MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Why Civility Can't Return To Politics

When everything is politicized, everything becomes a death match. That ain't good.

You can't "be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Hillary Clinton told CNN's Christiane Amanpour a week ago, defending the win-at-all-costs mentality that many Democrats are pushing before the midterm elections.

That was before the Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania, Scott Wagner, told the Democratic incumbent that he "better put a catcher's mask on your face because I'm going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes because I'm going to win this."

It was before street brawls between right-wing and left-wing groups broke out last weekend in Portland and New York. And it was also before President Donald Trump called porn star Stormy Daniels, who was paid $130,000 by Trump's personal lawyer to keep quiet about sleeping with the billionaire, "horseface" on Twitter.

If politics these days seem especially ugly, that's because they are. Not even counting actual physical attacks on Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R–La.) during a congressional baseball practice, politics are more heated, divisive, and physically charged than they have been in years.

And for good reason: The people who control politics insist that every piece of legislation, every Supreme Court nomination, every midterm election, every minor rule change is bringing the world one step closer to the apocalypse.

Using plastic straws, kneeling for the national anthem, decade-old tweets—there isn't anything we do anymore that doesn't immediately get sucked into angry partisan arguments. Civility won't return until more of us channel our inner libertarians and realize that not all parts of our lives need to be politicized.

How do you expect people to respond when we're told each day is the beginning of the end of our way of life, that the other side is not just mistaken but pure evil, and we're limited to two parties that represent fewer and fewer of us?

The government is spending more, borrowing more, and controlling more and more aspects of our lives for no reason other than pure political gain.

"If we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again," says Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, no. If civility can't return to politics unless your team is in charge, you're doing it wrong. Civility is only going to return when people stop treating politics as the only thing that matters—and we start actually shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government and give ourselves some space to breathe.

That's especially true if we're stuck with just two choices who have pledged to screw the other side. Neither Republicans nor Democrats offer a plan where you get to live however you want as long as you're not hurting others. Which helps explain why so few of us want to be part of either party (according to the most recent Gallup survey of political affiliation, just 26 percent of us cop to being Republicans and just 27 percent admit that we're Democrats).

And why civility won't return to politics until politicians stop cramming themselves into every corner of our lives.

Music:

Battleground - Ethan Meixsell https://youtu.be/MJ9Pv_qKxV4

Work Week - Topher Mohr and Alex Elena https://youtu.be/ILlaj33g2j8

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

  • DesigNate||

    Because there never was any to begin with?

  • Moridin||

    Yeah this is strange. Years ago reason had a video of quotes from the Jefferson/Adams election of 1800. It demonstrated that the "incivility" in politics has been with us from the beginning. Nothing new here.

  • Eddy||

    Yeah, and that most excellent 1800 video indicates that there's probably always going to be some issues which the different sides think are worth being uncivil about. Even when the "only" disputes were about foreign policy, war taxes and "internal security," each side rightly saw the issues in dispute as urgent, and this was before the feds undertook even broader activities (though the Alien and Sedition Acts were certainly innovations from the Republican standpoint).

    So even if we somehow get a constitutionally-limited government, we'll still argue (uncivilly!) about foreign threats (Putin! Dirty bombs!), if nothing else.

  • ThomasD||

    Years ago Reason was a voice of, well, reason.

  • Eddy||

    glug glug glug

    Oh, and your comment was interesting too.

  • wareagle||

    there at least used to be good faith debate. People could disagree without one calling the other a nazi or racist or whatever.

  • JesseAz||

    Well yeah... Nazis didn't exist until the late 1920s. Otherwise it would have always existed.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Their party platform was written in 1920--not very late in the twenties. OUR communist income tax and asset forfeiture hastened the German collapse, and Herbert Hoover's Moratorium on Brains gave the growing nazi party the wherewithal to rearm.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Technically, the Democrats have called every Republican candidate for President since Wendell Wilkie "Hitler". I suspect the only reason they didn't start earlier is that people wouldn't have known who they were talking about.

    The real problem today is that more and more Democrats are starting to believe it.

  • damikesc||

    Anybody who could argue that Mitt Romney is a killer and vicious sociopath just demonstrates that they hate EVERYBODY. For his faults, Romney being anxious to kill women with cancer is a stretch. And it makes it very hard to find a middle ground.

    Nobody is calling Kamala Harris a murderer or sociopath. Just an imbecile who fucked Willie Brown to get ahead. We can find a middle ground.

  • JesseAz||

    Umm.. Romney threatened to skin women alive and collect his trophies in binders.

  • damikesc||

    Sure, if you remove all of the nuance...

  • CE||

    I have no doubt that Kamala Harris is a sociopath, and she would join all previous presidents as a murderer if she won.

  • Leo Marvin||

    Donald Trump is President, and your comment on debased political discourse is "Democrats!"

    LOL.

  • CE||

    What mythical year are you referring to? I remember the Dems saying Goldwater or Reagan would lead us into nuclear war, the Reps calling everyone Commies.

  • Azathoth!!||

    What mythical year are you referring to? I remember the Dems saying Goldwater or Reagan would lead us into nuclear war, the Reps calling all the Communists Commies.

    FTFY

  • ||

    Because there never was any to begin with?

    I kinda do want to get back to the old days when politicians shot each other like gentlemen.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    DUELS!

    Could you imagine Hillary Clinton being held up by Secret Service vs. Donald Trump. 10 paces.

  • ||

    Could you imagine Hillary Clinton being held up by Secret Service vs. Donald Trump. 10 paces.

    I actually see Trump choosing to (or being advised to) go the Lincoln route. Swords at dawn under a shade tree and as your opponent is showing up, busy yourself with trimming branches that they couldn't possibly reach.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Lincoln was pretty good with an ax.

    Check out Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies.

  • Fancylad||

    What is good in life?
    To crush the progs. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of zir womyn.
    That is good.

  • vek||

    THIS.

    Also, I wonder what's up with that supposed new Conan movie that was supposed to happen...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    So this is how right-wingers console themselves as the liberal-libertarian alliance continues to win the culture war, shape decades of American progress, and disregard the stale wishes and lame efforts of conservatives.

    If this muttering makes conservative failures, frustrations, and irrelevance a bit easier to take . . . mutter away, clingers.

  • Vaelyn||

    Blah blah blah superstitious bigots hurble burble bitter clingers gooble gobble gonna get what's coming to you when your betters take over.

    Signed, Pastor Morgan Picardsea.

  • CE||

    some libertarians like liberals winning the culture war, at least parts of it

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There was one since the Arnold films. Everybody seems to have hated it, though having seen it I'm not sure why. It wasn't Great Art, but it wasn't that bad either.

    Was there supposed to be another?

  • vek||

    Yeah, I saw the non Arnold one. It was OKAY, but not amazing.

    Supposedly, a few years ago, they were talking about doing a new one with Arnold as an old, grizzled King Conan. It was supposed to be for serious getting make. Too lazy to google to see if it got cancelled or whatever. Sounded like a sweet thing though. The writer or somebody said he wanted to make "Conan's Unforgiven" a reference to the awesome Clint Eastwood western from the 90s.

  • Zeb||

    Well, there was, and is, some civility. Elections have always been nasty and congress has always had it's moments.
    Trump is uncivil because that's pretty much his whole shtick. Clinton is uncivil because she's a crazy, bitter old woman who can't accept that people just don't like her. There are some politicians who seem to want to behave like civilized people in their interactions with their opponents. People can vote for them if they want to. Trump got elected, so I'm not sure they actually want that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump acts the way he does because his supporters want him to fight back. So he does and that got him elected.

    Most people that know him before his presidency thought he was a nice guy. The Lefties even roasted him, so they must have liked him a bit.

    Trump is so detested by the lefties because he knows them. He hung out with them and they told him things. He has also been able to get some things done as President.

    The Lefties hate Libertarians because we know them too. We are pro-legalization of weed before they were and we want all drugs decriminalized.

  • Zeb||

    I think you hit the nail on the head with that.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "The Lefties hate Libertarians because we know them too. We are pro-legalization of weed before they were and we want all drugs decriminalized."

    Not exactly. I think the bigger issue behind drug legalization that angers them is the reasoning behind it. I was listening to a radio interview not too long ago with some lefty saying marijuana needs to be fully legalized everywhere because far too much money is going into the hands of drug dealers and that money could instead be going to tax revenues so the government can do more.

    He actually said that! I was practically shouting at the radio, saying, "No, you dumbass, it's because it's not the government's business what you smoke or eat or drink! It's not about your precious taxing and spending so you can gain still more power-- it's about leaving people alone to live their lives however they want as long as they aren't hurting others!"

    There are many areas where there is overlap between the libertarian position and that of either Dems or Repubs, but usually the motivation is worlds apart.

  • LarryA||

    The motivation is always worlds apart.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    This country will be so much better when we scrape off the progtards.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The Establishment Left hates Trump because Republicans are supposedmto lose like gentlemen...that is, go down before the withering fire of the Lefty Lie machine. Tump shows tha A) He doesn't much care what they call him and B) he's perfectly capable of hitting back,mand doing real damage because the Left is supported by a sea of bullshit that they can't really defend.

  • CE||

    People want their presidential candidate to by a bully and a psychopath, to run roughshod over the other side and implement the full policy program of their most rabid backers, while they have the chance. They want a remorseless killer who will crush all enemies and threats. Trump and Clinton were much stronger candidates than we expected

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    When everything is politicized, everything becomes a death match. That ain't good.


    More bluntly (thanks ENB!), the more government intrudes in our daily lives, the more our daily lives become politicized. It actually becomes more cost-effective to try to turn the government against your competitors (whether in business or culture) than to mind your own business. Literally. Why innovate your business, streamline operations, or simply work harder and stay open longer when the guy you see every weekend at the golf course has pull at city hall and can make your competitor put in far more hours to get out from under a new health inspector?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah man, but it's not just getting a competitive edge, it is ALSO about getting REVENGE!!!

    I'm pissed at you for making me get Government Almighty permission to blow my nose, so I am gonna make YOU get Government Almighty permission to scratch your ass! (Except that scratching your ass will NEVER be allowed during the National Anthem, even with any and all kinds of Government Almighty permission).

  • Wearenotperfect||

    I would never scratch my ass during the National Anthem but if I'm told not to scratch during the National Anthem you bet your ass I'm scratching away!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Democrats and their Socialist cohorts are pissed that Socialism is being resisted and rolled back.

    The Republicans are pissed that their agreement to compromises has been so taken advantage of.

    The Libertarians are pissed that Americans wont roll back spending and all other bloated government activities.

  • Eric||

    "The Republicans are pissed that their agreement to compromises has been so taken advantage of."

    - huh?

  • rocks||

    The pass 100 years has been nothing but concessions from the right to the left, with an onward march leftward every single election.

    Trump is stopping that leftward march and reversing it, that is the current meltdown.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In a nutshell..yup.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It is true that for many decades American progress has been shaped by a liberal-libertarian alliance against the wishes and efforts of conservatives.

    If it were possible to change that course of progress (moving it away from reason, science, tolerance, modernity, and education, and directing it toward Republican preferences such as backwardness, intolerance, insularity, superstition, and rural ignorance), it seems silly to contend that tiny-dicked Donald J. Trump and his can't-keep-up right-wing base would be the ones to do it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Liberals have not been pro-civil rights...ever.

  • VOTE MILES||

    What about bitter clingers and goobers? You're losing your touch, Kirkland.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You seem educable.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And you seem........breakable.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I dislike the R's as much as the next guy, but you need to check your facts.

    If you look back at the history of the Civil Rights movement, it was actually congressional Republicans who were voting in support of Civil Rights legislation and Dems who were frequently opposing Civil Rights.

    As a student, my campus job was in the library and I once had to reorganize all the bound volumes of the Congressional Record. I randomly opened to a page from the early 1960s and was surprised to see then Congressman from Michigan Gerald Ford sponsoring Civil Rights legislation. I was like you, blinded by partisanship, and remember thinking "How could he have been a Republican and not be racist?" I only later found it that, back then, it was the Dems who were anti-black.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The southern racists were a stain on the Democratic Party a half-century ago, much as they are a stain on the Republican Party today.

    The Republican Party of 50 years ago was often hospitable to tolerance, reason, science, progress, competence, limited government, modernity, and education. That changed with the courting of southerners and the rise of the religious right.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Kirkland, sometimes you make me embrace my inner Karl Hess and H.L.Menken

    Moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue.

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice.

    It would not be America if it did not produce at least a few men who tire of the palaver, and take the rifle down from the mantelpiece to use themselves or give to the underdog who needs it.

    Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.

    Sid Hatfield at Matewan, the Bipartisans at Athens, Rob Williams at Monroe County.

    You, sir, are an invitation to incivility.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The stale-thinking yahoos, half-educated bigots, and other right-wingers have been complaining about and working against progress, liberty, education, reason, tolerance, science, and modernity throughout my lifetime.

    They generally fail, and they generally deserve to fail.

    If you are tired of getting mad about it, and want to get really, really mad about liberal-libertarian progress this time, be my guest.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    True. The progtards riot and age in places like Portland and NY. Pushing people closer to understanding that the only way to make the progtards go away is to put them down like rabid animals.

    Should the midterms go badly for them, their apoplexy will only increase, thus accelerating the timetable frothier destruction.

  • JWatts||

    "The southern racists were a stain on the Democratic Party a half-century ago"

    And all those northern racists that the Democratic Party represented?

  • JWatts||

  • JoeB||

    You should know.

  • BlueStarDragon||

    You forgot that Libertarians want all of their freedoms back.

  • Shirley Knott||

    You need to read and reflect on the Heibroner piece linked yesterday.
    The shift is the very dangerous one of viewing all issues in terms of good vs evil.
    It guarantees a shift toward command and control, refusal to even consider compromise, and both total blind allegiance to your team, the 'good,' and total blind hatred of all other teams as pure evil.
    Questions of power and authority cannot be raised because of the overarching moral framework into which all political discourse is forced.
    This is especially problematic when the arguments are presented as if they were arguments over ends rather than means.
    But the ends are far less contentious than the means. We differ primarily on means, not (purported) ends. But we judge everything in terms of (purported) ends, never on means.
    We, left and right, continue to talk past each other,n and ramp up the cries of blasphemy against the good.

  • ThomasD||

    "Questions of power and authority cannot be raised because of the overarching moral framework into which all political discourse is forced. This is especially problematic when the arguments are presented as if they were arguments over ends rather than means. "

    Nonsense.

    We had an overarching moral framework, but the proggs didn't like it so they substituted their own. Only it's substantially more intrusive than what it replaced. Enforced outcomes tending to require such heightened intrusiveness.

    I am on Team Leave Me the Fuck Alone.

    My compromise position is: learn to leave me the fuck alone or I might become a member of Team Shoot You In the Face.

    How's that for not talking past you?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    With that talk about "progg," I would have figured you for a member of Team Authoritarian And Bigoted Immigration Practices, Team Statist Womb Management, Team Tariffs, Team Government Gay-Bashing, Team Torture And Endless Detention Without Trial, Team School Prayer, Team Big-Government Micromanagement Of Abortion Clinics, Team Crony-Based Protectionism, Team Creationism In Science Class, and Team Restrict Contraception.

    But if you are, instead, on Team Leave Me The Fuck Alone, and therfore can't stand those authoritarian right-wing nanny-staters, that is great!

  • ThomasD||

    ^ triggered

  • JoeB||

    Agree with ThomasD. Compromising with the left is like agreeing to have a little poop on my pizza. Even a little is too ffing much. So keep your poop and your politics to yourself, Rev.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The left will continue to shape American progress, JoeB, while you continue to mutter bitterly and inconsequentially about it from the sidelines.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh Arty, the only thing you will be shaping is your corner at the landfill when you are eventually deposited there, with your progtarded friends, face down.

    Best thing for you really, your commentary is going nowhere.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "I am on Team Leave Me the Fuck Alone."

    I'm the head coach. First team meeting is one week from today, at whatever time suits most of us

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I'm old enough to remember howls of derision from the people around me when George W. Bush said in a televised speech, not long after 9/11: "You're either with us or against us!"

    It comes down to whether someone is a member of Team Red or Team Blue. If your team is making that statement, they obviously get it-- they know how important the issue at hand is. But if the other team is making that statement, even about the same issue, then they are crazy loose cannons who are completely irresponsible and unhinged.

    Why do you think the two parties are both disgusting to rational people with critical thinking skills?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Using plastic straws, kneeling for the national anthem, decade-old tweets—there isn't anything we do anymore that doesn't immediately get sucked into angry partisan arguments.

    That second seems a bit oddly placed. The entire point of kneeling for the national anthem is to inject angry partisan argument into various facets of our lives.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is often lost on the Reason staff.

    I doubt that Nick Gillespie was advocating for Obama supporters to be civil. It was implied that Obama was civil.

    Trump stole the election.
    Trump is a poopy head.
    Trump is uncivil.
    This how many at Reason think.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Yep. To find out what the lying Professional Fake Libertarians of Reason truly think and believe, you have to pay attention to their Twitter feeds, because that's where the mask slips most often.

    And Gillespie has been bitching, moaning, and whining almost nonstop for the last two years about how these are the worst days ever. You don't have to be a genius to figure out why he's so miserable!

  • Eric||

    Shorter LC and WCR:

    "Real Libertarians vote Republican"

  • Azathoth!!||

    Real libertarians vote libertarian

    Real libertarians run as Republicans

    Because....

    The Real Libertarian Party has been consumed by a leftist infestation.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "leftist infestation" = doesn't automatically agree with Republicans at every turn

    Huh, so a third party disagrees with BOTH of the two major parties? No way!

  • Azathoth!!||

    Poor Jeff.

    Libertarians vote libertarian

    Note the small 'l'.

    Because libertarians run as Republicans.

    Again, note that small 'l'.

    They work to implement libertarian policies when they get elected.

    Not Republican policies.

    But maybe your stupor is warranted.

    Because Libertarians sometimes run as Republicans as well, to spoil primaries.

    Spoil?, you say. Yes, spoil, because that's what the Libertarian Party seems to pride itself on these days. Not getting people actually elected--instead, they work to spoil so no one libertarians want in office gets there.

    So always remember, Jeff-- libertarian and the Libertarian Party. The one that loves freedom leaves the capital 'L" for Liberty

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Figures that you got that from my post and that is not what I said.

    I would rather vote Libertarian and/or Republican than Democrat.

  • ThomasD||

    Come on guys, be nice to eric. His 'republicans are icky' argument is totes compelling.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Republicans aren't icky.

    They are superstitious, ignorant, gullible, backward, bigoted yahoos.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, that would be democrats. Arty, you really are a dullard. It's difficult for someone so much more intelligent than you to put up with your nonsense. Of course you couldn't possibly understand that.

    Best you just learn to obey. Find some conservative or libertarian willing to put you on a leash, so you can receive the constant guidance you desperately need .

  • CE||

    who spend too much

  • Zeb||

    Trump is uncivil. That's his whole public persona. It seems to be why many people like him.

    Obama was much better at putting on a civil facade. A lot of people liked that too.

    That says nothing about the desirability of either of them as presidents as far as I'm concerned. I've still mostly wanted both of them to shut the fuck up. We don't need an elected king to tell us what's up.

  • CE||

    yup. i've changed the channel on every president since Bush when I see them on TV

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Obama was civil? The same guy who said "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"? Yeah, right. His civility amounted to knowing how to have others (eg, Holder and Lynch) front for him when it came to the dirty work.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He also said republicans would have to get in the back of the bus.

  • Tony||

    So you're admitting that cops killing black people with impunity is a partisan issue? Presumably you're defending the Republican side that says cops should continue doing so?

  • Pepys the Cat||

    "Presumably"

    You know what they say about presuming, it makes you look like an idiot.

  • Tony||

    More than falling for mindless cynical flag-humping bullshit from the GOP?

  • Pepys the Cat||

    So your point is that you're as bad as GOP flag humpers? I'll take your word for it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony just wants the flagpoles rammed up his ass while he fucks young schoolboys,

  • wareagle||

    So you're admitting that cops killing black people with impunity is a partisan issue?
    Since this doesn't happen, what are you talking about? WaPo keeps a nice database on civilians killed by cops. Far more whites than blacks. Or any other group, for that matter. Not in absolute proportion to the population but enough to make a sane person wonder if this talking point you raise is, well, just a talking point. And black cops are more likely to shoot these days given the tenor of society.

  • Cathy L||

    So you're saying that because cops kill white people with impunity, they can't also kill black people with impunity?

  • TuIpa||

    Calm down Cry More Cathy, stop crying about his comment.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Quit whining, you bigoted rube.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, learn to obey. And don't ever think you're one to be handing out directives. Ever. Your just another short bus democrat subnormal weakling,

  • wreckinball||

    Cops sometimes kill people with impunity. Stats indicate its not racial. Its a problem but not racial.

  • wareagle||

    Totally what I said. If English is your third language.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    more like focusing all your attention on one segment and demanding more community outreach and training for interacting with that one segment of society kinda misses the entire problem.

    Buy whatevs there's a narrative to pimp that feels good, who cares if it misses the problem and doesn't actually do anything.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I read somewhere (I think it was a Reason article) that mentioned one of the founders of BLM admitted in an interview that police unions are a major part of the problem, probably even more than institutionalized racism.

    The thing is, BLM whether offically or unofficially, is part of the left-wing umbrella. A BLM supporter can't openly talk against unions without running the risk of pissing off those strong unionists in their camp and being kicked off the team.

    It's the same for feminists and Islam. Some of the worst sexism in the world today is standard practice within Islam. But fighting Islamophobia is part-and-parcel of the same group that most feminists belong to, so they are required to keep their mouth shut about misogyny when it's religion-based, or at least to try to divert the issue, such as arguing that's not about that religion per se, but more about toxic masculinity in general.

    In psychology circles, they say the first step to solving an issue is to admit there is one. If you insist on looking the other way when it comes to police unions preserving police brutality or religious organizations promoting misogyny, you will never get very far.

  • Robes Pierre||

    That is the most absurd thing said on Reason today. Congratulations. In the cesspool that is the Reason comments, we have a clear cut most absurd comment.

  • wreckinball||

    It is just a talking point.

    Police abuse is an issue. Its not racial.

  • CE||

    Seems like cops have killed many people with impunity, as documented on Reason over the years. And you're saying it doesn't happen?

    I would separate the actions of bad cops in certain municipal police forces from the action of disrespecting the national flag and, indirectly, those who have served under it in the nation's armed forces. That's what conservatives have a problem with.

  • Don't look at me!||

    I don't recall anyone saying cops should kill anyone with impunity.
    Your team attitude may be part of the problem.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    So you're admitting that cops killing black people with impunity is a partisan issue?

    No. The claim that America is a racist dystopia in which the police are engaged in a racial jihad against black people is a partisan one.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    So you're admitting that cops killing black people with impunity is a partisan issue?

    No. The claim that America is a racist dystopia in which the police are engaged in a racial jihad against black people is a partisan one.

  • Tony||

    Good thing we have many years of evidence for which side tends to have facts on its side and which tends to hump the flag and stoke racism to appeal to stupid people.

  • Kevin Decker||

    We do. So why are you taking the other side?

  • wreckinball||

    Tony is retarded so take that into account

  • Sevo||

    "which tends to hump the flag and stoke racism to appeal to stupid people."

    Trying to make a lefty assertion substitute for argument shows exactly how 'smart' you are, imbecile.

  • JesseAz||

    Do you struggle with the word impunity like you do credible?

  • ravenshrike||

    The problem is cops killing way too many people. This is caused primarily by the Drug War and running a close second, the currently absurd constraints on lawsuits that qualified immunity provides for.

  • wareagle||

    I would suggest that banning straws has the same effect.

  • Cathy L||

    No, that's the entire point of playing the national anthem at sporting events.

  • TuIpa||

    So what's the point of you crying about it so much?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The national anthem is a brief unifying moment for normal people. It's only partisan and divisive to the most extreme, virulent, psychopathic scubagettas like you.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I was going to respond with much the same thing. If it's political (and it probably is), it's only political in the most broadly-based, non-controversial, and innocuous sense of the term political. "American is Good" or "We Love America" is a message most people in the country aren't going to drive themselves into paroxysms in objection to.

  • Zeb||

    The nice thing about our national anthem (the first verse that people know, at least) is that it really doesn't say anything about the country or what it is supposed to be beyond "land of the free and home of the brave". Whether or not that is actually true at this point, it's a nice sentiment that most people at least see as a worthy aspiration.

  • Paloma||

    I love the Star Spangled Banner because especially in the first verse, it has an element of courage and defiance. It doesn't drone on and on about how pretty God made the mountains and skies.

    It's in stark contrast to the servility of God Save the King.

  • Zeb||

    I also like how the entire first verse is a question.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yep. This country was founded by real men in a bloody revolution. Not a bunch of faggoty pacifist hippies. It's a pretty safe bet that anyone who has a problem with the national anthem is suspect at best.

  • CE||

    Or the blasphemous Battle Hymn of the Republic.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The first verse is a paean to the fortitude and resilience of those defending Fort McHenry surviving a night of intense bombardment. That's it, and hardly anything that anybody should object to.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    A libertarian would object to a compulsory, staged display of toe-on-line, hand-over-heart obsequiousness.

    A faux libertarian would welcome the faux patriotism and turn it into a wedge issue to promote ignorance, intolerance, backwardness, and childish superstition.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You are soulless fecal matter. You are incapable of patriotism, or even understanding such a concept, So don't speak of it, or your patriotic betters.

    Better you take your own life, as it has no value. In fact, you absence will make everyone and everything around you better and happier.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    Shut the fuck up you American flag bikini wearing shit bag! Get back in your Ford truck with a flag and pole welded to the trailer hitch and drive off a cliff you nationalist goon!

  • CE||

    Who said partisans can't be civil?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The national anthem is a brief unifying moment for normal people.

    You seem like just the sort of small-minded, gullible, authoritarian dullard who would enjoy a toe-on-the-line, stand-at-attention ritual during a song about government when most people want to get to the kickoff.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Die.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The entire point of kneeling for the national anthem is to inject angry partisan argument into various facets of our lives

    What is the point of commanding that citizens stand at toe-on-the-line, hand-over-heart attention for a song when people want to watch or play football?

    Why are you at a libertarian site?

  • Paloma||

    I agree nobody should be commanded.

    But in other countries where people are even more partisan than the US, both (or all) sides revere their flag and national anthem.

    Anyone at a Puerto Rican event that disses La Boriquena is going to get his ass kicked no matter what his political persuasion or issue.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    For that matter, catch an Aussie Rules Football match on Anzac Day. Nobody has to be made to stand; you might say that the spirit moves them.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    As "left libertarians" loved to beat their chests during l'affaire Damore or the recent social media unpersonings, they're (in this case the NFL teams) private organizations.

  • JoeB||

    The players have a contract with the owners. They are not abiding by their contract. Why are YOU at a libertarian site?

  • Robes Pierre||

    There is a clause in their contract that states they must stand for the flag? Did you just put it in there? When are you going to inform them?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Other employers should require employees to stand in line and recite an homage to Planned Parenthood and the "give me your huddled masses' poem at the beginning of each work day. It would be a fine way to cull the gullible, backward, intolerant employees without risking a lawsuit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That you equate Planned Parenthood with our constitutional republic shows what an evil piece of shit you are.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    There is a clause in their contract that states they must stand for the flag?

    It's part of the deal between the NFLPA and the league. Try to keep up.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    So let's ignore the politically motivated assaults, shootings and mobs harassing people. Violent confrontations just magically break out without a second of consideration as to the source. wonder why.

    The call for government to get out of every decision and interaction is a good one, but ignoring the source of much of that issue isn't a good start for getting that to happen. It's not like this is new. leftists have been rioting every time they don't get their way for as long as I've been alive, not just the 3 weeks the author focuses on for his "pox on both houses" shtick.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You always get this type of talk from Democrat supporters.

    Its not them that needs to change...its ALL OF US that need to change.

  • JoeB||

    Totally agree, 1789. When they start losing hearts and minds, they clamor for "understanding and tolerance from both sides".

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And change you have.

    Your liberal-libertarian betters have been shaping progress in America for more than a half-century, often shoving it down the throat of complaining, whining, irrelevant right-wingers who prefer to cling to backwardness, bigotry, superstitions, and ignorance.

    And change you will. You didn't genuinely think we were done improving America against the wishes and efforts of conservatives, did you?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Dead thread-fucking AGAIN, artie poo.....JFC you're pathetic.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Reason needs to have a convention in Vegas. I want to see if Arty would have the balls to show up and run his mouth face to face.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The Democrats have an new idiotic idea.

    From CNBC:

    "Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats want to repeal Trump's tax cuts and replace them with cash payouts for the poor and working class

    With midterm elections 2½ weeks away and the 2020 presidential race around the corner, prominent Democrats are embracing an ambitious idea: Repeal and replace the $1.5 trillion Republican tax plan.

    The proposals would get rid of the tax cuts and, in turn, funnel that money into government-guaranteed cash for low- and middle-income households.

    Possible White House contender Sen. Kamala Harris announced a plan this week that would give working families up to $6,000 each year, with the option of receiving monthly payments."

    I guess they think announcing this is a good vote buying strategy right before the mid-term elections.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some of these Democrats will be jumping off buildings after the Democrat bloodbath on election 2018.

    They are so desperate and Trump is winning his ass off.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Some of these Democrats will be jumping off buildings after the Democrat bloodbath on election 2018.

    This guy seems very confident about Republican electoral prospects.

    Maybe he knows that Democrats' worst fears have been realized, and that conservatives have perfected a machine that mass-produces uneducated, unskilled, stale-thinking, bigoted, easily frightened, rural, southern, elderly, gullible, superstitious while males, and Republicans have figured a way to register the newly minted yahoos to vote.

  • JoeB||

    Or, more people are "winning" under a red flag than under a blue one. Except you and Soros, I suppose.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Please hold on to your narrow-minded, contemptuous and ignorant views. Not only that, but make sure that all your recrudescent left-leaning friends do as well and have them make sure their friends do as well. This is why you lost in 2016 and will continue to lose into the foreseeable future.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You guys have been losing the culture war since the 1960s and it isn't going to stop.

    Get used to it or get out.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Self-loathing hicklibs will soon be getting "the full Kent State".

    Get used to it or get out.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    In some ways, progress is sweeter when it aggravates right-wingers to the point of sputtering.

  • Tony||

    Guaranteed income was endorsed by several, perhaps most, of the prominent philosophers who founded what you know as libertarianism.

  • Eddy||

    Yes, indeed, as a *substitute* for existing welfare programs. It's still a defensible idea if carried out in good faith.

    Now do you want to talk about the Dems' proposal instead?

  • Tony||

    I'm no expert but replacing a hodgepodge of programs with a simpler universal basic income scheme sounds good to me.

  • Eddy||

    It sounds like an idea with promise, let me know when the Dems get on board.

  • Tony||

    Um, see above? Why do Republicans never have any responsibility for anything?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Good thing the current Democratic Party wont be around much longer.

  • Eddy||

    Because many of them are Democrats Lite?

  • Kevin Decker||

    Maybe you could read above, and then you'd see that "replacing a hodgepodge of programs with a simpler universal basic income scheme " isn't what the Dems are proposing.

  • Tony||

    That's because that's rather pie-in-the-sky. But all that would be needed for such a grand reorganization of American public spending would be for Republicans to endorse the idea of transferring wealth downward in the first place. They're with most of you guys--not traditional libertarian, more Ayn Rand social darwinian. Yet somehow the problem is Democrats.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.19.18 @ 12:32PM|#
    "That's because that's rather pie-in-the-sky."
    So your admitting the D proposal has nothing to do with what you claimed above?
    Do you forget your lies and hope others will, too? How many faces do you have?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "But all that would be needed for such a grand reorganization of American public spending would be for Republicans to endorse the idea of transferring wealth downward in the first place."

    There has already been enormous amounts of wealth transferred downward ever since FDR's "New Deal" got started and ratcheted up with subsequent programs. The top income tiers are paying the majority of income taxes that fund all of that and done so for a very long time.

    None of it has ever been proven to be a success.

    But with you not being an expert and all, you can't be expected to notice.

  • Tony||

    Preventing destitution for all old people isn't a success?

    I appreciate that you're probably on the psychopath spectrum and define social success differently from how I might.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.19.18 @ 3:27PM|#
    "Preventing destitution for all old people isn't a success?"

    For a cohort of what ages, shitbag. Take your time; I know anything involving numbers is HARD for you.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The fact that you think such a thing as "social success" exists at all further demonstrates that you are an idiot.

  • JoeB||

    The transfer of wealth "downward' has actually been a transfer of wealth and power sideways, to statists and their minions. Business as usual for leftism. I'm surprised anyone here buys into it. The flow goes from rich to political elite and cronies, not rich to poor. Seems pretty obvious by now.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I'm no expert"

    Yes, we know.

  • damikesc||

    I'm no expert but replacing a hodgepodge of programs with a simpler universal basic income scheme sounds good to me.

    What programs are being REPLACED? Seems like they're just adding to them with this additional money.

    Because they NEED you on the plantation. They have no hope for power unless you're plantation slaves.

  • Tony||

    Is that necessary?

  • damikesc||

    For the Dems, absolutely. They have always relied on you being on the plantation for their power. They are determined to own you and you are too happy to allow it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony even helps them try and get more slaves.

    The reverse Underground Railroad, if you will.

  • Tony||

    Name one good thing Republicans have done in 40 years.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    They defeated Hillary in 2016. For one.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Also reversing Obama executive orders.

    Cutting tax rates.

    Appointing two Supreme Court judges who aren't flaming leftists (AKA kooks).

    Cutting regulations.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They elected Trump.

    GOP signed off on Gorsuch.

    GOP ended the obamacare mandate.

    GOP cut corporate tax rate.

  • Toom Tabard||

    I've got a better idea. How about we tax trust funds 50%...that ought to solve the problem. They are rich and don't need all that money anyway.

  • shortviking||

    I fully support UBI. What she is proposing is not UBI. It's horseshit that won't actually help anyone who needs it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""I fully support UBI."'

    What the extra percentage of your income you would like to give up to support it?

  • shortviking||

    Why does it have to be extra ?

  • JesseAz||

    It was proposed in a compromise with a tax overhaul and a substitute for current welfare programs dumbass Tony. Harris isn't saying to reform welfare. She wants to add to it you dishonest fuck.

  • Eddy||

    Let's hope voters take the bribe - I mean the benefits - and don't oppose their own interests by allowing themselves to be distracted by...other stuff the Dems are doing.

  • wareagle||

    and should that happen, the push would immediately begin for payments "up to $7,000 each year" and so forth. Meanwhile, what existing transfer program is going to be eliminated? Oh, that's right; the same side that has suddenly found fiscal religion and discovered the deficit is being disingenuous.

  • JesseAz||

    Amazing how liberals fought against this idea in the trump tax cuts calling it bread crumbs.

  • Paloma||

    Funnel WHAT money? Tax cuts means the taxpayer is paying less in taxes. It doesn't mean the government is collecting less revenue, and in fact, it is collecting more.

    You wanna pay poor people fine. But don't pretend that it's anything else but punishing rich people that's your real agenda.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Democrats are always eagerly seeking to turn paying jobs into unemployment, welfare and government handouts. It's all they have to offer.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Can't we all just get along?

    I propose that we smooth the ruffled feathers of conservatives with generous funding for a new "Department of Making the Liberals Cry"...

    ... and ...

    We validate the feelings of liberals with generous funding for a new "Department of Making the Conservatives Cry"...

    Now, we will all be happy (except for libertarians, and we don't count).

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I don't want get along with democrats. I want them gone. They're welcome to leave town riding their horses, but I have no problem with them being slung over the backs either.

    Their choice.

  • Longtobefree||

    You can't "be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,"

    Exactly. Out with the torches and pitchforks.
    Because that applies to what every political party in the US thinks about all other political parties in the US.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    political violence is yet another thing that Leftists suck at. Sure, there's the occasional shooting of a congressman, but does it really compare to killing a bunch of socialist teenagers in Norway or bringing down a federal building on top of a bunch of toddlers? Amateurs. Yet another thing Leftists suck at, which is another reason to be a Trump supporter and ancapist who looks to the Constitution for the natural laws that should govern my conduct in a truly free society.

  • Eddy||

    Not only has OBL not taught you anything, you couldn't even pass the entrance examination to his School of Snark.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Pfft... that cuck? Why would I want to learn from her?

    Real violence is when you get between Aunt Sarah Huckabee and her hush puppies at the local BBQ. All because you're such a deluded commie Leftist that you think she's— get this— a serial liar and craven mouthpiece for a narcissistic fraud. Where do these commies come up with this stuff?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Eddy, do you ever wonder if OBL is also LTAL, playing some kind of 5th dimensional parody game? Making this sock over the top bad.

  • JesseAz||

    Let's see...recent incivility.

    Against the GOP.

    Shooting, attempted stabbing, 3 assaults including concussions, multiple verbal assaults in restaurants and elevators, doxxing of home adresses phones and children information.

    Against the DNC.

    Angry tweets and emails.

    Yeap. Totally equal.

  • wreckinball||

    Agree with people stop it with the ridiculous both sides shit

  • Azathoth!!||

    Why do people always leave out the shooting in Dallas? The one where the BLM guy killed people? You all know, the BLM supporter who was immediately not a BLM supporter when the MSM got hold of the story.

  • Len Bias||

    ""If we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again," says Hillary Clinton."

    For all of 2009, the Democrats had a majority in the House, a Supermajority in the Senate, and the Presidency, and I don't recall them being too civil. But, sure, if they win the House this fall, I am sure they will be super civil.

  • Eddy||

    When they're in control, civility *can* start again, if the other side knows its place and isn't "divisive."

  • ||

    There are a lot of stories of people being attacked for wearing MAGA hats and t-shirts. People getting 'triggered' or something. I don't recall similar stories reported for people who wore Obama Hope & Change t-shirts.

    Just saying.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    President Tiny Dick just congratulated a Republican member of Congress (and Young Earth-birther wingnut) who assaulted a reporter for asking a question, much as he encouraged violence against dissenters at his Yahoopaloozas.

    The guy is president, even if it was a bunch of bigoted yahoos who elected him, so perhaps more respect is warranted. Make that President Little Richard.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "President Tiny Dick" -- Artie's contribution to the New Civility

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I have lost my taste for political correctness.

    I call a half-educated, stale-thinking bigot a half-educated, stale-thinking bigot.

    Republicans seem to dislike this.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, you're a high school dropout with a subnormal IQ who believes in global marxism while worshipping the most pathetic faggots in all of time and space.

    So STFU and learn to obey.

  • JesseAz||

    The media reported heavily on the assaults from the tea party on trash. How dare the tea party clean up after themselves.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And the media swooned over the Occupier groups who trashed out everywhere they went.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    One of my neighbors still has "Obama/Biden" bumper stickers on his car bumper. I haven't keyed his car yet.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That guy sounds like a winner. Twice.

    And for his entire lifetime, if he prefers liberal-libertarian progress and likes seeing right-wingers lose the culture war.

  • wreckinball||

    I agree in principal surprising because its Gillespie.

    But reality is we have two choices. One choice is the Rs and Trump. Besides the one lonely and constantly repeated rally where he offered to pay for the lawyers if somebody beat up a heckler there has been very little to no actual right wing violence. And they are the party of relatively less government and more freedom. Not as much as the true Ls (not the lib ones on Reason) like.

    Choice 2 is a bunch of politicians who organized a freaking circus during the SCOTUS confirmation process. Who now seem A-OK with advocating violence against heir political enemies. They are now openly pro-socialism, higher taxes and nationalizing the heath care and higher education

    Its not a hard choice.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    there has been very little to no actual right wing violence

    You seem uninformed and uneducated. You're a natural for the Trump base.

  • JesseAz||

    I notice you provide no examples.

  • wreckinball||

    The Rev. and Tony must get out of special ed a couple of times a day.

  • Longtobefree||

    He is the example - - - - -

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But reality is we have two choices

    bzzt try again

  • Azathoth!!||

    But reality is we have two choices. One choice is the small - 'l' libertarians and the Rs, the other side is Big Brother

    FTFY

  • ||

    We really need to get back to a quieter more peaceful and civil time in politics. Like the late 60s.

  • Eddy||

    Or the early 60s...1860s that is

  • ||

    Hm. Looks like my message never made it. I'll wait a second before fricken rewriting the whole damn thing - again.

  • Eddy||

    I think I'll post a message solving the Problem of Evil. I hope it doesn't get deleted.

  • Eddy||

  • Longtobefree||

    Before attempting to post, I always do a 'select all;copy all' to load up the clipboard in case the post goes to the place where squirrels live.
    I back out of the site and return, if the post has not appeared, I go again.
    If I get a single post, I get one point; if there are duplicate posts, or the post goes away, the squirrels get one point.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The people who control politics insist that every piece of legislation, every Supreme Court nomination, every midterm election, every minor rule change is bringing the world one step closer to the apocalypse."

    Hillary Clinton campaigned on promises to strip people of their gun rights.

    They used ObamaCare to justify forcing nuns to finance their employee's fornication.

    Do I need to mention that they want to force bakers to put things on cakes that violate their First Amendment religious rights?

    The left wants to strip defendants in rape cases of their right to confront witnesses.

    The left believes in hate speech legislation--that they say doesn't violate the First Amendment because the First Amendment doesn't protect speech that hurts people's feelings.

    The left doesn't think congress has the enumerated power to set immigration policy. Talk about stripping people of the influence of their vote, they want to impeach Donald Trump because he was elected.

    The left wants to get rid of the electoral college because Trump was elected.

    The left wants to use the coercive power of government to force us to make sacrifices in our standard of living to fight global warming.

    And you think the problem is the way people make every issue sound like it's the apocalypse?

    One side is clearly the aggressor here.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The left doesn't think congress has the enumerated power to set immigration policy.

    Congress' power to set immigration policy is the result of a SCOTUS decision, not from the Constitution.

  • TuIpa||

    Not sure if serious...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Little Jeffy is totes serious about that. He is really that stupid.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why would I bother conversing with someone who thinks congress shouldn't pass spending cuts because future congresses might raise spending again?

    You might as well be a Moonie.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    congress shouldn't pass spending cuts because future congresses might raise spending again?

    Not what I said, Ken.

    If you're going to bring up an old conversation, at least do so accurately.

    We shouldn't support fake spending cuts, which don't actually cut spending, but only PROMISE to cut spending some time in the future (if Republicans are re-elected, of course!), ESPECIALLY when those very same Republicans have a record of engaging in the very same bait-and-switch tactics for years and years. In other words, we shouldn't reward their bad behavior.

    But I would expect Republican shills to stick up for Republican good intentions regardless of whatever they actually propose concretely.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    That's obviously wrong.

    The Constitution doesn't give the executive branch, nor the judicial system that power, so at a minimum by default the Congress has it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We've gone over it a dozen times, here, but "naturalization" covers the whole process, from coming here to residency and becoming a citizen, and that power is enumerated to congress in the Constitution in the same place that it enumerates their power to declare war. Chemical Jeff is so willfully obtuse, reasoning with him is casting pearls before swine, but for anybody else following along, we've been down this road a dozen times, and it always ends up in the same place--congress is prohibited from making laws (like immigration policies) that violate the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law . . ."), but they also have the enumerated power to set immigration policy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    but "naturalization" covers the whole process, from coming here to residency and becoming a citizen

    No it doesn't. Naturalization refers to the process of becoming a citizen. It does not apply to migrants who have no intention of becoming citizens.

    Read up on the Chinese Exclusion Act and the subsequent court cases.

    There is no specific enumerated power granted to Congress to regulate *immigration* separate from naturalization. Congress only has that power as a result of SCOTUS decisions that resulted from challenges to the Chinese Exclusion Act.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article I, section 9.

    Its describes Congress being limited until 1808 in the regulation of migrants and slaves. Slavery is unconstitutional now, so that enumerated power with a limitation still applies to immigration.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeff makes the same idiotic argument no matter how many times we straighten him out. This is why I'm so uncivil towards him anymore. He's just a waste. A pile of rotting dogs hit is more productive then him.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    You can't "be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Hillary Clinton told CNN.... "If we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again," says Hillary Clinton."

    That makes no sense as winning wouldn't get rid of the opposition, but it's Hillary, so unsurprised with the faulty logic. After all her previous ideas include attempting to garner more votes by calling disagreeing voters backwards stupid racists.

    In reality since she's one of the main reasons politics is much more coarse than necessary, this seems more like an extortion threat the mob used to get businesses to pay "protection" money.

    So she's evolved from "All non-D voters are backwards stupid racists" to "Pay us with your votes or things will get much, much worse."

  • Number 2||

    You do realize that there are many Democrats who badly want Hillary to shut up and disappear, don't you? Her lingering bitterness is not helping them, and I think she knows that and is acting up on purpose.

    She may limit her public comments to Trump, but in private, don't you think she is just as bitter and furious about a junior senator from Illinois stealing "her" presidency in 2008 as she is about a reality TV star stealing "her" presidency in 2016?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Hillary has been bitter and furious most of her life.

    The only actual accomplishment of the "independent woman" has been riding her husband's coattails.

  • mtrueman||

    "The only actual accomplishment of the "independent woman" has been riding her husband's coattails."

    Just like that lady in the scottish play.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Hillary has been bitter and furious most of her life."

    As HRC is almost certainly a clinical psychopath, this is likely.

  • Dillinger||

    what because Bob Dole bent the knee for 70 years while (D) ran both houses the world was civil?

  • ||

    You'll never convince 'both sides' are doing as Nick seems to be saying.

    Seems to me Antifa are looking for trouble because they've convinced themselves they're fighting 'Nazis'. Look at it this way, if Proud Boys had their meeting what would happen? Nothing. No violence, no destruction of property because they're not what they're being accused of. Antifa are the ones causing the problem by showing up and provoking groups who have a right to assemble. They pepper spray, sucker punch and destroy property. Problem is, Proud Boys aren't exactly a group that won't retaliate and they do and yet they're depicted as being *violent* and on the same level as Antifa?

    I don't think so.

    (cont'd).

  • ||

    Look at it this way, if Proud Boys had their meeting what would happen? Nothing. No violence, no destruction of property because they're not what they're being accused of.

    Check me if I'm wrong here Sandy but isn't one of the requirements of being a Proud Boy participating in a violent altercation with Antifa?

    I don't disagree with what you're saying. Lots of groups opposed to Antifa could bring some pretty serious violence to bear (e.g. Oath Keepers) on any given protest or riot but don't because they're moral compass is a little better calibrated than your average Antifa protester.

    The other aspect of it is, Proud Boys vs. Antifa, Oath Keepers vs. Antifa, Patriot Prayer vs. Antifa... even if the Proud Boys are a violent organization or the Oath Keepers are a violent organization, none of them are as consistently present when violence is taking place like Antifa. To the point where there's plenty of internet footage of 'individual standing at a crosswalk vs. Antifa' and 'person wearing a hat vs. Antifa' and 'anti-Trump leftist protester vs. Antifa'.

  • ||

    I never heard that. Could be. But they will, as I lightly reference, willingly go to an Antifa demonstration as protection for someone.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Compare with any country that prevents Libertarian Parties. Brazil bans all except fascist and communist parties, and forces everyone to vote at gunpoint. Everybody that can get a visa emigrates. Australia has a "forced gauntlet" voting system that filters out everyone but looter collectivists. Cuba and Venezuela are also examples. Every country that is at all civilized has a libertarian party working unmolested to repeal bad laws (rather than get ignorant thieves on government payroll). Go ahead, check it out. Find me a Saudi Arabian libertarian party.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Check me if I'm wrong here Sandy but isn't one of the requirements of being a Proud Boy participating in a violent altercation with Antifa?

    No.

  • wreckinball||

    ANTIFA is always there to counter-protest, riot, fight usually all of the above. They don't have a message other than they want to shut down your message by violence if need be.

    That usually is enough to get events cancelled. Some folks have had enough of this shit. The Proud Boys don't back down and are basically hired body guards for people that wish to exercise their 1A rights without getting attacked by ANTIFA.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I can't hear wreckinball well because he and his pals are chanting 'the Jews will not replace us.'

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, you and your democrat friends are the ones that support people who want to exterminate jews.

    You are pure evil.

  • ||

    Anecdotal story. Years ago, our buddy - a Cuban-American born in Cooba - had a party at his house. Soon, a group of outsiders crashed it, got drunk and starting causing trouble. He pleaded with them to knock it off. We even did our best warning if trouble they seek, trouble they would find. For over an hour, we kept them at bay.

    Then they started harassing some girls, getting rowdier and hit on the guy's sister. Next thing you know, two of them were DESERVEDLY beaten down by our buddy - a Cuban trained boxer. Problem solved. They bitched about it but left bloodied.

    Then a guy's girlfriend - who knew us all very well. She witnessed how more than fair we were and that we weren't pugilists. Everyone loved partying with us. Yet, she decided to call us the 'animals'. She went off like a loon much to the embarrassment of the guy who grew up and played sports with us. It was completely unfair.

    That's Antifa to me. They show up, provoke, get a beating, cry foul, get useful idiots to defend them and run away.

    Keep the blame where it squarely belongs: On the left. They're the ones who have gone unhinged since 2016. They're the ones who couldn't accept the result and look to change the rules.

    Not the fricken right.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That's Antifa to me. They show up, provoke, get a beating, cry foul, get useful idiots to defend them and run away.

    Both of them show up to provoke the other.

  • ||

    No they don't. One side books a place to go meet the other follows them to that place to provoke.

    Proud Boys shows up to places to protect other people also facing the same provocation.

    Proud Boys doesn't go into Antifa meetings or any other left-wing meeting to stir trouble.

    At least from the endless stream of footage and examples I've seen.

  • ||

    AND STOP MAKING ME DEFEND A GROUP CALLED PROUD BOYS!

  • mtrueman||

    "Proud Boys doesn't go into Antifa meetings or any other left-wing meeting to stir trouble."

    If the Proud Boys aren't willing to keep up with their enemies when it comes to escalating violence, they're not going to win. If they are not willing to perpetrate acts, violent or otherwise, aimed at disrupting their enemies ability to organize, they are wasting their time. Antifa is playing for keeps.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Proud Boys aren't going to win. Guys like them have been losing the culture war in America throughout their lifetimes, and they will die losers as America continues its great liberal-libertarian progress. They are, in general, half-educated, stale-thinking, socially inept, disaffected, can't-keep-up losers.

  • mtrueman||

    The right wing is doing much better in Europe where they've ruled the streets for years now. In America, groups like Antifa have the advantage, and Proud Boys, Neo Nazis, etc are routinely beaten back and sent packing. The much vaunted torchlit rally in Washington last summer attracted less than 100 participants from the press reports I read.

  • Sevo||

    You and the annoying asshole are made for each other. spouting unsupported nonsense and idiotic statements masquerading as 'profound'.
    Get a room; you can entertain each other.

  • mtrueman||

    You're stuck with me for now. Keep reading, there are bound to be better, even more profound statements in the pike.

  • wreckinball||

    Possibly. But at this moment the Proud Boys are much tougher than ANTIFA.

  • mtrueman||

    Isn't turnout at their rallies declining? If so, that's the problem they face.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    But at this moment the Proud Boys are much tougher than ANTIFA.

    Proud Boy is just another way of saying Right-Wing Crybaby.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yet they kick the holy shit out of your faggot friends.

    You progtards are little backstabbing pussies that have to gang up on old women to kick any ass. Thats what you and your marxist party are all about.

    And you would never have the balls to run your mouth to someone like me in person. Pussy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Both of them show up to provoke the other."

    Jeffy you stupid faggot, no they don't. Antifa goes out looking for trouble at conservative and libertarian events. No conservative group goes out and harasses anyone at progtard events. No one even gives a shit about progtard events. But a little soft headed fag like you has to invent false equivalency, since God forbid you would ever concede anything to conservatives.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Technically, Rufus, the proud Boys are Lefties too. They jsut are not like Antifa.

    Conservatives tend to protest with families and kids there. They also protest with guns. See Malheur Wildlife Refuge protest. As you said, its usually non-violent and they dont tend to lick fights. They are usually not there to pick fights but to protest whatever it is that they are protesting.

  • mtrueman||

    "are not like Antifa.'

    Surely you understand that Antifa is right wing. Antifa is short for anti-fascist, and fascism, like Nazism, is leftism.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Except that, whatever they call themselves, they ARE fascists. Left-wing fascists.

  • mtrueman||

    Except that you don't know much about Antifa. If you had to choose an ism to characterize them, it would be anarchism, which is neither left, right nor fascist. They are related to the Black Bloc which also attacks their enemies like police, their vehicles and sundry corporate targets. Fascists have historically been less antagonistic towards the police and corporate world.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Fascists in Nazi germany attacked police and when the assumed power, they squeezed businesses and then outright seized many businesses.

    Because fascism is not well defined, it and socialism are not mutually exclusive. All the things you use to describe a socialist state can be used to describe a fascist state. An interesting difference is that fascism can technically be used to describe authoritarians states on the right and left of the political spectrum, whereas socialism is a left wing ideology. Leftwing being rule via revolutionary means. Rightwing being rule via conservatism.

    There are no fascist right wing state examples as conservative states that are authoritarian are monarchies, oligarchies, and theocracies.

  • mtrueman||

    "Fascists in Nazi germany attacked police and when the assumed power, they squeezed businesses and then outright seized many businesses."

    The Nazi target was never the police, but groups like Jews whom they considered to be racially inferior. The Nazis weren't anarchists, and they were socialist in name only, to capitalize on the popularity of socialism at the time. The Nazis were right wing and grew out of the Freikorps movement, explicitly formed to combat socialism.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Antifa is not anarchists. They are fascists, and funded and puppeteered by fascists. They are also enemies of the republic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Antifa people are not against fascism. They are lefty fascists.

  • ||

    I can just go with what McInness claims. That is, they're conservative. He's been pretty consistent the last few years about that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How are they conservative again?

    Religiously conservative? Want change only when there is massive public support? Non revolutionary? Pro monarchy/ oligarchy/ or theocratic rule?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    From what I saw about him, he claims to be the 'new right' and libertarian.

    First, Libertarians are not right wing. Libertarians are not left wing either. Theyre centrist. Maximum Liberty under rule of law.

    Second, 'new right' sounds nothing like what conservatism is. Conservatism is anything but new. Its the same old thing until there is massive public support for minor change. The extreme of that is the catholic church as a theocracy that does not change much over thousands of years compared to societial changes.

    I am always skeptical of these groups because Lefties love to call themselves something to fool people. 'Liberals' are not classical liberals nor lovers of liberty nor lovers of liberalism. They are socialists who tried to fool people by changing their ame from progressive went public opinion turned sour on that name.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Gotcha... OUR collectivists, not those OTHER socialists.

  • No Longer Amused||

    I can personally trace back the lack of civility to the democrats on their hunt to impeach Nixon, followed by their attacks on various evangitards for the next twenty years. Electing obviously dishonest huckster/rapist Bill Clinton made things worse, and once the Hanging Chad nutjobs started in declaring Bush an "illegitimate president" all pretenses were off.

    Obama made racism and open hatred of whites a centerpiece of his administration (along with pushing his version of communism) and openly used government as a weapon against opposing political views he publicly disdained and denigrated.

    Hillary, now apparently senile, has embraced this culture. Trump is the pushback.

    I blame the hippies and their theological descendants.

  • ThomasD||

    Incivility is nothing new in American politics.

    But when the elder stateswoman of one party publicly announces "no civility until we are back in power" then Reason simply had to step in and make it clear she wasn't to blame.

  • TuIpa||

    Charles Sumner say whaaaaaa?????

  • Sevo||

    This is a circumstance where the left simply kept a campaign promise:
    The left said that if Trump was elected, there would be more violence.
    He was and the left began to deliver that violence.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The whole "Where did the civility go?" narrative is utter bullish*t. Politics has only rarely been civl, usually when one side's hold on power was largely unchallenged. The Left used to be better at disguising its core incivility, but they got sloppy and the MSM can no longer cover for them by simply never running stories that show the Left for what they are.

  • Darth Soros||

    You know what the most uncivil (incivil?) act of all? Pointing a gun at someone's head . . . even if by proxy. So statists lose the Civility test.

  • JonFrum||

    And what would be wrong with a little ultra-violence to clean the air? We're not spayed dogs - and even they fight. Better to bring the thing to a boil than to watch it fester.

  • Zeb||

    You can't "be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,"

    If what you stand for and what you care about are government programs and policies, you need to get a life. It's fucking politics. It's always going to be full of compromise and back and forth swings depending on who has power.

  • mtrueman||

    " It's always going to be full of compromise and back and forth swings depending on who has power."

    It depends also on who is most willing to raise the stakes. If a group like Antifa can consistently out disrupt a group like Proud Boys in their efforts to organize politically, Proud Boys are eventually going to marginalized regardless of who is in power politically.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    well lets not understate this TOO much -

    "and the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R–La.) during a congressional baseball practice"

    uh, that "shooting" happened during the attempted mass murder of Republican Congress-critters.

    3 other people were also shot, but Scalise was the only Representative, and of course the worst injured.

    But that doesn't make it not an attempt at mass murder - far more than just a shooting of one person.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They also call attempted murder/murder of politicians and VIPs assassination.

    That was a politically motivated attempted assassination of Congressmen.

  • Toranth||

    Not according to the FBI!
    The FBI declared that since Hodgkinson did not intend to kill *specific* members of Congress (rather, he just aimed for any Republican), it isn't an assassination.
    And the FBI has declared it isn't terrorism, because there is no proof that Hodgkinson had specific political policy in mind that he wanted the government to change - and therefore does not meet the definition of terrorism.

    So, the FBI has declared the attempt to murder the Republican Congressional baseball team because they were Republicans, in order to all the Democrats to take over Congress, to be a random shooting.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I very much dislike the saying "the personal is political" and it distresses me that many people I care about seem to believe it. I refuse to live my life that way.

  • Lance L||

    If things are so bad now, name a time in the past when it was better?
    I think this level of political incivility goes up as the level of political power of marginalized groups also goes up. it is easy to be civil when one group has almost all the power and the other groups "stay in their place".
    I'd rather have incivility and more fairness, not the other way around.

    And seriously, what is a time period that you would rather be in that is better for everyone?

  • Number 2||

    "The government is spending more, borrowing more, and controlling more and more aspects of our lives for no reason other than pure political gain."

    Could it possibly be that the apparent lack of civility, apocalyptic rhetoric and politicization of trivia is simply a tacit understanding between the two parties to distract attention from government spending more, borrowing more and controlling more?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

  • Inigo Montoya||

    It's said that a cornered animal, especially a wounded one, will fight like crazy. The Dems and Reps are wounded, cornered animals fighting for their lives.

    They may not care to admit it, but deep down they know their time has passed. Why do think they want pollsters to not mention any third parties? You'd think that a candidate would want ACCURATE information in order to better strategize. But the truth hurts, so they block their ears and scream loudly, much like a spoiled young child being told for the sixth time that it is already past their bedtime.

  • mtrueman||

    "You'd think that a candidate would want ACCURATE information in order to better strategize. "

    That's why they commission their own polls. You could do the same if you wanted. There's nothing stopping you. And, please note, wounded animals fighting for their lives can actually hurt you; moaning about polling data, not so much.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Left is a puritanical theocratic totalitarian cult
    It's the Left that practices relentless in group preference and out group attack

    Pomo Nick's "a pox on both your houses" is ridiculous

  • XM||

    We're less civil now because the internet and social media enables the worst of humanity to manifest itself in all sorts of manner. And the country became more accepting of crude humor and unorthodox opinion. Something completely trivial can go viral now in seconds.

    In 1995 Chelsea Handler would have been relegated to Jerry Springer status. I doubt network TV would allow someone like Colbert to make nightly penis jokes.

    Incivility is a price you pay in a society (if you choose to see it that way) with strong free speech principles. Because America isn't a shame based, hierarchal society, there's no such things as "you cannot speak this way to an elder or senior, even if the criticism is valid." Without that sort of pressure, Americans are used to talking first and thinking second.

    More concerning is political violence, which goes beyond discourse and is demonstrably on the rise, mostly from the left.

  • Longtobefree||

    Yep.
    It all goes back to the (alleged) free speech movement at Berkeley. Of course, they did not want actual free speech, just speech that tore down common courtesy and plain old politeness.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some young people think they can troll in real life and spitting in someone's face to troll them gets a different reaction in person than on the interwebs.

  • JungleCogs||

    Softball column. Want to get along? Everyone follow the foundation of our country… the Constitution.

  • JungleCogs||

    Oh... and just be civil.

  • Harvard||

    Yeah, but Nick's gal lost you see.

  • Robes Pierre||

    Funny thing, about all this, is that libertarians should know the root cause of uncivility. But no one here does.

  • Echospinner||

    I kinda feel bad for Hillary. She hasn't quite figured out that nobody likes her and the democrats really don't want her around anymore. She might have noticed that they don't call to ask her out to lunch and shopping like they used to.

    She really needs to retire. But then with nothing to do and sitting around the house with Bill is probably not much fun.

    Then the vodka bottle comes out a little earlier each day. Not pretty.

    So she needs something to keep her busy like making cute children's purses which she could sell on etsy. Or she could start her own line of pantsuits.

    A dog is good also. The dog could sit with her while she is designing her pantsuits.

    I wanted to Facebook her with my suggestions but she has me blocked or something. I just get some kind of error message in Russian.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    Ya every time she pops back up I have very mixed feelings. A bit of pity for how pathetic she looks. A bit irritated that she keeps coming back not realizing she isn't popular. A bit happy that it makes it less likely dems like her will win.

    Every time she comes out I get more pumped to go to the voting booth and write in the giant meteor.

  • simplybe||

    Nick I generally agree with your commentary but this time I have to disagree with you. This time in American political history is the greatest thing that has ever happened to our country and actually may save it. You see for most of my 70+ year our Congressman have acted like Statemen and even though most were corrupt they generally tried to hide it. Hell they even occasionally tried to do what was best for the general population as long as it didn't interfer with what their big money backers wanted. Today their corruption is so blatant that even the most diehard supporter finds it hard to ignore. The Saudis threw money at Clinton, Trump and key Congressman openly. The biggest donors to the Democrats and Republicans are Israeli lobbyists. The banks throw money at both parties as do the multinational corporations. When you add all that to whining and humiliating behavior of our of elected representatives it would really be laughable to call any of them Statesmen, especially when not even one of them questions that the Pentagon lost 9 trillions dollars or that Saudi Arabia threatened our neighbor Canada with their own 9/11. With all this going on maybe just maybe the people will wakeup and kick both parties out of office. Hell a room full of monkeys could do a better job of running the country.

  • vek||

    This is all true.

    I think unmasking all of the bullshit is the best thing that could have happened. It is letting people know what's what.

  • PG23COLO||

    Politics is legalized violence and has never been civil. The violence is just not always so close to the surface and so visible.

    The answer to the incivility is to abandon politics and learn to live without initiating force and violence.

  • Anthony555||

    When have politics ever been civil? Rubbish.

  • Michael Cook||

    Voting is a tool to take property from others and to put all kinds of rules on their behaviors. Tools have always been easily weaponized. Take the hammer and sickle, or the pitchfork.

  • Hank Phillips||

    That was true until 1971. Since 1972 voting libertarian has caused the two looter kleptocracy parties to change their platforms and repeal the laws that communist, socialist and fascist spoiler votes had gotten them to enact before 1971. Voting libertarian is winning, by repealing one bad law after another.

  • vek||

    1. Politics has never been civil, as pointed out by many commenters. It's good that the gloves have come off IMO. Now we know where a lot of these shit bags really stand.

    2. I do think we're hitting another period of it being taken up a few notches though... But I think there is legitimate reason for that.

    The Progs had the assumption that because they'd demographically transformed America that they would have permanent 1 part rule forever. When Trump stole that away from them by winning over moderate white midwest working class people, they freaked out, because they hadn't expected it. Their own identity politics had foiled them!

    See they're SOOOO close to the finish line of abolishing the 1A, 2A, and every other traditional American value they hate, that they can SMELL the victory. So to stumble right at the finish line sent them into derangement.

    The right, and libertarians, REALIZED the above. We really are basically at the tipping point right now. If we ended up with another 1 or 2 terms of a Dem president with congress behind them, it'd be America never even remotely resembling what it always had been for the rest of time, or a civil war.

  • vek||

    Now, the slog back towards freedom would be a VERY hard road to travel... But even just stopping it getting irretrievably worse is really all the right is trying to do right now. If they can actually turn it around proper, that will be a real feat, and they know it... But even just holding the line can be very valuable strategically.

    The left can smell victory, and the right knows if they do win it's over for good.

    We're at the political equivalent of Gettysburg or Stalingrad. It's shit or get off the pot time, do or die. And everybody knows it. The entire long term fate of the nation almost certainly hinges on the next few election cycles IMO. If the Dems get their way, the only way to restore freedom will be a civil war, which will almost certainly come as I don't think real Americans who believe in the ideas this nation was founded on will go quietly into the night.

    Time will tell! But certain inflection points REALLY are more important than other times. I think this is actually one of them.

  • Michael Cook||

    I agree with your reasoning but am even more concerned because America will not be allowed to work out this monumental contretemps on our own. Foreign interference by Russia and China seeking to undermine a Trump administration that is much too forceful in the American interest for their liking.

    On the ground that will mean lots of money being pumped into peripheral organizations, perhaps environmentalist groups, the usual social grievance activists, legal activist troublemakers, and support of continued pressure on immigration policy.

    Did anyone happen to catch "Madame Secretary" fifth season premier on CBS with genuine former secretaries of state Clinton, Albright, and Powell having a nice long exchange of liberal platitudes with faux-sec of state Tia Leoni?

    It was a hoot, especially the bits deriding any criticism of reporters as being an attack on the free press, which along with diversity, seem to be really the only critical legs our Constitution stands on.

    I would argue that CBS hasn't employed any journalists for decades. They have a lot of full-time Democrat PR people whose payroll is through CBS but they only read half the news each day (stonewalling everything unfavorable to Democrats) and that only after they spin every report to reinforce the narrative of the day set by the New York Times and the DNC.

  • Michael Cook||

    Another strong message delivered in the cameo-packed episode is that "nationalism is bad." Nationalism is not patriotism, don't you know. Apparently, patriotism is multi-cultural democratic socialism. Hillary made the keynote speech of the bunch and I concluded she is definitely running again, which does not make me altogether unhappy. Especially if the lefty entertainment crowd and the mainstream media are all going to line up shoulder to shoulder behind her again.

    Question--hand RBG and Hillary each a bottle of their favorite and who staggers and falls down first?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Aren't both collectivism?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Aren't both collectivism?

    No.

    Nationalism is collectivism. It is an imitation of patriotism forced upon the people. It is a response to actual patriotism.

    Patriotism just happens. It can happen anywhere, at any time, to anyone. It can happen for great overarching feelings or for personal ideals. It doesn't need state approval.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So it walks and quacks like collectivism, but don't be fooled, it isn't reeeally.

  • vek||

    Well, it is certain that other nations would get involved in at least some ways... If we had an outright violent civil war, lord only knows that would happen.

    The funny thing is, it is entirely possible that Russia may end up being an ally for the right in the US. Russia is out for their own interests to be sure... But they're also very big on not playing into globalism. Globalists, IMO, are really pushing for a real one world government in the long haul. Russia has NOT been keen on this. So simply to deal a death blow to that system, the may well help destroy the left in the USA.

    The rest of Europe at present are basically enemies of any nationalistic government... BUT the globalists are losing all their sway in Europe right now too. If half, or all, of Europe ends up with patriotic leaders who say F-U to destroying their own nations, those countries would probably be favorable with the US during a similar struggle.

    But yeah, shit could get crazy. This is for all the cards, so they will pull out all the stops.

    Never watched that show, but sounds about right for mainstream propaganda BS...

  • vek||

    Well, it is certain that other nations would get involved in at least some ways... If we had an outright violent civil war, lord only knows that would happen.

    The funny thing is, it is entirely possible that Russia may end up being an ally for the right in the US. Russia is out for their own interests to be sure... But they're also very big on not playing into globalism. Globalists, IMO, are really pushing for a real one world government in the long haul. Russia has NOT been keen on this. So simply to deal a death blow to that system, the may well help destroy the left in the USA.

    The rest of Europe at present are basically enemies of any nationalistic government... BUT the globalists are losing all their sway in Europe right now too. If half, or all, of Europe ends up with patriotic leaders who say F-U to destroying their own nations, those countries would probably be favorable with the US during a similar struggle.

    But yeah, shit could get crazy. This is for all the cards, so they will pull out all the stops.

    Never watched that show, but sounds about right for mainstream propaganda BS...

  • Robert Crim||

    Democracy works on the assumption that even your enemy can come up with a good idea occasionally or at least find the flaw in your own argument. The problem here is that Hillary and her ilk don't want democracy. They want to get in and run everything -- from your health care to your soda straws. And, as long as she says, "That's what YOU'RE trying to destroy!" then surprise: THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DESTROY!

    I don't want to "fix" it; I want to end it.

    Were Dianne Feinstein to get her way, I would wind up in a gunfight with the police. When someone starts a discussion by saying, "I want to impose conditions which must oblige your death," then there really isn't much to be civil about. Is Trump a troll? Of course he is. But, so far, he hasn't smeared me as a sex criminal or tried to start a civil war with the Florida militia, and the demodonkeys try to do that every day.

    Fuck you, Hillary: Somewhere there's a bullet with your name on it.

  • CE||

    Democracy works on the principle that the side with more backers would win a fight, so let's skip the fight and live peaceably. In a democracy with periodic elections, the losing side can seek out new coalitions to try to gain power the next time, so they have an alternative to violent revoultion.

    Take of the sugar coating and see it what it is -- not unicorns and roses, but a practical way to reduce real violence.

  • MSimon||

    The City vs Country divide has been a feature of human politics for 5,000 years or more. Too bad we haven't figured it out yet.

    Two Ecologies

  • Michael Cook||

    This is a puzzler. I was really convinced when both Austin and Salt Lake City elected flaming radical mayors a while back. In my state Spokane is a lefty sanctuary city surrounded by flaming red Trump country. One can recall the unfortunate Paris Commune. Barcelona was always a looney nest and St. Petersburg in Russia was so politically and socially maverick under communism (and so different from the rest of Russia) that Stalin gave it a special purge as soon as his armies chased the Germans away in 1945.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Africa saying: When elephants fight, only the grass gets trampled.
    Political Death Matches: They fight, taxpayers die.
    That needs to be reversed.

  • CE||

    Here's how to restore civility:

    1. Let every state vote on whether to join the Red States of America or the Blue States of America.
    2. Give everyone a year and 5,000 dollars to move to the state of their choice.

    No more fighting over control of the Senate and the House and Presidency -- each side will get their own, and the 5K in helicopter money will get both economies off to a flying start.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There are no blue states. Not a one. There are blue properties, but even the cities don't have enough contiguous areas owned by 'blue' constituents to constitute anything like a state.

    'Blue' areas are usually tiny, immensely densely populated places.

    If you take an election map down to the district level, the blue areas are deep blue pinpoints in a sea of red.

    Why should anyone who owns that land give it up to blue leeches?

  • Hank Phillips||

    At your expense?

  • Hank Phillips||

    There's no conflict. The Dem-CPUSA coalition wants to confiscate everything you own and monitor every penny you get hold of--control you economically. God's Own Prohibitionists are for a free market, except in guns, plant leaves, food, beverages, cars, textiles, steel, aluminum, manufactured goods and a few thousand other things, AND to control every thought to make sure it's christian, altruistic, 'murrican--control you ideologically. Both agree the initiation of force is the way to accomplish these things. I agree to watch and cheer if they build an arena and settle their differences by force. Meanwhile I'll keep voting libertarian.

  • Salero21||

    I call her Hellary.

  • NoVaNick||

    It finally happened-got into an argument with a prog friend that started over the plastic straw bans, I mentioned that this was the kind of BS that could get Trump re-elected and she blamed me for voting for Gary Johnson for why Trump was elected in the first place. I just shrugged and walked away rather than suggest she blame her own party's shitty candidate.

  • fayesawyer||

    As it was said in Edu Birdie, each of us can decide to be a well poisoner, or someone who keeps their yard's white picket fence well painted and retreats to the comfort of their home. Or, we can take a third route to being an encourager and someone willing to take the risk to confront evil.

  • Bowfish||

    "Neither Republicans nor Democrats offer a plan where you get to live however you want as long as you're not hurting others."

    What Republican plan hurts other people?

  • DrZ||

    "Neither Republicans nor Democrats offer a plan where you get to live however you want as long as you're not hurting others."

    Both parties thrive on complex governance. Democrats are worse than Republicans, but both are in the same boat. Big government means employment for politicians, more power and more access to the trough.

    This is further acerbated by strong government involvement in public schooling and the sciences, both of which are used to further political goals, convincing people how important it is to be "governed" at every step of their lives.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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