Impeachment

Does It Matter That Impeachment Enthusiasts Are Lousy on Foreign Policy?

The Reason Roundtable panelists ask: Why so many hawks in the anti-Trump clump?

|

What have we learned after the second week of the House impeachment inquiry, aside from the fact that President Donald Trump abuses power and says crazy things while pretty much everybody else rationalizes one way or the other? One persistent peculiarity, argue Nick Gillespie, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch on the Reason Roundtable podcast, is that so, so many of the president's greatest antagonists are—like many in the permanent foreign policy apparatus—more interventionist on foreign policy than your average Joe. So how exactly should that color our opinion of the proceedings?

In addition to disagreeing about that, the quarrelsome quartet bickers over best and worst in the Democratic presidential field, discusses the origin-story theology of The Fantastic Four, makes an uncomfortable menstruation metaphor, and ponders just how many of Sacha Baron-Cohen's anti–social media ideas should be thrown down the well.

SPEAKING OF HOLES: A final reminder that with our annual Webathon lurking around the corner, The Reason Roundtable is soliciting your questions, queries, praise, and abuse, for the purpose of a special bonus Webathon AMA episode. Email your queries to podcasts@reason.com, por favor!

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music credit: 'Russian Dance' by Joey Pecoraro

Relevant links from the show:

"Trump Team Plotted Post-Hoc Justification for Withholding Ukraine Aid, Emails Suggest," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"The Evidence That Trump Abused His Powers Is Clear and Convincing," by Jacob Sullum

"Judge Napolitano: Enough Evidence 'To Justify About Three or Four Articles of Impeachment,'" by Nick Gillespie

"As Impeachment Moves Forward, Trump's Story Changes," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"House Republicans Are Spreading 'Fictional Narrative' on Ukrainian Election Interference, Says Former Top White House Adviser," by Billy Binion

"'We Followed the President's Orders': Gordon Sondland Says There Was a Quid Pro Quo," by Billy Binion

"Kurt Volker Revises Testimony and Says Corruption Allegations Against Biden Are 'Not Credible,'" by Billy Binion

"White House Adviser: Trump Didn't Actually Seem to Care About Fighting Corruption in Ukraine," by Billy Binion

"Wanted: A Dem Presidential Candidate Who Defends Individualism, Capitalism, Non-Interventionism," by Nick Gillespie

"Cory Booker Just Crushed Joe Biden Over His Tepid Support for Marijuana Legalization," by Eric Boehm

"Booker Says Warren's Wealth Tax Would Destroy Economic Growth," by Billy Binion

"Cory Booker Pushes for Greater Democratic Support for Charter Schools," by Scott Shackford

"The Anybody-but-Warren Primary," by Peter Suderman

"Sacha Baron Cohen's Anti-Facebook Rant at the ADL Summit Was Pure Moral Panic," by Robby Soave

"Martin Scorsese Is a Grumpy Old Fart—and Wrong About the State of 'Cinema,'" by Nick Gillespie

"Reviews: The Irishman and Terminator: Dark Fate," by Kurt Loder

"Nobody Knows What Television Is Anymore," by Peter Suderman

"The Reason Podcast Is Now 3 Great New Podcasts. Subscribe!" by Katherine Mangu-Ward

NEXT: Ilhan Omar's $1 Trillion Housing Proposal Is an Expensive Joke

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.

  1. A final reminder that with our annual Webathon lurking around the corner…

    Goddammit.

    1. Is a t<Reason totebag worth your immortal soul?

      Just…

      say…

      NO.

    2. With Charles Koch’s net worth stagnating in the $58,000,000,000 to $62,000,000,000 range because of the #DrumpfRecession, the rest of us will need to be especially generous this year.

      1. I continue to see what you are doing here…

        Carry on!

    3. hAnnAh. i cAn see whAt your sAying… elizAbeth`s storry is AmAzing… on sundAy i got A brAnd new hondA from eArning $9023 this lAst four weeks And even more thAn 10-k this pAst month. with-out Any doubt it’s the most finAnciAlly rewArding i’ve ever hAd. i stArted this 8-months Ago And pretty much strAight AwAy wAs bringing home over $71… per-hr. i use this greAt link, go to this site home tAb for more detAil…../.morning6.com

  2. uncomfortable menstruation metaphor

    Nice band name. But is that “(uncomfortable menstruation) metaphor” or “uncomfortable (menstruation metaphor)”?

    1. Good name for an all girl lesbian punk band.

      1. Hey, John — do you remember The Fugs?

        1. No. My knowledge of lesbian punk bands is a bit lacking I am afraid.

          1. Oh, you’re *waaayyyy* off!

            1. I will have to google it. Sorry I don’t get the reference.

              1. Here’s a, um, taste. (NSFW)

                  1. Do You Wear Your Jock A Lot?

  3. The foreign policy elite in this country gets rich off of US interventions and aid. Why do you suppose they all think we have this “sacred duty” to defend Ukraine, one of the most corrupt governments on earth, and not any of Russia’s other neighbors? If we gave the aid to Finland or Poland, it wouldn’t be so easy for them to steal.

    To quote another impeachment saga, “follow the money”. They are all hawks because that is what pays the bills.

    1. Here’s the best article I found on the details of the military aid package to Ukraine: https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/

      “The State Department funding included $115 million for a broad array of purposes, to buy American-produced weapons through the Foreign Military Financing program…”

      I’m going to venture a guess that a lot of military aid packages include terms requiring the money be spend on weapons made by American companies.

      1. Yes they do. They are nothing but corporate welfare in many cases.

        1. Military Industrial Complex = Deep State

    2. Trump’s drone strikes and civilian deaths exceed those under Obama. He even got rid of the requirement that civilian deaths from drone strikes need to reported. But yes, let’s keep perpetuating the fake news that Trump’s foreign policy is somehow less interventionist than his predecessors.

  4. Don’t worry reason, if some other “good President” comes along and starts to really mess with their gravy train and actually end US interventions, I am sure they won’t do what they are doing to Trump. No, it will be different then, because Orange Man Bad or something.

    So just go ahead and keep uncritically repeating the disinformation put out by the Deep State. Doing that could never be at odds with your stated goal of ending US interventions. Never.

    1. I think you’d be surprised with the content of the podcast. There is agreement that:
      1. There is a deep state
      2. The DS hate Trump for multiple reasons
      3. The DS DGAF what the American people want

      And I mean agreement. Not a single one of them argued otherwise.

    2. Who do you think started the AntiAmericanism in the Middle East? WE DID. When we meddled in their political affairs. We Put Saddam Hussein in power during the Cold War. Then we turn a blind eye when he starts killing the Kurds in mass. Not to mention Iraq was the first one to use WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Chemical Weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam Hussein was the only one that was able to keep a tight lid on the sectarian violence. For 30 years the sectarian hatred would simmer and fester. When we invaded Iraq after 9/11 And removed Hussein who was then tried and executed we did not realize that we would create a power vacuum. Sure enough when we pulled out ISIS ROSE. So no we can not stay out of it. Or I guess we could. But the Terrorists will continue TO MURDER OUR PEOPLE abroad. Attack our Embassies etc.

  5. These jokers are only now just putting it together that there is a bipartisan effort to maintain the foreign policy status quo at all cost? Somebody get Scott Horton over here to set these asshats straight.

    1. Each of them said it multiple times in so many words; “Trump was undermining US policy”. They are so steeped in this belief they don’t even think to hide it. They think that they not the public through its elected President set US policy. Trump undermining that policy is justification for his removal. This is what they believe.

      And reason agrees with them, because they are all about an unelected, unaccountable hawkish bureaucracy running US policy or something.

  6. “There’s nothing illegal about it,” Giuliani told the Times of his trip to Ukraine. “Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”

    Ahahahaha… ladies and gentleman, I give you… {bum, kazoo noise} Rudy Giuliani lawyer ??? For the President.

      1. Schiff (D-CA) has repeatedly beaten the impeachment drum, saying the American people do want to “get to the bottom”

        “You can’t handle the bottom!”

        1. I would be willing to bet Schiff is pretty good about being the bottom.

          Pelosi knows.

      2. It’s more nuanced than that. The story you link to suggests that Democrats in districts that voted for Trump might be reluctant to vote for actual articles of impeachment. On it’s face that’s not so surprising because Trump’s base is extremely loyal to him and nothing that has come out so far has really shaken that loyalty.

        I suppose you could argue that that indicates that the inquiry has fallen flat, but 1) I don’t think Trump’s base is the best gauge of that and 2) the 538 composite polling still shows that support for impeachment and removal is higher now than it was at the in the later half of September.

        Now, support for impeachment and removal is still 50% since early October, but it’s unclear what exactly that means).

        They break it down by party and the picture seems pretty clear. Support for impeachment among Republicans is still low, among Democrats is still high, and among independents has gone up but not really crossed the 50% threshold. In the short term that means that this has probably been damaging for Trump, but certainly not enough to get the Senate to turn on him (the chances of that were always near zero), and probably not enough to linger and to be decisive in the general election.

        1. Support for impeachment among Republicans is still low, among Democrats is still high, and among independents has gone up but not really crossed the 50% threshold

          That is just untrue. The polls are saying impeachment is alienating independents, which is helping Trump not hurting him. And it is alienating independents in swing states which is even worse

          http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/new-poll-suggests-democrats-impeachment-push-could-alienate-key-voters

          Beyond that, if Democrats from Trump districts won’t vote for impeachment, it dies in the House and never goes to the Senate. That would be an unmitigated disaster for Democrats. They couldn’t make any credible claim that any of this matters when they couldn’t get their own majority to vote for it.

          There is no way to spin this as anything but a disaster for the Democrats. They wasted the country’s time, convinced no one, and managed to alienate swing voters in states they have to win.

          1. That poll is actually included by 538. Other polls have different results. The composite polling suggests that support for impeachment among independents has gone down from its high point in mid-October (which was still below 50%) but is also up relative to where it was prior to the start of the Ukraine issue.

            I thought I had made that exact point in my previous post, but apparently it got lost during some editing. My bad on that front. But that is my basis for saying that it probably has been somewhat damaging, but probably not enough to make a significant difference in the general election.

            1. The longer it goes on the worse it is for Democrats as more independents get turned off by it. But they can’t stop because doing so will demoralize their base. Meanwhile unless they can find something that turns the polls around, they are left with the prospect of expecting House members from Trump districts to commit political suicide by voting for it in the House or having it fail in the House which would enrage and demoralize their base.

              It is hard to see how this works out well for the Democrats. Either it gets out of the House and they probably sacrifice their majority in order to do so or it dies in the House and they suffer even more damage as their base loses their minds after being told Trump was going to be impeached for three years only to have the Democrats themselves fail to get the votes necessary to do it.

        2. ” the 538 composite polling shoes”

          No one cares.

          1. 538 is a lagging indicator. The bottom dropped out of the polls last week once the hearings started. Also, 538 just averages every poll regardless of how badly it is weighted or how much it is a push poll.

            You can’t trust anything that comes from that website.

            1. “You can’t trust anything that comes from that website.”

              So true.

            2. 538 just averages every poll

              No they don’t. From the website:

              Our averages are calculated similarly to how we handle presidential approval ratings, which means we’re accounting for the quality of the pollster and each pollster’s house effects (whether they seem to yield unusually good or bad numbers for impeachment compared with the polling consensus). In cases where the pollster does not provide sample sizes by party, it is calculated based on the percentage of total respondents who identify with the party.

              You may not agree with the methodology, but they are not just taking a straight average.

              1. I don’t trust how they weigh the polls. I can’t remember the last time 538 got anything right. Nate Silver is one of the biggest con artists in public life. The entire thing is based on gas lighting the public while leaving just enough margin for error to claim whatever result was within the realm of possible predicted outcomes.

                1. Isn’t Nate Silver the same asshole who assured America that Crooked Hillary was a sure thing…?

  7. No, it only matters whether the facts prove a “high crime” was committed. Even if the story the impeachment people want to tell is proven true, I expect the Senate will decide it’s not a “high crime”.

    So far they only have conjecture about the motive. And without a sinister motive, it’s just a delay in funding that Trump has an innocent explanation for and that didn’t benefit Trump or anyone else.

    Only 2 things left:
    – prove the story
    – convince the Senate it amounts to a high crime

    1. They have zero direct evidence of the story. All they have is people who have an opinion based on second hand information that in most cases was provided to each other. The entire thing is based on thin air. Yet, reason keeps pushing the same disinformation that it was proven.

      1. I had to (bitterly) laugh at how Meet The Press treated Sondland’s testimony yesterday. “Presumed” slam dunk, even though he admitted he basically had nothing. Of course, this is not a trial.

    2. There literally cannot be a “sinister” motive
      Unless one believes there is no appearance of possible corruption of US officials, including Biden, in Ukraine

      1. And, should this be stupidly sent to the Senate that is exactly what they will spend an inordinate amount of time establishing – that the Biden’s created such an appearance of impropriety that seeking an investigation was prudent and in the interests of the U.S. especially since we were giving them a pile of cash.

    3. “sinister”

      Fuck you.

  8. On the House side, Republicans likewise encountered challenges digging into allegations of Ukraine interference in the 2016 election. While Trump has sought to press an unsupported theory that Ukraine was tied to Democratic National Committee hacking,

    Absolutely! I can’t wait until the Senate gets to investigate— presumably with Alex Jones as their star witness. It’s about time we get to the bottom of how Vincent Foster was killed with the candlestick by the butler over CROWDSTRIKE!. I can’t wait!

    1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-york-times-memory-holes-its-own-report-that-ukraine-interfered-in-2016-election
      You mean witnesses from the New York Times and Politico? Both of whom reported on Ukrainian interference in the election? Does Alex Jones write for the New York Times? Big if true.

      1. If that report was part of a larger disinformation campaign by Russia, I’d like to know when the Times plans on issuing a retraction.

        Isn’t memory-holing the ultimate retraction?

        1. In fairness, the Times has a long history going back to the 1930s of repeating Russian propaganda as fact. So, there is that.

          1. “All The News That Causes John Fits”

            1. Watching a newspaper that still proudly claims the Pulitzer Prize given to Walter Duranty for his coverage of the great Ukrainian famine now claim that it was duped by Russian propaganda is pretty fucking rich.

              1. Yeah, they stopped supporting cults of personality around 1965, when they started to take a long hard look at Vietnam. But, don’t worry, for people like you that just want to listen to the government’s lies and bullshit there’s FoxNews and Breitbart for you, John.

                1. Yeah they stopped supporting cults of personality. That is why they were so hard on Obama. My God you are stupid.

                  You make it so easy sometimes. You couldn’t be a parody because a parody would try a little harder and not walk into things so easily.

                  1. It tried parody for the first week or so, but was so untalented it had to give up and just start spraying spittle around

        2. “Isn’t memory-holing the ultimate retraction?”

          Only if you consider an unmarked hole in the desert a public execution.

      2. John, apparently you aren’t familiar with Dear Leader’s teachings that it’s ok to receive incriminating information from a foreign government.

        1. That isn’t even responsive. You should work harder on understanding what is going on before you post.

          1. He’s busy posting links to kiddie porn.

          2. John, how come even Devin Nunes and every Republican on the House Intelligence Comte says Russians interfered in the 2016 election? Are they part of Deep State too? Oh my God, John, who can we trust? I’m scared, man!

            1. WTF does that have to do with the issue of Ukraine doing so? Nothing. You are so stupid you can’t even post the relevant talking points let alone make a point of your own.

              1. I’m just wondering who— besides Dear Leader, of course— we can trust now. Certainly not House Republicans who have gotten behind the whole Russia-interferred-with-the-election-in-2016 Deep State lie when you and I know it was Ukraine and Clinton. How thick is your tin-foil hat John? I’m afraid mine might not be as big as yours.

                Can you tell us all more about your theories of Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election and do you think they were in on the whole WH bugging and Dear Leader Psyop program run from the Obama bunker underneath the WH. I want to learn from you, ok, when all my Cal lib assholes call Dear Leader a mob boss.

                1. No bro, you’re not even COHERENT.

                  Go home Screech. You’re drunk.

                  1. It’s my fear of the Deep State. They’ve managed to infiltrate House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee who now say that Russia interfered with the 2016 election when we know it was Ukraine/Mexico. WHO’S NEXT, JOHN?!? Me, you… children’s ice cream, Mandrake?

                    1. John “Ukraine”

                      Screech “MUH RUSSSIA!!”

                      Everyone -???

                    2. You keep screaming this same lie. The House Republicans have said no such thing. You are hallucinating again. Less child porn and more meds would be a good idea.

                2. I only know what I read in the New York Times and Politico and they seemed to think there was a lot of interference. And the fact that we don’t know seems like a very good reason to investigate and find out if there was. If there wasn’t, then what is the harm in looking?

                  You are not making any sense. You are just screaming like the possessed chick in the Exorcist.

                  1. No, but what about House Republicans. Aren’t you concerned that they’ve been taken over by aliens, John?

                    1. Again, I can’t respond to your hallucinations? What about the voices you hear in your head? Try to get some medication for it I guess. I can’t help you and my talking to them sure as hell isn’t going to help.

                    2. Oh John, you’re so naive. How do you explain this?

                      , Russian operatives associated with the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign
                      designed to spread disinformation and societal division in the United States. 1
                      Masquerading as Americans, these operatives used targeted advertisements, intentionally falsified news articles, self-generated content, and social media platform tools to interact with and attempt to deceive tens ofmillions ofsocial media users in the United States. This campaign sought to polarize Americans on the basis of societal, ideological, and racial differences, provoked real world events, and was part of a foreign government’s covert support ofRussia’s favored candidate in the U.S. presidential election.

                      …Passed unanimously by Republicans in the US Senate. They’ve been cooped and— gasp— probably replaced by pod people. Are you Deep State too, John? Have they got to you? Nooo!!!

                    3. Putting the voices in your head into italics doesn’t make them true. yeah, the Russians spent 100K in an election where over a billion was spent and paid a few guys to troll on facebook.

                      Everyone knows that. They don’t care anymore today than they did before. Beyond that, hopefully Barr and Durham are going to hold the people in the Obama administration who let it happen responsible.

                      I don’t think this is a big deal. But if you do, take it up with Obama not Trump. Obama was president and let it happen. What was Trump supposed to do about it?

              2. Yeah, wtf happened there, it’s like his algorithms loaded the wrong talking points

              3. Only one country can interfere in our elections in any given year, and the Russians called ‘dibs’ on 2016.

        2. I understand you’re here to simply flaunt you’re stupidity, LTAL, but maybe you can tell us why it would be wrong for a president to accept information from foreign governments?

          1. *your
            Though the typo kinda works too

            1. Had it right the first time.

              you’re = you are

              1. Oh, the other you’re. Missed that.

    2. Poor Tony… he’s supermad now.
      Don’t ridicule the Clintons on his watch.

  9. “Does It Matter That Impeachment Enthusiasts Are Lousy on Foreign Policy?”

    Drumpf’s Presidency is the biggest disaster of all time. He’s destroyed the global economy, built concentration camps, put kids in cages, made people drink from toilets, and ruined the reputation of the United States as a force for good in the world.

    In such desperate times, we Koch / Reason libertarians need allies wherever we can find them. Who cares if #TheResistance includes many of the same people (David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol) who helped start the Iraq War? That operation, while probably a mistake in hindsight, absolutely cannot compare to the bloodthirsty depravity of the Drumpf Regime.

    #LibertariansForEmbracingNeocons
    #(AndDemocraticSocialists)

    1. The resistance embraced David Frum and Bill Kristof, Trumpian? LOL, when was that you fucking loon? Maybe you should get together with John and talk about CROWDSTRIKE.

      1. Frum, Kristof, and Boot are notorious Never Trumpers. They most certainly are part of the “resistance” and get praised for it every day.

        Are you even conscious right now? Is this some sort of retarded fugue state or something? Because I am having a hard time explaining how anyone who wasn’t in such a state could say such stupid things.

        1. No, John, i’m Waiting for you to explain how House Republicans bought this whole Russia interfered with the 2016 election thing. That’s shameful. Who can we trust, John. Are you Illuminati, the Trilateral Committee, or Alex Jones secret bunker, John? Hope so.

          1. I really can’t respond to your hallucinations. You just post one lie after another and then expect people to respond. Usually the lies you post at least relate to the conversation. Today you can’t even manage that.

            1. I’m sorry, John. You got me. I posted the lie that passed unanimously from the Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee. Even if it were to express my concern that Obama had secretly put mind control devices inside Mitch McConnell’s head, I know it was wrong to post it. That’s kinda like hoisting the Nazi flag during a performance of Springtime for Hitler I’m sorry.

              1. And again, everyone knows they trolled some people on facebook. If that upsets you so much, take it up with Obama who was President at the time.

                Regardless, that argues for investigating what Ukraine did. If you admit Russia was doing it, that makes Ukraine doing it even more likely and more of a reason to investigate.

  10. >>Why so many hawks in the anti-Trump clump?

    so wait, you guys are hawks?

  11. No, it does not matter that they are lousy on foreign policy. What matters, insofar as impeachment is concerned, is that all they have is enthusiasm.

  12. Because while Trump is not a dove, he is certainly not a Beltway consensus hawk that has been running our foreign policy for decades. They are annoyed that a president was elected who will tell them “no”.

    It does not mean Trump is right or wrong, just that he is different and is willing to be obstinate on implementing his policy instead of theirs.

  13. “One persistent peculiarity, argue Nick Gillespie, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch on the Reason Roundtable podcast, is that so, so many of the president’s greatest antagonists are—like many in the permanent foreign policy apparatus—more interventionist on foreign policy than your average Joe. So how exactly should that color our opinion of the proceedings?”

    The permanent government aka deep state or call it what you will – they want to get rid of Trump. The Dems are useful auxiliaries in this.

    Maybe for all their partisanship they’ve actually found real misconduct on Trump’s part. Perhaps one could argue that, in spite of the impeachers’ partisan motivations, Trump could still be corrupt? OK, then I suppose we’ll have to concede, on the same principle, that Biden could be corrupt even if Trump had partisan motives for investigating him.

    So…does partisan targeting of a corrupt opponent become misconduct? If it is, how will the impeachers justify *their* conduct. Or perhaps, their motives don’t count but Trump’s motives do?

    1. In referring to partisan motivations, I don’t just mean Dem v. Rep, but War Party vs. Normies.

    2. “So…does partisan targeting of a corrupt opponent become misconduct? If it is, how will the impeachers justify *their* conduct.”

      Per usual, they used to corporate press to drum up fake news to push forward with their agenda. And because polls drive much of the decisions in DC, all you need to do is round up a couple hundred gullible, useful idiots to get the polls where you want them

  14. Boy, for a website dedicated to Libertarianism and individual thought this comment page is infested with people who ceaselessly repost the government propaganda disseminated by State run media at FoxNews and Breitbart. Where’s the people like me that hate the government and all it’s lies and bullshit? In hiding?

    1. Yeah nothing says hating the government like taking the word of a bunch of apparatchiks.

      Newspeak for the win.

    2. You’ll get the orange man next time, surely. Then you can go back to putting your head in the sand and worshiping the nice brown man in the tan suit while he bombs evil brown people in tan burlap sacks

    3. The only “libertarian” stances endorsed by Reason are drugs for everyone and “free” trade.

      Other than that, not much reason.

      1. What, no Mexican ass-sex?

    4. “Where’s the people like me that hate the government and all it’s lies and bullshit? ”
      There is no one like you.
      Plus no one likes you.
      Fuck off.

  15. How feckless, naive, and wilfully blind could Reason staff be for this to be a headline? What, you thought this was just some coincidence??!

    1. Huh? You think the Bill Kristol’s and the Max Boot’s are pro-Trump?

      1. Me? Blame the staff.

        No, don’t blame the staff, they’re not really blind, just wilfully because paid to be.

        How will they look back on this time in a decade? You know, the time when they sold out their sense.

  16. He should be able to withhold aid money for any or no reason at all. But we all know how it is with dems and other people’s money. Not giving something to poor people is the same as taking away (what they never had.) And taking less from rich people is the same as giving them something (that’s already theirs).

    These people are the worst.

  17. The Reason Roundtable panelists ask: Why so many hawks in the anti-Trump clump?

    ‘Cause their girl lost?

    Defense: Top Recipients:

    Clinton, Hillary (D) $1,293,600
    Trump, Donald (R) $412,891

    https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=D&cycle=2016&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U

  18. The Reason Roundtable panelists ask: Why so many hawks in the anti-Trump clump?

    Gee, I wonder why. Let’s scratch our chin-hairs for an hour and muse about this murky topic. I wonder why Hawks are anti-Trump… I’m sure some ideas will come to me if I put some FUCKING THOUGHT INTO IT!

  19. Ed Meese, the former Sec of State for President Ronald Reagan, made this comment about briefing the State Dept diplomats in every morning meeting…..Remember now to do your job and don’t forget which country you work for…….I think he was on to them….

Please to post comments