Donald Trump

Donald Trump Proves Once Again That He Is Both a Bully and an Authoritarian

The GOP frontrunner's call to close mosques shows he doesn't understand how the First Amendment works.

|

Gage skidmore

Donald Trump, still the co-frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, has doubled down his initial suggestion that, in the wake of last Friday's attacks in Paris, we must "strongly consider" shutting down some mosques.

Last night, Trump followed up on his initial statement by declaring that mosque closing was not just a possibility but an imperative.

"Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We're going to have no choice," he said on Fox News (via Politico).

As is so often the case when it comes to Trump's ideas about governance, it's not exactly clear whether he is merely ignorant of the law or actively choosing to disregard it. Either seems like a possibility in this case.

Regardless, closing mosques is the sort of practice that is clearly prohibited by the First Amendment's decree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I strongly suspect that most courts would interpret that to mean that shutting down places of worship is off limits, as the free exercise of religion would be difficult to maintain under a system in which the government had unchecked power to close religious gathering places.

Maybe Trump's suggestion was not meant entirely practically? After all, his cable news pronouncements won't be up for review in any court. If so, that merely illustrates—for the umpteenth time this campaign—that in beyond his obvious lack of qualifications for the job of the nation's chief executive, he is also an insolent bully whose first instinct when confronted with any challenge is not only to attack but to smear.

And he is a dim, dull bully at that. Whether Trump is ignorant of one of the most famous and important parts of the Constitution or simply disdainful of its existence, his deliberate amplification in this particular instance is yet another reminder that he is not just a poorly informed blowhard, but an unapologetic knee-jerk authoritarian who cares little for the most basic and fundamental principles upon which the country he says he wants to lead was founded.

Trump has insisted throughout his campaign that his only goal is, in the words of his campaign slogan, to "make America great again," but every time he opens his mouth, he offers a reminder that if granted the opportunity he would casually decimate what made it great in the first place.

NEXT: Increasing the Minimum Wage Does Create Jobs! For Government Employees.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do you know who else Was Both a Bully and an Authoritarian?

      1. Soooo dreamy….

    1. Hillary.
      It’s going to be a great election.

      1. We’re finally going to get the answer to the question of Hitler or Stalin.

    2. Every American president excluding Calvin Coolidge and he’s suspect?

  2. Having seen what we get under Wieners and Decadents, I submit Bully and Authoritarian couldn’t be any worse.

    1. Donald Trump would be worse than any president we’ve ever had by orders of magnitude. He’s a total lunatic.

      1. He’s not, but he’s playing one on TV.

        1. That’s because he stayed in a holiday inn last night.

      2. As long as he isn’t a total lunatic with grey skin, I’ll count myself lucky.

      3. Turn on your TV Irish. Listen to Obumbles latest, then we will talk.

      4. He’d be a worthy successor in the steady march toward rewriting the job title as: President/Dictator of the United States.

      5. Donald Trump would be worse than any president we’ve ever had by orders of magnitude.

        Really? You think he’ll put people in camps like FDR? Or try to pack the Supremes? Or enact the NRA (1933)? etc

        No, he would be terrible, but not THAT terrible.

      6. Translation: Trump is an outsider, not part of the political soft machine’s fine-tuned mechanism. Trump also likes libertarians.

        1. Who cares who Trump likes, Libertarians loath fascists like Trump.

      7. Compare your financial statements with the “lunatic” and get back to us.

        So is the current POTUS a lunatic?

        1. No, just an incompetent.

          1. Not incompetent. He is accomplishing exactly what he planned to do – destroy us from within.

    2. Not all of us are sadomasochists like you, tulps.

  3. Also a wonderful way to really piss off your Muslim population, thus guaranteeing you’ll have people support radicalism because they feel they’re being oppressed.

    I think the proper answer is very strong vetting of refugees (if that’s even possible since the places they’re coming from probably have no records – if it’s not possible you might be forced not to let them in) in conjunction with having a free and open debate about Islam. One of the problems in Europe is that whenever someone is critical of Islam (like Marine Le Pen or Michel Houellebecq) they get dragged before a court of law for ‘hate speech.’ In Houellebecq’s case it’s especially laughable because he talks shit about everyone but the only time he gets sued for hate speech it’s because he criticizes Muslims.

    That means Islam basically operates in Europe with no legitimate debate in the public sphere but lots of angry Europeans discussing it privately while unassimilated Muslims never have the tenets of their faith questioned and basically just hang out in increasingly radical Islamic neighborhoods segregated from the rest of society.

    1. I’m inclined to not let them in, personally.

      “Refugees” can find safety a lot closer to home than the US. I’m just not seeing an upside for the US.

      I could make an exception for people who are completely sponsored by a US citizen (including travel and all), and who pass whatever vetting our crack teams of vetters can come up with.

      1. You’ll get attacked here for saying that, but I agree with you. I’m pro-immigration, but it’s definitely not worth the risk. Make exceptions for marriage to US citizens and family of people already here, but outside of that, no.

        1. Attacked by whom? There are less than half dozen here who defend this. Look at the threads yesterday. Every author who penned some madness about letting them in was eviscerated. I see Welch is doubling down today. I guess the acid hasn’t worn off yet.

          1. I was attacked here for saying that part of the solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism is to stop letting them migrate here, and stay the fuck out of the middle east, period. But it was the stance on immigration that I was scolded for.

            I can’t remember who it was, but I do remember it, just a couple days ago.

            1. Why would you be scolded for “stay the fuck out of the middle east”?

              1. Why would you be scolded for “stay the fuck out of the middle east”?

                There are a few here who are essentially neocons when it comes to foreign policy. They fall for the false choice of either fighting the radical Muslims over there or fighting the radical Muslims over here. They just don’t believe that not fighting the radical Muslims at all is a choice.

                1. Yeah, and they need to turn in their libertarian cards. Being a neocon and being a libertarian are incompatible goals. The cognitive dissonance of these people amazes me.

              2. It wasn’t that I was scolded for, it was for saying I was in favor of limiting immigration for the middle east.

                1. ‘from the middle east’, sigh…

                2. Cytotoxic seems to be in favor of ‘Bring them here so we can destroy them here’.

                  I eliminates having to deploy troops.

                  1. It eliminates…

          2. It just seems like a lot. most of the attacks come from Cytotoxic.

        2. This isn’t immigration.

      2. I’m of two minds. I think both sides of that debate are idiots. Right wingers are convinced this will result in mass terrorism, which is unlikely since we’ve historically integrated Muslims much better than Europe has. Meanwhile, the left (along with Reason, unfortunately) is just pretending any concerns about the refugees is illegitimate, which strikes me as ludicrous given the terrorism problems in Europe at the moment.

        1. The concerns are ridiculous and the rhetoric is damaging. Why couldn’t a secret terrorist hiding among refugees just get a visa to come to the US? The ones in our own refugee program take 2 years of screening.

          1. “Why couldn’t a secret terrorist hiding among refugees just get a visa to come to the US?”

            This is way harder to do if we’re not bringing in 100,000 people at once.

            1. How so? The person getting the visa is separate from the refugees. And we’re not bringing in 100,000 people.

              1. We would if Obama could get by with it.

                But I think instead he’s switching back to attacking gun ownership again.

              2. From the New York Times:

                “On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said at a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill that the total number of refugees taken in by the United States could rise to more than 100,000, from the current figure of 70,000. State Department officials said that not all of the additional 30,000 would be Syrians, but many would be. But Mr. Earnest said that members of Congress “misunderstood” Mr. Kerry, and that the number of refugees would not rise to 100,000 next year but might in later years.”

                Okay, not all at once, but it would be 100,000 over the next few years according to Kerry.

                1. I think these people should all be given tents on the lawns of Kerry and Clinton and that there should be signs put on their front doors saying ‘The asshole that fucked up your country lives here’.

                2. My understanding is that 10,000 spots are being reserved for Syrian refugees. The 70,000 number (to be 85,000 in 2016, and possibly 100k in 2017) includes refugees from all over the world. There have been calls to allow 100k Syrian refugees, but that hasn’t gone anywhere.

                  1. How many syrians are there? I’d think the place would be empty by now.

              3. Hillary and O’Malley say 65,000

              4. The individual visas get a heck of a lot more vetting than 100,000 all at once do.
                If you buy that any vetting of 100,000 would get done.

                1. Yeah, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to vet 100,000 people over the course of many months. Just ask the airport customs people who accomplish that every day or so. Then again, we are talking about the federal government, who prove their incompetence on a regular basis.

              5. Barry wants to bring in 150,000. Have you seen Congress stop him from doing anything over the last seven years?

          2. ” The ones in our own refugee program take 2 years of screening.”

            Any chance the refugee screening under discussion will be “expedited”?

        2. Not illegitimate, just way overblown.

          1. ^ This.

            1. ^ this indeed

        3. Irish @ 12:25: This. But good luck fending off the attacks from both sides.

        4. we’ve historically integrated Muslims much better than Europe has

          I’m not convinced this is true. If it is true, possibly it’s because we haven’t had the same intensity of immigration from Muslim countries as Europe. Is it an issue of critical mass in ghettoized areas like in the banlieues?

          1. There are US cities that have a lot of Muslims (including lots of refugees from fucked up places with lots of terrorists and stuff) and they don’t have the problems they do in Europe. I think the US clearly does a better job integrating.

            1. Our Muslim population is something like 0.8% of total pop. In France it’s closer to 10%.

            2. Having recently moved to Michigan, this is undoubtedly true.

              Everyone is understandably sympathetic to the French right now, but they do not have a good track record when it comes to minorities and foreigners. The US and France are not even comparable in this aspect.

              1. Muslims go on a car burning rampage every few months in France.

                Sorry, I meant to say “youths.”

            3. Isn’t Detroit a counter point?

              1. To what? Are there a lot of Muslims causing problems in Detroit?

                1. Dearborn has a very large number of Muslims. I’m not sure it has been problematic, but it’s a pretty bad area. My wife would not let me take my grandkids to the Henry Ford Museum, for example.

                  1. History in Hamtramck as voters elected the first majority Muslim city council in the country.

                    But rather than ease racial tensions, the comments from a Muslim organizer threaten to divide.

                    It was a historic moment Tuesday, but followed by a controversial comment that may create or widen the rift between the growing Muslim and shrinking Polish community in Hamtramck.

                    “Today we show the Polish and everybody else,” said Ibrahim Algahim in cell phone video.

                    1. the muslims in the US do not have the numbers yet to start wide scale mischief, give it time, they will when then get the numbers to do so.

          2. I dunno. LA has several dense population centers that sprung up with people fleeing the Iranian Revolution. I’d guess it’s more about the economic standing of the immigrants that could make it to the US more than the religious background.

            1. I agree that class maybe a factor for Muslim Americans. Many are educated and have some resources they bring with them – they’ve all immigrated legally. Europe is pulling from a different pool.

              1. True, but their adopted societies are doing an absolutely terrible job at integration. You look at Germany which imported a TON of Turkish workers following WWII (all their men were dead and their infrastructure was in shambles) and three generations later they aren’t considered truly German. In France there’s a pervasive belief that Frenchness is an achievable state, but no amount of acculturation is going to make their North African immigrant population white enough to be “French” and they have limited upward mobility.

                The narrative of what an immigrant can expect in the US is totally different. First generation immigrants move here, work their assess off, send their kids for an engineering degree while their native counterparts study something usless and their kids get stock options when they sign up with a startup or something.

          3. Historically, Muslims have not been separated out from the “normal” population here. When Arab groups in the US were originally asked how they wanted to be identified on census forms, they elected for “Caucasian,” because they didn’t *want* to be seen as a separate group.

            European countries are much more tied to their historical self-images as “Christian” countries, in part *because of* the historic rivalry with Islam.

            Muslims in Europe are more distinctly and aggressively treated as outsiders and second-class citizens. This in turn leads to a separatist mentality on their part.

            Prior to 2001, Muslims didn’t stand out in this country at all really – and self-identified much less than they do now. It’s a feedback loop of sorts.

        5. “Mass terrorism”?? LOL, no. But how about one incident in Times Square on New Year’s Eve (so we can all watch people blow up), or on a Sunday afternoon at Disney World?

          Don’t say foolish things to heighten your point.

          Historically, muslims INVADE Europe (see: The Crusades) and kill a lot of people.

      3. I’m inclined to go back in time and not let in whatever cholera ship your forebears rode in on.

        1. Well, Tony, if the Native Americans had the opportunity they probably would have preferred it that way.

          I hate this argument and you should find a new one. We basically annihilated the Native Americans, so it’s probably a bad argument to use that as your example given what our arrival did to the people already here.

          1. They really should have fought the Europeans on the beaches – tough shit.

            1. And in the air? And on the land?

              1. Somewhere east of the Dakotas.

                1. That might not have helped – smallpox and other Old World diseases wiped out by some estimates up to 90% of the people of North America before they even had a change to lay eyes on a European.

                2. Drake,

                  Plenty of Indian Wars east of the Dakotas.

                  http://www.warpaths2peacepipes…..attles.htm

          2. This is the reason Hawking says we should NOT be trying to contact aliens.

        2. Whelp, off you go then. Say g’day to Doc Brown for us.

        3. I’m inclined to go back in time and not let in whatever cholera ship your forebears rode in on.

          Hey, now!?

          His ancestors didn’t come on the cholera ship; they came of the syphilis ship.

          1. I think syphilis was New World.

            http://www.livescience.com/176…..urope.html

        4. Tony, these aren’t immigrants. They’re not coming here to become Americans.

      4. completely sponsored by a US citizen (including travel and all)

        Everyone who takes part in the Refugee Resettlement Program is required to repay the cost of travel to the US, though the loan they get for the trip is interest-free.

        1. Interesting. Thanks.

        2. Wait isn’t that indentured servitude? Not knocking indentured servitude –it’s how a few of my ancestors got here..not having the cashy money to leave the old country an all.

          1. No, that would only be the case if they were paying off the travel by working for the government. It’s just an interest-free loan they accept before coming.

        3. ROFL. Yeah right.

      5. I could make an exception for people who are completely sponsored by a US citizen (including travel and all), and who pass whatever vetting our crack teams of vetters can come up with.

        Definitely, but my problem is that we’re still only talking about 10,000 refugees. If the conversation was about opening up the refugee spots to hundreds of thousands, as it is in Europe, I could understand the hesitation. But the govt is still talking about a pretty small number of refugees, only about 4x the amount it has already taken in (and presumably there will still be Syrian Christians among those lucky few).

        1. The number will only grow. It always does.

        2. If one percent of the number you give are fundamentalist muslims (Barry wants 150,000), then we’ll have 100 bomb belts detonating on US soil. You’d better hope it’s not at the WalMart you’re Christmas shopping at.

      6. RC nails it.

        Also, these refugees, as I understand, are already safe in Turkey. That is where they are coming from, not Syria.

        1. Well, yes, they’re in refugee camps. That’s where they have to stay until their application is approved.

        2. How dare they aspire to more than simply not being shot or blown up!

          1. How dare they aspire to more and expect other people to pay for it.

          2. They need to go fix their home country. They can also choose one of the other 230+ countries around the world to live in. They can “aspire” anywhere they like, it doesn’t have to be here.

            Did you know the USA had no immigration for a couple decades in the 20th century? There was nothing racist/bigoted about that, we were just doing the right thing for the country at that time. Read up on it…

    2. because they feel they’re being oppressed.

      Or, in this case, because they’re actually being oppressed.

      1. Yeah, I realized my language was too wishy washy after I hit send. My kingdom for an edit button.

        1. We would have an edit button already if it wasn’t for Nikki.

    3. thus guaranteeing you’ll have people support radicalism because they feel they’re being oppressed

      I submit that governments forcibly closing down mosques is the textbook definition of religious oppression.

      Still don’t want more Muslims, but it doesn’t justify violating the rights of the ones already here.

      1. The fact that islam is not just a religion, but an entire societal construct, IMHO separates it from what is referred to in the 1st. A.
        No one has a right to alter our entire society.

      2. Except that islam is a death cult and a vehicle for political and social oppression, not a religion.

    4. So what you’re saying is that the muslim population isn’t already pissed because a “few” makes them look bad? My question then is, why aren’t they ass pissed as so many others are?

    5. They’re not radicals, they’re fundamentalists.

      And how do you vet people that come from countries with no paper trails on their people? No birth certificates, no court/criminal records, no traffic violations paper trail… You’re just repeating something you heard on the TV/radio.

      PS: We’re not Europe.

  4. It’d be much quicker to make a list of things Donald Trump DOES understand. Hint: how to have a hairstyle is not on this particular list.

    1. He understands how to make sure Hillary is elected.

    2. He’s good at drawing attention to himself.
      And pissing off the right-thinking people.

    3. I suspect Bernie Sanders’ explanation of socialism as “just democracy, really” is similar to our own AmSoc’s explanation of how we can get free shit just by voting to rape the rich – there’s more of us than there are of them. (Otherwise known as the idea that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.) Despite what the law and the Constitution say, Trump or Sanders or whoever can get away with doing whatever a sufficiently large mob will allow them to get away with doing. Kill all the Muslims or kill all the rich or kill all the rich Muslims, stir up enough fear and anger and envy and sense of entitlement and the shit can get seriously fucked up before a little sanity re-asserts itself.

      1. Then we can LARP the French Revolution–fun times.

    4. He understands success very well.

  5. He’s doing his job of making Hillary look reasonable. In the debate after the nominations, he will yell ‘Let’s build a huge all around the country and deport 30 million people!’. Hillary will look reasonable. Then he’ll say ‘Lets close down all the Mosques!’. Hillary will look reasonable.

    Him and the Clintons have a good deal going here. Hillary wins, Trump gets mega crony deals. WIN/WIN.

    1. Would that be the same Hillary that couldn’t name a single accomplishment during her “career” in DC?

  6. They’re not religious institutions. They’re terrorist recruitment centers. Prove they’re not. Prove it. Ha! I win.

  7. “Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice”

    I kinda love this man. “No one wants to do it, but you understand we’re gonna do it. It’s gonna be great.”

    1. Let me translate “we’re gonna do it” – I’m totally full of shit, and we’re totally NOT going to do it because it’s an extremely stupid idea and those of you who actually believe it are morons.

    2. Ronald Reagan also said “we have no choice” when the GOP decided after all to reach an open hand into the till for Nixon’s campaign subsidies. Republicans are like the looter in Atlas Shrugged who, arms outstretched, recites “Unfortunately, my hands are tied. Orders, you know.”

      1. yeah Hank, just like Atlas Shrugged…. derp.

  8. Fuck off, slaver.

  9. People sort of side-eye Muslims and wonder if they’re harboring a secret glee over terrorist attacks, and Muslims are often asked why they don’t speak out more against the radicals. I think it makes sense though. Who ever jumps up to make sure it’s known that they condemn attacks by other people who resemble them in some way? Doesn’t that just tie you to them all the more? If someone checking one of my demographic boxes does something horrible, I wouldn’t feel inclined to condemn it as a member of that group. Like “He’s a fucking weirdo Muslim! I’m much more in the executive Muslim area.”

    1. One big problem though is that radical ideas among allegedly ‘moderate’ Muslims are far more widespread than the media will admit. CAIR, for example, is actively anti-free speech and many high ranking members basically want to outlaw criticism of Islam. Ibrahim Hooper spearheaded an effort in the late ’90s to sandblast a 60 year old art installation in the Supreme Court because it contained an image of Mohammad. He also wanted someone tried for a felony hate crime for putting a Koran in a toilet.

      Those kinds of wildly illiberal ideas are actually pretty common among Muslims, even in America, and are way more common abroad. That’s not even getting into rampant misogyny, homophobia that makes that of the fundamentalist Christians’ look totally irrelevant, etc.

      1. Do American Muslims adhere to CAIR’s politics in the way American Jews adhere to the ADL’s? Their agendas seem to be roughly on the same level.

        1. That was one example. Muslims in Europe and Australia overwhelmingly support similar laws.

          The Labour Party Leader in the last election tried to woo British Muslims by saying he wanted to outlaw all Islamophobia. Don’t think he’d be telling them that if he didn’t think it was a winner.

          1. According to Pew, Muslims in America tend to be more devout than average, along the lines of evangelical whites, but they closely resemble Protestant blacks in terms of politics (pro big government but socially conservative). They believe in a literal interpretation of scripture at about 50%, which is lower than both white evangelicals and black Protestants.

            In short, they aren’t so different from any other religiously inclined group. I’m not sure what the point is in pointing out their devoutness–you can’t do much about that except sit around and wait. The bigger problem would be discrimination and bigotry, which American Muslims have admirably not used as an excuse to radicalize.

            I gather that American Muslims “assimilate” better than European Muslims for the same reason other immigrant families from beyond the Americas do: they tend to simply be wealthier and better educated (oceans tend to be a filter in that way).

            1. The real test of Muslims is if they will or will not bake a gay wedding cake. If they won’t, they’re bigots, simple as that. And I’m not the one who said this makes them bigots, the left decided that.

              So will they or will they not bake a gay wedding cake? That is the question.

              1. I’m waiting for a gay couple to ask a Muslim bakery to decorate a wedding cake with a picture of Mohammed.

                1. Louder with Crowder delivers.

            2. So American evangelicals advocate imprisoning people for insulting Christianity? Send like the “average” Muslim is a lot crazier than the average Christian.

              1. So this has been in the news today.

                Three Republican presidential candidates [Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee] spoke at a forum in Des Moines this month hosted by a pastor who raved approvingly that the Bible justifies killing gay people […] “Yes, Leviticus 20:13 calls for the death penalty for homosexuals,” Swanson exhorted. “Yes, in Romans Chapter 1, Verse 32, the Apostle Paul does say homosexuals are worthy of death ? his words, not mine. And I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I am not ashamed of the truth, of the word of God. I am willing to go to jail for it.”

                1. Swanson even urged parents of kids having a same-sex wedding to sit at the entrance “in sack cloth and ashes” covered in cow manure.

                  This guy isn’t a nutcase at all.

                  1. “Swanson even urged parents of kids having a same-sex wedding to sit at the entrance “in sack cloth and ashes” covered in cow manure.”

                    Why didn’t he urge them to execute the gays? I like my crazy to be consistent.

                2. Someone should ask that fucker if he thinks kids who are disobedient should be put to death too, seeing as how they’re listed as one of those horrible groups in that chapter.

      2. Well, “moderate” is an inherently relative thing. Those are moderate Muslims. They are a lot like the idiot campus activists who want to be able to use force to silence people who say things they don’t like.

        But they can believe whatever they want as long as everyone else continues to tell them to fuck off when they demand stupid laws like that.

        1. But they can believe whatever they want as long as everyone else continues to tell them to fuck off when they demand stupid laws like that.

          yeah, uhhhhh, about that…

          1. Well, yeah, that is a problem. So far in the US it’s working, though.

  10. Has the government ever “closed” a Christian Identity church. I recall them shuttering a 7th Day Adventist offshoot back in the 90s.

    1. I recall them shuttering a 7th Day Adventist offshoot back in the 90s.

      I sincerely hope that was meant as a Waco reference.

      1. Don’t forget the Peoples’ Temple!

        Also, we’re going back a little, but Utah wasn’t admitted to the union until the Mormons made some changes to their doctrine.

    2. Missouri (I think) had a bounty on Mormons. I don’t mean a capture bounty, a kill bounty.

      1. And it was in effect until 1976. Yep, 1976.

      2. What the hell did they do to Missouri?

        1. That was their first promised land. When the Missourians disagreed, they left for Utah.

          1. Ok, why the hate for Mormons? Was it the polygamy or just that they were a different religion? We don’t take kindly to yer kind round here? That sort of thing?

            1. I think it was the polygamy, primarily. And the whole “God told us your land is ours” thing. But at root, people just thought they were weird and wanted them gone.

            2. I think it was the weird religion combined with the intent to create a whole new society separate from regular Christian Americans.

              1. So they were kind of like Muslims?

            3. I think a lot of it was all the fucking of underage girls.

              1. That concept didn’t really exist at the time . It was the polygamy and the heresy. (second bible and space-religion shit added onto christianity)

  11. Donald, have you any evidence that a particular mosque is being used as a base for a treasonous and criminal conspiracy to harm other people?

    You do not? Then please kindly shut up. Thank you.

    1. Do you have any evidence that he wants to close down any particular mosque?

      1. I do not have any evidence that he is not completely talking out of his ass. I am not even sure how he got to that line of thought in the first place. However, what I describe is about the only scenario I can think of where the government could shut down a mosque without running afoul of the 1st amendment.

        1. I’m 100% absolute positive that he is talking out of his ass, and he’s going to continue doing so. When something is working, why stop doing it?

        2. By “First” do you refer to the Amendment that protects the “free” exercise thereof? I do not recall any Amendment that protects brainwashing people into the coercive exercise of fanatical genocide. I know there must be one or we couldn’t have had the Anti Saloon League, WTCU, KKK, Lord’s Day Alliance, Methodist White Terror or their representatives Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew and the procession of Drug Czars that bubble out of the entrenched looter parties in DC.

  12. “The GOP frontrunner’s call to close mosques shows he doesn’t understand how the First Amendment works.”

    What Trump understands is how to stay in the headlines without spending any of his own money.

    You can’t buy coverage like this. Mr. Suderman, with all due respect, you’re being played. Reading pieces like this is why some people think that Trump is the kind of President that will really get things done.

    You’re effectively working for the Trump campaign with a piece like this–and he doesn’t even have to pay you for it.

    1. I think you are partly right – but you may be missing something. I think a significant part of his base actually WANTS this. Think about the kind of person who not constitutes the standard GOP primary voter. Lots of them would LOVE to see these mosques shut down and “them Moooslimz” deported.

  13. Anyone else read Caliphate by Tom Kratman?

    The backstory has Pat Buchanan coming back from the political dead to win the Presidency after a nuclear 9-11. Everything else Kratman predicted is happening right now, and Trump seems to have taken Buchanan’s place in the story-line.

    1. I read Michel Houellebecq’s Submission and it’s one of the best books of the 21st Century.

      It’s about an alcoholic, porn addicted literature professor who lives in France. Marine Le Pen’s National Front looks like it’s going to wins the presidency, so other parties throw their support behind an Islamist party and basically give them control of France. It’s really good and is timely given recent events.

      1. The students at Yale and Mizzou would definitely back an Islamist party.

        1. The thought of them running their mouths to the Islamic religious police almost makes it tempting.

          1. That’s the point when the unintended consequences of their unhinged stupidity slaps them back into reality.

        2. At least their rapes would be real

          1. So would their oppression – safe space.

      2. In Caliphate, the fall of Europe is the backstory for Christian slaves trying to escape Muslim Europe.

    2. Demography is destiny. In the 22nd century European deathbed demographics have turned the continent over to the more fertile Moslems. Atheism in Europe has been exterminated. Homosexuals are hanged, stoned or crucified. Such Christians as remain are relegated to dhimmitude, a form of second class citizenship. They are denied arms, denied civil rights, denied a voice, and specially taxed via the Koranic yizya. Their sons are taken as conscripted soldiers while their daughters are subject to the depredations of the continent’s new masters.

      In that world, Petra, a German girl sold into prostitution as a slave at the age of nine to pay her family’s yizya, dreams of escape. Unlike most girls of the day, Petra can read. And in her only real possession, her grandmother’s diary, a diary detailing the fall of European civilization, Petra has learned of a magic place across the sea: America.

      I wonder if you have any idea how ludicrous your fevered nativist paranoia looks to other people.

      1. They are denied arms, denied civil rights, denied a voice, and specially taxed

        Sounds like the progressive utopia finally arrived.

      2. Explain why this can’t happen.

        Europe is comprised of democracies. If 51% of its people want an Islamic society, they’ll get one. Now explain why 51% of its people will never want one, preferably citing birth rates, immigration rates, and the success of assimilation in your argument.

        1. Sorry, unlike most people I was tragically born without the ability to reduce complex individuals to a single attribute or complex situations to single factors that I could project on a biaxial graph. It’s a handicap that has really hurt my prospects as a cynical fear-mongering demagogue.

          1. You didn’t disprove his negative, Hugh. DISPROVE IT OR SHUT IT!

          2. If you look at a map, you’ll notice that Muslim societies tend not to be ones in which you would like to live. This isn’t hard. People have posted the Pew surveys all over this thread. Muslims tend to have certain views that are incompatible with our conception of Liberty. Like outlawing “Islamophobia.”

            Do you deny the concept of gentrification? Do you think demographics have an impact on the way Brooklyn or San Francisco are governed? Would you want to import millions of Bernie Sanders voters to wherever you live?

            But then, I’m probably just a racist pants shitter for preferring my peaceful suburban community to the vibrant banlieues of gay Paria.

            1. If you look at a map, you’ll notice that Muslim societies tend not to be ones in which you would like to live.

              What makes you think Hugh wants to live in any extant society very much? I’m sure I don’t.

              Would you want to import millions of Bernie Sanders voters to wherever you live?

              No, but I also wouldn’t want to import any voters.

              But then, I’m probably just a racist pants shitter for preferring my peaceful suburban community to the vibrant banlieues of gay Paria.

              Is your “peaceful suburban community” somehow not full of slavers who send armed goons after people for using the wrong drugs without the right permission slips, paying for sex, or committing countless other victimless “crimes”?

        2. In the real world, which you are welcome to acquaint yourself with at anytime, the demographic trends are clear: Muslims are never going to take over Europe. They are never going to be a majority, and even if they did, there’s really no reason to believe it will be much more Islamist than Muslim-majority Albania.

          1. Wow. I’m not even that certain about what I’m going to have for breakfast.
            Well done.

        3. “”Europe is comprised of democracies. If 51% of its people want an Islamic society, they’ll get one””

          Western Institutions wont be erased by mere changes in the demographic makeup of a country. The presumption is moronic.

          Also, the burden of proving that somehow that “assimilation” will fail… in contrast to how its worked in every other multicultural society…. is on you. Show me why 3 generations from now that the grandchildren of immigrants will still be pretending they just arrived in Europa and retain some kind of cultural-genetic desire to transform it into the totalitarian Shithole their forebears abandoned.

          1. Permit me to take up this burden.

            LOL cousin marriage.

            Rotherham.

            “The Belgian Neighborhood Indelibly Linked to Jihad”

            Here’s some pabulum from PBS about how it’s later generation folks driving a lot of this extremism or whatever you want to call it

            They already HAVE turned several neighborhoods into the totalitarian shithole their forebears fled. This isn’t hypothetical. Muslim gunmen have enforced a de facto blasphemy law as regards Islam.

            And, yes, NAXALT. But enough ALT that I’d prefer to keep them in their lands and us in ours for the time being.

          2. This, and the white overlords of the EU won’t let the brown people change teh rules.

      3. I keep hearing ISIS described as “medieval”. Explain to me how the situation described is any different from 8th Century North Africa or 18th Century Greece.

      4. Hugh, I sincerely hope that you are never proven wrong about this issue.

        1. I don’t think I will be. Immigration is a different thing in Europe because they have ethnic identities there that predate the rise of the nation-state. But every wave of immigrants to the US have more or less integrated successfully and brought with them traditions and ideas that have made America a more vibrant and interesting place.

          I find it difficult to believe that Islam is some kind pathological identity signifier that uniquely warps its practitioner into bloodthirsty stealth conquerors. More likely is that violent assholes use the language of Islam and the fear of distant empires dropping death from the skies to rally people into supporting their power grabs. Much the same way that violent assholes in the US divide people into rich/poor black/white native/immigrant in order to provoke people into supporting their power grabs out of fear and hatred.

          It’s easier to manipulate people who are poor and scared than people who are content and prosperous, which is why our putative leaders always have a villain or two for us to fear and envy.

          1. find it difficult to believe that Islam is some kind pathological identity signifier that uniquely warps its practitioner into bloodthirsty stealth conquerors.

            Oh, but it is, Hugh. Sure, we’ve imported many millions of people from Catholic monarchies, Communist regimes, and third-world dictatorships over the years, but see, their values were compatible with ours in ways the Muslims Islamists Moslems Mohammedans terrorists can never be, er, somehow.

            1. Altruists haven’t changed. Toe the extent altruism is anywhere regarded as something of value, people there are enslaved by fanatical murderers. One counterexample would destroy the generalization. But inductively, anyone can plot increasing violence and coercion with increasing altruism and then search in surprise for ways to write it all off as coincidence.

          2. Just a quibble:

            Immigration is a different thing in Europe because they have ethnic identities there that predate the rise of the nation-state. But every wave of immigrants to the US have more or less integrated successfully and brought with them traditions and ideas that have made America a more vibrant and interesting place.

            This is an idealized version of the American immigrant experience. Immigrants brought lots of shitty ideas and traits with them. The Italians practiced a particularly virulent kind of organized crime (entrenched via prohibition – no doubt) and who can forgive the Irish their corned-beef and cabbage?

            Also, context matters. Those waves of immigrants arrived without the benefit of the welfare state and at the height of the industrial revolution. Labor laws were lacks and land was plentiful. In certain respects we live in a less free economy and that obviously limits economic opportunities.

            1. I’m not saying it was linear or smooth, but by and large immigrants have integrated into the larger American culture and become productive members of society. Even the Irish, who keep countless bars and liquor stores in business.

              1. Point taken. There is still the problem that folks fleeing altruist slave camps come to These States looking to elect “the right politicians” who will make altruism work and prove to the world that it is after all compatible with something other than concentration camps, barbed wire and mass graves. The smooth infinitely differentiable functions yielded by correlations backed by simple definitions of causality make no impression whatsoever against Revelation by invisible devils and angels, and are taught to avoid comparisons or methods of inference.

            2. Plus, the Welsh immigrants ate all of our coal!

          3. …bloodthirsty stealth conquerors.

            Surely these are but demons conjured by the fevered minds of the lower classes! Those benighted yokels fueled by the demons whiskey and methamphetamine! Surely none of our enlightened Moslem brothers and sisters have indicated any desire to conquer! [I’m not even going to put links here, because at this point it’s clear that you’re arguing based on faith, not on evidence]

            You seem strangely convinced that everyone is like you. It’s positively George-Bushian. We can’t even get Americans, in large part, to respect gun rights or lower taxes, but you have zero qualms about importing vast sums of people from totalitarian cultures, because apparently none of that matters. Freedom is a gift of God and the wish of every human heart, right, Hugh?

      5. My favorite part of the fantasy is that it all happens because white people don’t think reproducing is attractive in generally prosperous Europe, but do continue to have kids when they are effectively born into slavery.

        1. So the European caliphate is ok because the Christians will just stop having babies and fade away?

          Didn’t scroll up to see what exactly you are replying to.

        2. Apparently women have more children when they lack control over their bodies. Who knew?

      6. They don’t care they WANT this to happen. It’s their fantasy. Punish liberal decadent Europe AND wage a war on Islam as the moneyshot.

      7. I’m just disappointed that he used “Moslems” and not “Musselmen”.

        1. What, no “Mohammedans”?

    3. This is an interesting read

      Not the same genre, but an insiders view of the tactics used to appeal to Muslims in Europe.

      1. Nawaz is great. He’s a terrible Muslim though (he got photographed in a strip club recently) so he has no actual pull with Muslims in Europe. They really don’t care for him because he’s too liberal.

        1. Yeah, he’s just a plain ol sinner who wrote a book.

        2. He won’t persuade traditional Muslims, I grant. His real value is in persuading Westerners the importance of challenging Islamists.

  14. Also in the Constitution is a ban on treason.

    He is speculating that there may be mosques plotting treason and that such a mosque would need to be shut down.

    Is that really a controversial idea? Do we really think there isn’t a mosque somewhere in Detroit aiding and abetting terrorist cells? We can’t be afraid of serving warrants on such organizations just because they are religious organizations.

    Going off on Trump here is essentially an attempt to prove a negative.

      1. How does a building sell drugs?

        1. Both good questions.

      2. OIC. You equate a “mosque” with the building, and not the people.

        We have a lot of “Churches” around here that rent space and don’t have an actual building to their name. So it never occurs to me to equate a religious entity with real estate.

    1. Trump could have done a much better job explaining if that is what he really meant.

      1. I think that explaining something to his moron supporters would be like trying to teach algebra to chimps.

      2. My guess is it’s just a brash meaningless statement made for effect.

      3. The explaining comes in phase 2. That way he bogarts 2 news cycles instead of the zero that he deserves.

    2. Yeah, I’m guessing that in his mind he’s thinking some of these mosque are openly calling for attacks on America in which case yes that would be treason to your point and shutting them down would be the least we should be doing. I’m sure that there are mosque like that in the middle east but if that were happening here we would probably know about it. Of course he may already know that and just is grandstanding.

      1. Many mosques in the Western world were instated with Saudi money and Wahhabi doctrine. Wahhabis hope to take over the world for Islam in the same way that Evangelicals hope to take over the world for Christ. The big difference, of course, is that Evangelicals operate through persuasion while Wahhabis and Salafis use force and terror.

        1. So those stories about Bush wanting the death sentence for hempsters, the bombing of Vietnam and 50 other countries, the DEA and CIA meddling abroad and cops kicking in doors and shooting unarmed folks in their homes are all:
          a) lies?
          b) mohammedans that managed to infiltrate These States government agencies?

          Indeed, I seem to recall Pauline Sabin responding to American religious prohibitionists in 1931 that mohammedans had had alcohol prohibition for 600 years and still did not own the world.

    3. “Do we really think there isn’t a mosque somewhere in Detroit aiding and abetting terrorist cells?”

      No one knows anyone such thing outside of intelligence people, your pretending aside.

      If a mosque is aiding attacks then you can go through this thing called a ‘trial’ to prove it.

    4. Do we really think there isn’t a mosque somewhere in Detroit aiding and abetting terrorist cells? We can’t be afraid of serving warrants on such organizations just because they are religious organizations.

      Well gee, since we don’t know, we might as well suspect all of them. You better round up some guys to go to their neighborhoods, check in on their businesses and places of worship to make sure everything’s on the level. You should probably dress alike so everyone knows it’s you. How about you all wear the same color shirt; brown or black, maybe?

  15. It is possible that people worried about immigration are pants-shitters, but I think Europe illustrates nicely what happens when you admit large numbers of people to a liberal democracy who do not share said democracy’s ideas.

    What happens in France if the Muslim population continues to grow? They already have issues with Disaffected Youths burning cars and such. The fellas who shot up Charlie and the Bataclan seem to have been able to move about freely in Belgium’s Muslim neighborhoods.

    How long can you stay in the game when you keep playing Cooperate, and the other guy keeps playing Defect?

    1. They become an Islamic Republic with the world’s 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in 30 to 40 years.

      1. On the current track, France and Sweden are ran by caliphates in a decade or less. UK is next.

      2. And unicorns take over America.

        Leave us out of your delusional fever dreams please.

        1. Yeah, the next thing you know, some crazy will be saying that silly Canadians will elect Justin Trudeau as prime minister!, hahahhhaaa… oh wait…

        2. Are you disputing the demographic math, the end-result, or just flinging poop because your feelings are hurt?

          1. I am disputing the demographics. The demographics are clear: Muslims are never taking over Europe.

            1. There’s a difference in not wanting Muslims to take over Europe and them eventually doing it. I’m sure there’s no one here who wants Muslims to take over Europe. Well, maybe if they only do it long enough to take out all the leftists and then they get bored and go back to some sand covered shithole, then ok.

            2. Native French have a fertility rate just below replacement level. Muslim immigrants are reproducing at 3 to 4 times that rate – before you factor in immigration. Even if they are only doubling the native fertility rate, they’ll be a majority in a few decades without dramatic changes.

              http://www.meforum.org/337/isl…..life-is-in

              1. You are positing an immigrant birth rate that is substantially higher than the birthrate in their homelands. That’s delusional. Oh, never mind. The article is 20 years old.

                1. Yeah – there is a suspicious lack of current demographic data out there.

                  1. It’s easy to find on wikipedia.

                    Note that except for a couple outliers the ME is mostly at 2-3 children per woman. Which inevitably goes down when they enter a richer society like Europe.

              2. I followed the link but found no diff EQ against which to check their asserted figures.

            3. “I am disputing the demographics. The demographics are clear: Muslims are never taking over Europe”

              Wait, I want to play.

              The demographics are clear.
              Muslims will take over Europe before 2045.

          2. I see you don’t know Cyto. Here’s Cyto in a nutshell: We need open borders and we need to bomb people, cause Murika fuck yeah! That’s pretty much it.

            1. Won’t we eventually have to bomb ourselves since everyone will be here?

              1. I think our military is prepping for that now, from the looks of things.

    2. But in all fairness, JB, you also have to consider that France does not assimilate its muslims. I believe this also applies to much of the rest of Europe.

      1. It definitely applies in Sweden. There are a couple of documentaries available on this.

        1. I was visiting Sweden 20 years ago. My relatives were chastising America for being racist. That same week, Swedes were fire bombing Turkish apartment complexes.*

          *by which I mean the residents were Turkish, not the actual buildings.

      2. We don’t assimilate our Muslims either. Heck we don’t even really assimilate our Christian Arab immigrants.

        It’s humorous how libertarians have such a painstakingly difficult bar to clear in order to be a true libertarian, but the bar for assimilation is basically don’t actively attack the US. It’s not even clear to me that libertarians wouldn’t consider a imam who preached in support of ISIS, but didn’t actively take up arms, as assimilated.

        1. It’s clear to me you are a pair of clown shoes.

          1. That’s giving Tulpa a little too much credit. He’s one clown shoe at best. One that the dog left a little surprise inside.

          2. And libertarians wonder why their ideas never get implemented. Here’s a hint if your movement is a heremetically sealed sausage fest your movement better be made up of a bunch of billionaires if you want to influence policy. Unfortunately the libertarian movement is made up of freelance coders with a let’s say spotty work ethic so you might want to try arguing with opposing ideas.

            1. Of course libertarianism ISN’T a hermetically sealed sausage fest, but you just keep on keepin on there bucko.

        2. It’s not even clear to me that libertarians wouldn’t consider a imam who preached in support of ISIS, but didn’t actively take up arms, as assimilated

          I fully support their right to say anything they want to as long as they aren’t actively encouraging people to go kill the infidels in the street and then someone acts on it.

          1. That’s a given. Libertarian support for fifth columnist is indisputable. The question is would you consider him assimilated. Most likely you would.

            1. One of these days someone is going to slam the toilet lid down while you are getting a drink and that will be the end of Sam Haysom.

              1. I keep telling you what happened to your mom was a freak accident. It’s never going to happen again. Crack whores get dehydrated and it’s not like you guys could afford bottled water. The important thing is- it was an accident you didn’t mean to kill her. After all it was dark in that bus stop bathroom and mean should you have heard the slurping sure. But I’m pretty sure a kid with you background learned pretty quick to block out the sounds of slurping.

                1. You are so cute when you try.

          2. I have a problem with actively encouraging the killing of infidels.

          3. I’m sure the mohammedans are just as eager as GOP and Dem christians to give up superstition, altruism and violence in favor of reason, science and freedom.

    3. There is not much ‘liberal’ about France. The problems of France demonstrate what happens in an illiberal welfare state.

      1. Oh, dear God. I agree with the Cytotoxic. Next I’ll be ordering the poison called pumpkin spice latte.

        1. The only thing that should have pumpkin in it is pie. That’s it. Not coffee and sure as hell not beer, blech!

            1. NO! And especially not beer! There’s only one thing that beer should have in it, BEER!

              1. Bread?
                OH come on!!!

          1. There is not one molecule of pumpkin in a pumpkin SPICE latte.

            What it has is the spices that remind us of pumpkin pie.

            So, you’re safe.

        2. EMBRACE THE YUPPE DELICIOUSNESS

          1. I agree with you on many things, Cytotoxic, but…no.

      2. So America is safe as long as we don’t start trying to emulate Europe? Oh wait….

    4. I think Europe illustrates nicely what happens when you admit large numbers of people to a liberal democracy who do not share said democracy’s ideas.

      Europe isn’t really liberal. They’re social welfare states with rigid labor markets. My guess is Muslim immigrants would have and could have integrated more successfully if welfare benefits were limited and labor laws less restrictive. Also my guess, the US was more successful at assimilation in the 19th and 20th century because we lacked those characteristics. But, WTF do I know, hmmmm?

    5. I suspect we see Europe swing to the right if things go too far in the Muslim direction. There is a lot of ethnic nationalism in Europe. It hasn’t been dominant for some time, but it’s still there and waiting. I think that European nativists reasserting themselves is more likely than an Islamic takeover. Whatever it ends up being, it’s likely to be a big mess.

      1. Like someone said here the other day, European governments will probably keep doing nothing until it is too late, and then they will do something really awful.

        1. So… like every government?

          1. Yes, but more so!

        2. WWI. WWII.

          Can’t imagine why you think that’s the case.

          1. WWIII, this time with feeling.

  16. He’d run this country like he runs his hotels! And it wouldn’t suck!

    1. They’d just lose money? We’re already doing that!

    2. I don’t want to get tired of winning though.

    3. Declare bankruptcy and screw the investors? Might not be a bad idea.

      1. And then fly away in a helicopter?

        1. Marine One – show some respect.

  17. “he is both a bully and authoritarian”

    That may be, Peter, but anything is better than this preachy, wishy-wash from Obama about carefully accessing options, not launching a gigantic ground war in Syria, fighting terrorism intelligently and not making things worse. What a load of hooey! I’m for the old Skool Republican plan circa 2001-2003. Let’s invade and occupy a poor and desperate country run by Islamists and then another country at random. So, I say, onto Syria and onto Uruguay. There’s probably some Muslim assholes in Montevideo and then old president is a former Marxist who lives in a normal apartment building. Sounds weird. You can never be too safe, you know.

    1. Obama…fighting terrorism intelligently and not making things worse

      Things with ISIS and the Taliban have certainly gotten worse under Obama. For all of Bush’s faults, he handed Obama mostly stable situations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama has added Libya and Syria to the list, and escalated Afghanistan and Iraq. I don’t see anything “intelligent” about Obama’s approach.

  18. Believe what you want. I feel like it is best. He is for keeping premium tobacco eliquid and e cigs on the market, so he is my man! I don’t want to go back to smoking.

    1. Hey, I heard that Trump works on the internet making $437 a week. He’s my man!

    2. I don’t want cigarettes running my life either, but voting libertarian still looks better than running up fascist prohibitionism. Haven’t we been there and done that too?

  19. “And he is a dim, dull bully at that.” – He obvious is not dim, as in unintelligent. Dull, as in boring, maybe. Bully, look’s like it.

    “beyond his obvious lack of qualifications for the job of the nation’s chief executive, he is also an insolent bully whose first instinct when confronted with any challenge is not only to attack but to smear” – and so, yes, he’s a dime-a-dozen politician. What might meaningfully distinguish Trump from Obama along this dimension?

    1. Its almost impossible to attack Trump in terms that don’t also apply quite neatly to our current Dear Leader.

  20. okay so all the really really smart people at reason, the constitutional scholars, really don’t mean to assert that a church can be used as a cover for terrorism. the kkk couldn’t use a church to run drugs, guns, ammo, bombs and violence, right?

    shutting down a church that is a terror hub isn’t religion specific, but we don know it is a way terrorists recruit. you don’t get to commit crimes inside of churches! scotus is very clear on it in rulings.

    this site has gone so far down the rabbit hole in their trump hatred and race baiting moral preening it’s hard to tell who even bothers to think over here anymore.

    1. And yet here you are here, when Freep and Townhall are still open.

    2. I don’t hate Trump, but I sure as hell do not want this goof ball getting the GOP nomination so that he can hand the election to Hillary.

      Anyone who listens to this guy and thinks any of the bullshit he goes on with is serious in any way, is a retard.

    3. When you can prove that is happening, then come back and provide the evidence.

      Otherwise, fuck off slaver.

  21. What might meaningfully distinguish Trump from Obama along this dimension?

    The most important difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama is the guy who stopped Hillary from being president, and Trump is the guy who will ensure that she will be. So right now, I like Obama more than Trump.

    1. Wow, Hyper, way to be a downer.

      1. I know that’s depressing, but it’s reality.

    2. Damn, but I gotta say I’ll take Hillary over Trump or Obama. Hillary is a crook. Trump is a proto-caudillo. A nativist Hugo Chavez.

      1. It feels like this election is more “playing Russian Roulette with four bullets” than anything else.

        1. Four bullets, and the gun’s semi-automatic.

    3. No. Hillary would have stolen $50M. Obama pissed away trillions.

  22. Thomas Sowell in his recent Random Thoughts post:

    If the 2016 election comes down to Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, my advice to the younger generation would be to try to find some other country to live in. Australia or New Zealand might be a good place to start looking.

    1. He forgot Canada! How can you forget Canada?

      1. For most Americans, the tricky part isn’t forgetting that Canada exists, it is remembering.

      2. Well, if you are leaving to get away from a smug, proggy, hyper-regulated craphole . . .

        why would you go to Canada? For the weather?

      3. I used to spend Christmases in Northern Minnesota

        I’m good.

    2. Canada’s not that terr… oh right, they just elected that clown. Chile might be nice. New Zealand is so far away.

      1. Trudeau Jr sucks but he is not that bad and THANK GOD Harper is not in charge. He would have used the Paris attacks to implement a total police state and we wouldn’t get any refugees.

        Unfortunately, the country’s provincial governments are mostly retarded and up to their eyeballs in debt and Trudeau wants to mimic some of the ways they got into such a state.

        1. we wouldn’t get any refugees

          What a tragedy for Canada.

        2. Give us your address – we’ll send you a few.

  23. Maybe he wasn’t thinking about the Paris attacks at all and just wants to build some more casinos

  24. Suderman Wrote: “And he is a dim, dull bully at that.”

    Trump is a bully, yes, I will agree with that. He is not, however, dim or dull. He is merely catering to dim and dull voters. He could not have been as successful as he has been if he were dim and dull. He was successful in business, he then became successful in the entertainment industry, now he is (to date) successful as a candidate. I do not want him as POTUS, do not misunderstand, but he is NOT dim or dull.

    1. I always wonder why it is that the dumb people get rich and run things while the smart ones limit themselves to writing online magazine articles.

      1. This.

    2. “He is not, however, dim or dull.”

      Have you listed to this guy speak? Read his speeches? He’s an incoherent babbling fool, to a degree that suggests mental illness.

      1. Pot meet kettle.

        I’m just kidding you can’t meet someone who never leaves his basement.

      2. “He’s an incoherent babbling fool, to a degree that suggests mental illness.” – Then, should one forcibly straitjacket him? And those supporting him are also mentally ill. Oh, the world is so unpleasant for those of us mentally healthy.

      3. Cytoxic, you may not like the way he speaks. I don’t either. But he is apparently communicating with his intended audience. That, is the only standard of speech that actually matters outside of a classroom setting.

    3. Many people are talented in some ways and idiots in others.

  25. Trump can not make America great again. Trump is a billionaire because he has mastered crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.
    Trump wants his own version of big government.
    Trump says anything that is beneficial to his goals at the moment in time that he says it. Which means what he says will always be changing to fit his current wants and needs.
    Trump’s next book should be titled “The Art of BS.”
    We can not have a thin-skinned, hot headed, narcissistic, egomaniac in charge of our military, foreign policy and nuclear codes.
    Choose limited federal government. Stop making millionaires out of our politicians and lobbyists. Stop increasing the power of connected corporations.

    If you care about freedom, privacy, jobs, security, economics, peace, prosperity, lowering taxes, larger paychecks and limited government, then your choice should be Rand Paul.

    1. Good try, Mrs. Paul, but I’m afraid your son is a bit behind in the polls…

    2. Wow, you could put any of the other candidates names in place of trump and it would read the same. Ceptin maybe paul

      1. True dat… unless the topic were reproductive rights.

    3. What about those of us who have ALREADY been duped by the same fake looter v. looter alternative and have learned from it? Can we go ahead and vote libertarian and get ten times the law-changing power per vote?

  26. We can not have a thin-skinned, hot headed, narcissistic, egomaniac in charge of our military, foreign policy and nuclear codes

    That pretty much covers that front runners for both parties. Guess we’re pretty screwed.

    1. I wouldn’t describe Hillary or Obama as particularly ‘hot-headed’.

      1. Hard to say, since we never see her in an uncontrolled, unscripted environment.

      2. Could definitely describe them both as vengeful, and that often goes hand in hand with being hot headed.

        1. I thought revenge was a dish best served cold?

          I bet Hillary has a mean temper. Obama just likes to get drunk (or so I’ve heard from one second hand anecdote).

      3. Aired headed.

    2. I’m betting my vote on the second derivative spoiler effect. It worked for the commies and religious fascists in getting us into this mess, and it prolly would have gotten us out of it already if not for Nixon’s “standstill” subsidies for looter party campaigns.

  27. Trump may not know,how the First Amendment works, but he knows how AMERICA works, you commie atheist islamo-traitors!

  28. Decimate? Trump would centimate.

    1. Kill one in a hundred? I’m not following.

  29. I’m completely bored with Trump and refugees and Muslims.

    How about a nice old-fashioned abortion thread?

    1. A gay abortion thread would be the bee’s knees.

      1. Circumcise the gay fetuses before they get aborted, and you got yourself a deal.

        1. Refugee gay fetuses directly descended from William Shatner stem cells.

        2. Deep dish gay fetii, produced from messican butt secks, and conceived at MJ orgies.

    2. free abortions for Muslim refugees?

      1. Are you trying to make some wingnut heads explode?

        1. Heads explode? Wouldn’t this be exactly the kind of abortion a so-con could support?

          1. How dare you talk about female jihadists in Paris that way?

  30. Donald Trump Proves Once Again That He Is Both a Bully and an Authoritarian
    The GOP frontrunner’s call to close mosques shows he doesn’t understand how the First Amendment works.

    Trump is merely doing it wrong.

    With the aid of unwitting, well-meaning progressives, get Mosques on the government teat, then have them shut down.

  31. “Regardless, closing mosques is the sort of practice that is clearly prohibited by the First Amendment’s”

    Actually not.

    Just like any other organization, they can be closed down if found to be breaking the law.

    Saying “God said to do it” does not make you above the law.

    Here is the relevant quote, which agents of the Progressive Theocracy never seem to want to provide:
    “Some bad things are happening and a lot of them are happening in the mosque and you’re going to have to do something. “

  32. “Nobody wants to say this”

    This is the secret of Trump’s success.

    He says the truths the Progressive Theocracy hold as blasphemy, and doesn’t back down when they attack him. They attack him, people hear what he said, and people agree with him.

  33. Because I watch Reason instead of teevee, I sometimes get the looter candidates (and their looter parties) mixed up. My question is this: How many GOP candidates have said on camera that they like libertarians or said they think we have a lot of good ideas?

  34. He’s not talking about shutting down all Muslim Mosques. Only those that are absolutely proven to be facilitators of terrorism. And I’m not even a fan of Trump much at all. I mean if they started shutting down Mosques that aren’t involved with terrorism then yes there’s good cause to be upset. But Reason you’ve become a bunch of fucking clowns and I say this as a diehard libertarian. Your recent advocating of bringing Syrian refugees blindly proves this. It’s fucking suicide. Just look at Sweden where they’ve been taking in Muslim immigrants for years and now have skyrocketed to rape capital of Europe. Nearly all the perps are Arab Muslim men and nearly all victims are native white Swedish women. And more Swedes are buying guns to defend themselves from those barbarians coming in. I’ve been more and more annoyed lately with your behavior. Time for a time out in the corner.

  35. Trump Is the kind of guy we need in the White House. He will not take shit from anybody and get the job done.

  36. I wonder…if we could get enough people to stipulate that Herr Drumpf has the biggest dick in the known universe, would he go away and leave the contest for the nomination to adults…or at least to the zoo animals that do something more entertaining than throw their turds at everyone in sight?

  37. Mosques should not be shut down if they are following US laws and the US constitution; however, if a particular mosque is consistently engaging in treasonous or felonious activity, it should be shut down. For example, if a US mosque is caught funding ISIS or another enemy of the US, that would be treason. Moreover, if mosques are inciting violence against Americans (e.g., encouraging the members of their congregation to physically assault businesses or individuals that make cartoon images of Mohammed), that would be felonious. In these two cases, we have legitimate reasons to shut down a mosque.

  38. This rag really needs to change its name to “Braindead”. I think it is more descriptive of the dumbass senior shitheads, I mean editors, it seems to have.

    Hey fuckhead, I mean Suderman, why don’t you take all the single male refugees into your home and let them stay there. I won’t go to your funeral after they kill your jew ass, but I will come and piss on your headstone.

    1. You know what problem is don’t you? People like yourself pretend to be Libertarian because you like the sound of it. In reality, you’re nothing more than a neocon.

      You might find Breitbart or DailyCaller more to your liking.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.