence is Oprah ran as an independent.

  • Don't look at me!||

    I dunno, she's a billionaire. Could go either way.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "None of the explanations coming from Howard Schultz or his advisers answer a very simple question: if he thinks he has a winning message, why can't he run in the Democratic primary?"

    Because they're too polite to say out loud that the Democrats are a pack of self-absorbed douchenozzles?

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Molly Jong-Fast is a progressive feminist loser, whose only real value is gathering low IQ leftist internet trolls. Her article suggests there's a big split in the republican party?

    HMMMM HMMMMM

    I wonder if there's any other parties split and worth discussing? Maybe the huge riff in the democratic party about full scale socialism?

    Nah, it's the republicans that are in disarray, over a three week delay. All three examples she gave are obviously way more juicy than a party in panic mode.

  • Brandybuck||

    Democrats are indignant about independent candidates because it's okay if someone runs as a Republican because no right thinking person would vote for them, but an independent might actually hemorrhage Democrat voters even faster than they currently are. And Republicans don't like independents because they think it's some sort of conspiracy to have more than one Democrat on the ballot.

  • Kevin Smith||

    "None of the explanations coming from Howard Schultz or his advisers answer a very simple question: if he thinks he has a winning message, why can't he run in the Democratic primary? Why does he get to skip that contest? Just because he's a billionaire?"

    A much better question would be why should the democratic primary be the ultimate gatekeeper of who is allowed to run for president?

  • John||

    Yes. That is a good question. The other question that arises from that is how crazy has the Democratic party become for someone as old school liberal as Schultz to feel they have no chance in the primary?

  • Jerryskids||

    Trump's running in the Democratic primary, ain't he? If he's not, he's missing an opportunity.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm sympathetic to the argument that the government has no business interfering in markets as it seems to be doing with Huawei, but my sympathy goes out the window once we start talking about criminal prosecution.

    The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and if executives at Huawei are violating other people's rights through fraud and theft, then the government should be obligated to criminally prosecute the offenders.

    Even in the case of the sanctions violations--regardless of whether you agree with the sanctions--several banks innocently violated those sanctions because they were defrauded by Huawei executives. After all, the question isn't only whether a Huawei executive violated sanctions. It's also whether she subjected several banks and their shareholders to liability they wouldn't have suffered were it not for that Huawei's fraud.

    If she willingly signed off on those assurances under penalty of perjury with the completely knowledge that they were fraudulent, then she should be free to exercise her right to an attorney, her right to a jury, her right to remain silent, . . . Did she knowingly and purposely direct the theft of other companies' and their shareholders' property? Maybe well connected families don't need to worry about criminal prosecution in China, but one of the great things about the USA is that we have better norms that way.

  • John||

    If you have any understanding of the rules of economics, you can pretty much tell the effects of not interfering with the market or see the effects after they happen. You can't tell perfectly but you can tell with just as much or more certainty than you can predict or determine the effects of interfering with the market.

    What free market advocates often fail to understand is that not interferring with the market is a policy choice with a set of outcomes just like interferring with the market. Market advocates often try to avoid defending the effects of their policies by pretending that not interferring with the market is always the perfect ideal such that no one could ever object. And this is just nonsense. I prefer the free market as much as anyone. But I do so because I like the results of the market not because I see the free market as some end in itself that does not need to be justified by its results. People are perfectly entitled to object to the results produced by not interfering with the market and it is incumbant on those who support that policy to defend those results just as much as it is those who want government action to defend and justify that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I would argue that prosecuting criminals who seek to dominate the market through theft and fraud is about preserving the ability of individuals who participate and compete in markets to do so freely.

    I don't see that as interfering in the market so much as I see it as preserving the market.

    Market forces aren't abstract ideas or formulas. Market forces are people making choices.

    Rights are the obligation to respect other people's ability to make choices for themselves. What do "property rights" mean if not that you have an obligation to respect my choices about who gets to use something, when it's used, how it's used, etc? If the government prosecutes you for violating my property rights, that isn't interfering in the market. The market is people making choices. You violated my right to make a choice. The government is protecting the market by prosecuting thieves, not interfering with market forces. It's the criminals, who through theft and fraud, are interfering with the market.

  • John||

    I agree. Enforcing laws on fraud and such things is absolutley necessary for a market to function properly and should not be considered interference with the market.

  • John||

    Chris Cuomo proves once agains there is no such thing as peak stupid.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m.....o-n2540441

    MSNBC's Chris Hayes took to Twitter to lecture us about the "least sexy part of socialism," adding that it's grounded in "effective, efficient bureaucratic administration but the project lives or dies based on it.

    He actually said that and actually believes it. You know what the sexiest thing about socialism is? The camps. All of the hard work, fresh air, and re-education you get in the camps is so sexy. You meet the nicest people among the zekes.

    God these people are terrifying.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They genuinely believe that the problem with the socialism bus is not that the steering doesn't work and there are no brakes. They honestly believe that all the problems can be resolved by getting the right bus driver.

    We just need a bus driver that really cares about people. Black people, Hispanic people, gays, lesbians, if only we had a bus driver that really cares about all people, and could direct the bureaucracy properly, then socialism and central planning would work just fine.

  • John||

    Worse than that, the fact that no one has ever been able to create this efficient bureacracy that they are always certain they can achieve never causes them to consider the possibility that perhaps creating it is harder than they think it is. Everyone who has ever established a socialist government was certain their bureacracy was going to be different and work this time. Every one of them was wrong. It never occurs to the current generation of socialists to even try and explain how their plane is different and will work where everyone else has failed. They just know it will.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    TOP BUS DRIVERWOMAN

    I'm using that.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    These people are ants. They worship complexity as a cargo cult, and there's nothing that's more complex than a ever-growing, corporatized government bureaucracy.

    They honestly believe that Tainter's studies on the collapse of these types of societies has no bearing on what goes on today. "This time it will be different! We just need the right people in charge! If only you ingrates stopped resisting against your self-interests!" No wonder they get so pissed when you call them NPCs.

  • John||

    Like I say above to Ken, they absolutely believe that this time will be different and don't even think they need to explain or try and understand how. They just know it will be. It really is a cult.

  • Brandybuck||

    "We'll give Obama all the power because finally we have the right man in charge! Give him all the power! He will use is wisely! He is the immortal God King who will rule us forever!"

    [pay no attention to the election around the corner...]

  • John||

    Like I say above to Ken, they absolutely believe that this time will be different and don't even think they need to explain or try and understand how. They just know it will be. It really is a cult.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties hate history. The ones that have to control Academia twist history to fit their goals.

    Knowing history requires people to pause sometimes and consider the historical consequences of their intended path.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Cargo cult--good one!

    And like cargo culters, they see only superficial components without any deeper understanding, and then invent their childish cause-effect explanations. When these models do not work, they get whiny and dance harder.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    No. The gulag was bad -- really, really bad -- and definitely unsexy. But it wasn't the least sexy thing.

    The least sexy thing is socially engineered starvation and cannibalism.

  • John||

    Working yourself to an early grave creating the socialist paradise was sexy Cato.

  • Brian||

    If Democrats are worried they can't talk Howard Schultz voters out of it, resulting in 4 more years of Trump (truly, a national disaster), then there's only one thing to do:

    Democrats: vote for Howard Schultz. All of you. For the sake of the country.

  • John||

    This is the same sort of nonsense that goes on between Republicans and Libertarians. Republicans say Libertarians must vote Republicans to stop the Democrats. Libertarians say if stopping the Democrats is so important vote Libertarian. They both have a point and one side has to give up and go along with the other if they want to accomplish anything but nothing says it must be either particular side.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The great thing is now the Democratic Party is imploding and Black Americans are leaving in droves.

    Soon it will be Republicans vs Libertarians on election day.

  • Brandybuck||

    The flaw in that thinking is the premise that one must always vote against something, but never for something. It's an incredibly negative outlook. Always voting against evil means one never gets to vote for good. It's what is driving our political culture into the gutter.

  • John||

    The voter doesn't always have to vote against something. Most of the time they do not. The problem is that sometimes they do. Sometimes the other side really is that bad and are the Bolshaviks or the Communists. And you don't know for sure if they really are that bad until they get in power and it is too late. But, that doesn't relieve people of the duty to try and see and stop evil when it arises. Yeah, most of the time the two sides are just reasonable people who disagree and are at worst very mistaken. In those cases, there is no obligation to vote against anything. But when one side really is evil and bent on doing real and irreversible harm, then you do have an obligation to vote against them even if it means supporting flawed people to stop them.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "And people from the two ruling political parties are indignant, as they are any time someone has the audacity to not fall into one of their ranks.

    If there's one thing both can agree on, it's that third-party or independent challengers and voters should be shamed.

    1. Can someone point me to the list of Republicans attacking/shaming Schultz?

    2. 2 days ago, I predicted Schultz would be torn to pieces by the left, AND I predicted he would be attacked for being wealthy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Can someone point me to the list of Republicans attacking/shaming Schultz?"

    Schultz is hurting the Democrats if he runs as an independent, so the Republicans aren't about to criticize him. There are plenty of Republicans who attack Libertarians for the same thing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A major difference is that there are Anarchists and Lefties in Libertarian circles actively trying to sabotage the Libertarian movement. There are Democrats in the GOP actively trying to destroy the Republican Party.

    No Republicans that I have ever heard about and few Libertarians are in the Democrat Party.

  • Knutsack||

    "None of the explanations coming from Howard Schultz or his advisers answer a very simple question: if he thinks he has a winning message, why can't he run in the Democratic primary?"

    He learned from Hillary and Bernie. No matter how popular his message or support, it won't matter. Elite Dems gonna pick who elite Dems gonna pick. Why run in a primary that is going to be rigged?

  • John||

    Exactly. It is obvious why he isn't running in the primaries, he has no realistic chance of winning. It is better that he run as a third party from the start then run in the primaries and then refuse to support the nominee when he doesn't win.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    ^ THIS.

  • Brandybuck||

    True. Warren has already been chosen as the nominee. Don't upset her apple cart. Run as a Democrat and if you prove yourself worth maybe you'll get a cabinet post.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But we do need a political charade, so it looks like a democratic process, right?

  • Tony||

    We've lived under the dogma that taxes on rich people can only ever go down for like my entire life. Let's try something else, what with the trillion-dollar deficits, how bout?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|1.30.19 @ 10:55AM|#
    "We've lived under the dogma that taxes on rich people can only ever go down for like my entire life."

    It's "dogma" if you don't like it, shitbag?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "We've lived under the dogma that taxes on rich people can only ever go down for like my entire life."

    Well, actually, both Clinton and Obama raised tax rates at the upper end, so...…

    And that'll happen again someday, maybe in a couple of years if Trump continues to alienate people. Tax rates go up, tax rates go down, it's the circle of life. The problem is that most of the declared Democrats have crossed the line toward crazy. And I think deep down the progressives know it, otherwise why be scared of Schultz? If your ideas are popular, then beat him with those ideas.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Suddenly you're concerned with the government running a deficit? Great! Welcome to the club! Sorry to break it to you though, but even taking *all* that ill-gotten fat-cat millionaire and billionaire money won't make any kind of dent in the deficit.

    But I suspect you know that. You just want to take stuff from people.

  • Brian||

    It's fun: pretending we don't want to tax the hell out of normal people, isn't it?

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    You haven't lived very long, son.

  • Juice||

    Didn't Clinton and Obama both raise the top marginal rates?

  • librich||

    The Demo flap over Schultz reminds me of the flawed reasoning of the anti-communist hawks during the cold war. Free markets and capitalism will triumph, they would say; communism is destined to fail. And then they would insist on intervening in Korea and Vietnam and Latin America in order to hold back the communist tide. Clearly these people didn't believe in capitalism. As it turned out, the militarism was misguided and unnecessary. Communism was, in fact, destined to fail; and it failed on its own.

    Demos are using the same illogic. Howard Schultz has nothing to offer, but we're going to fight like hell to prevent him from voicing his views. This demonstrates a serious lack of conviction about the Demo agenda, by the Demos themselves.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Clearly these people didn't believe in capitalism. As it turned out, the militarism was misguided and unnecessary. Communism was, in fact, destined to fail; and it failed on its own.

    Sure, in hindsight. But as late as the early 1980s, the conventional wisdom amongst the western smart set was that the US was on the decline and the Soviet Union was here to stay, and that we needed to just accept it and figure out how to come to some sort of détente with them. That's why Reagan's sword-rattling towards the Soviets pissed them off so much.

    Anyone claiming that they knew in 1982 that the Berlin Wall would be destroyed and the Soviet Union would fall apart within ten years is lying through their teeth.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN SPEECH ON SOVIET UNION,Special to the New York Times NOV. 14, 1982

    Some people, like Reagan, saw an internal weakness of the USSR but nothing like the collapse starting in 1989.

  • John||

    Communism only seemed destined to fail after you found out it would. As Red Rocks says above, virtually no one saw the fall of communism coming. One of the things that the establishment most hated about Reagan was that he felt that the West could win the Cold War and should confront and tell the truth about communism. The elite consensus before Reagan was that Communism was just as strong and many believed stronger than Western Democracy and was never going to be defeated. Therefore, confronting it and doing anything but appeasing it was just unnessecarily creating the risk of nuclear war.

    Further, when you look at the results of the military interventions and the contrast between places like South Korea, Indonesia, ultimatley Japan, Taiwan, Western Europe that our intervention or promise of intervention saved from communism and compare them to how it turned out for places like Cuba, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and others where we didn't intervene or failed to stop communism it is pretty hard to argue that the interventions were not worth it.

    The other thing is that one of the things that brough communism down was its failure to expand. Had the US allowed the communist block to exand at will across the globe, it would have taken a lot longer for them to run out of other people's money and finally collapse.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Had the US allowed the communist block to exand at will across the globe, it would have taken a lot longer for them to run out of other people's money and finally collapse."

    ^This John.

    The USSR bought wheat from the USA multiple years. That should have raised red flags galore since the Ukraine should have been able to produce almost enough wheat for the USSR all no its own.

    Eastern Europe never recovered from WWII to provide the USSR with vast wealth, so Communism just ground down its wealth until people would not take it anymore.

    Minor containment of Communism without risking many American lives was seemingly the best strategy. Getting involved in Vietnam, just wasted American lives and allowed Communism to last longer than it would have otherwise.

  • Brian||

    "Central planning" equals "central point of failure." Every time.

    You'd think people who care so much about "diversity" and "inclusion" would get that. So, speaking of evolution, what's the value of diversity? Oh, surviving hardships and threats that take down some, but not others, right? Hey! Good idea! Diversity!

    "OK, now everyone fall in lockstep behind this 5 year plan wherein everyone must obey our direct economic commands..."

    When everyone has to obey, but the only people who survive are those who disobey...

    Eh, whatever: I love parades!

  • Brandybuck||

    People DID think it would collapse. They knew it was unsustainable. They just thought that it the Soviet expansionism kept the going, that it wouldn't collapse until it could no longer expand.

  • John||

    Some people did but those people were in a very small minority. The fact that it did collapse doesn't alone prove your point. You assume that it would have collapsed no matter what. But there is no reason to believe that. It hasn't collapsed in North Korea or Cuba on its own despite those places degenerating into misery beyond even that inflicted on the populations of Russia and China.

    Would communism collapsed on its own had the US done nothing to confront it? It is possible but we will never know. I think it is pretty certain, however, that had the US never confronted communism, communism would have enslaved many more people and done much more damage than it did even if it finally collapsed on its own.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Gorbachev knew that change was coming. He tried to control it but the demand was too high and his supply wasn't enough. The horse was out of the barn and the Warsaw Pact soon followed. Good times.

  • John||

    Yes Gorbachev knew it was unsustainable. But that was in 1985. Before that, the Communists believed they would win. Moreover, while after the famous Kruschev speech in 1956 admitting the evils of Stalin many in Russia no longer believed in the future of Communism, very few in the West stopped believing.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    More cop on cop [WARNING autoplay] violence.

  • Brian||

    "Vox editor Matthew Yglesias," super-pussy.

  • John||

    It is a bit of a joke to say Yglesias is autistic or mentally deficient in some way but I really think it is true. There is just something wrong with him. I don't know if it is genetic or maybe his mother had a high fever or something when she was pregnant or what, but whatever it is, Yglesias is not on the normal spectrum of intelligence and emotional maturity.

  • Brian||

    His face just screams "PUNCH ME!"

    Chris Hayes, too.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Newt Gingrich. I can just picture my fist sinking into his ball-of-pizza-dough-face.

  • Brian||

    Amen.

  • John||

    Gingrich is just a typical sleezy politician. Yglesias is something different. There is something just not normal or right about him.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    If Matt is atypical, as you say, that may not be his choice. Newt, on the other hand, has made numerous informed choices that call for putting my fist in the dough.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I had to look up what he looks like. To me, he just looks like your average overweight, balding cubicle-dweller.

    He definitely did not inherit his father's or brother's looks, nor do I expect he inherited their singing voices. But who knows? Maybe he totally blows everyone away on karaoke night.

  • Jerryskids||

    But there are still plenty of people who oppose Trump and yet don't feel obligated to support a Democratic candidate unconditionally. Ignoring that issue is one of many misfires from the party and its mouthpieces in 2016, and it looks like they're doomed to repeat it again.

    I would say ignoring that issue is the primary misfire and they haven't learned a damn thing. They seriously do believe they're the party of the future, the party of light and good and truth and beauty and anybody who disagrees with them is nothing but evil black-hearted demon-spawn Nazis. That was the lesson they took from the election of 2008, the forces of good had triumphed and despite all the best efforts of that large part of the country who are racists and misogynists and anti-gay and all the rest - i.e., Republican - the darkness had been defeated never to rise again. It's why the ran Hillary - it made no difference who they ran, the victory was pre-ordained.

    And now they're doing it again - all you have to do is not be Trump and you can stroll right into the Oval Office. Everybody they know hates Trump, how can he possibly expect to win a second term? Look at his polling numbers - they're no different than they were in 2015 or 2016 or 2017 or 2018, nobody's voting for a guy with those kinds of numbers!

  • John||

    Trump's approval numbers are meaningless. Trump is basically running against himself right now. There is no Democrat to compare him to. It doens't matter what people think or say they think of Trump. What matters is what they think of Trump compared to the Demcorat who runs against him. Right now Trump is being compared to whatever everyone's ideal President is. When the election comes he will be compared to an actual Democrat. And being preferable to an actual candidate is a much easier task than gaining general approval from the electorate.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Perhaps we've found the real reason why President Donald Trump is eager to get American troops out of Syria and Afghanistan: He wants to station them at the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his ongoing political theater there. Several thousand additional troops will be deployed to the border, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.

    Without debating the wisdom of this move, I will simply ask: Why do we have a military in the first place if another agency is responsible for stopping people from entering our country uninvited?

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Shouldn't "Baltimore cuts back on pot prohibition." be under Free Minds?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Perhaps we've found the real reason why President Donald Trump is eager to get American troops out of Syria and Afghanistan: He wants to station them at the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his ongoing political theater there. Several thousand additional troops will be deployed to the border, the Pentagon announced Tuesday."

    American troops protecting America instead of Syria and Afghanistan.
    America First in action.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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