Donald Trump

Donald Trump is an Awful Frontrunner, But Hillary Clinton Is Worse, for Practical Purposes

She gets a free pass on her policies but is much closer to winning the White House.

|

C-SPAN

It's about that time when presidential polling starts to matter. The frontrunners, nationally as well as in Iowa and New Hampshire, remain the same as they've been all summer. The most recent RealClearPolitics average of national polling has Donald Trump at just under 30 percent and Hillary Clinton at about 56 percent. Trump, a product of entertainment/politics culture difficult to find historical parallels for, has unsurprisingly dominated news coverage. He has a knack for outdoing not just other candidates but himself when it comes to trashing constitutional principles and being a bad person.

Most recently, Trump blew a hole into the news cycle by announcing he was in favor of closing the U.S. borders to all Muslims trying to enter legally, eventually having to walk that back so as to exempt American Muslims who may be overseas. Do the details matter? Donald Trump has very little chance of being president. His odds are at 8 percent, compared to 55 percent for Hillary Clinton, according to ElectionBettingOdds.com.

More importantly, Trump's comments have garnered derision not just from his Democratic opponents but most of his Republican ones. Even Rand Paul, who has supported closing immigration from a number of "high risk" Middle Eastern countries characterized Trump's call to stop all Muslim entry into the U.S. a "mistake." Other candidates, and even Speaker Paul Ryan, condemned his comments. So many Republicans blasted Trump for his inane comments that he's threatening to leave the Republican party. Most Trump supporters would be able to find another Republican candidate to support. But the opposite is not true—supporters of other Republican candidates are highly unlikely to switch to Trump if their preferred candidate backed out. I think even Trump would concede (or brag) that he's nobody's "second choice."

Trump's views are awful, but there's no sign they're part of mainstream Republican thinking. If anything, his candidacy has allowed other Republicans to illustrate how much worse Republicans could be than what their opponents claim about them now. Trump has not been able to substantively break 30 percent since jumping into the race. It's his ceiling. That 30 percent is a subset of Republican voters, who make up just 25 percent of the American population. Trump is a tempest in a teapot.

Not so for Hillary Clinton, who looks poised for a relatively easy win in the Democratic primaries. Clinton may not be calling for an end to all Muslim immigration, but the policies she's supported and executed have directly contributed to the instability in the Middle East and North Africa that is being exploited by Trump's xenophobic fervor. And her party, just last week, began an organized call to curb the Second Amendment rights of Muslims on the "no-fly list." That list contains tens of thousands of names, almost exclusively Muslim, placed arbitrarily based on leads often generated by the irrational fears of tipsters, or even law enforcement, and not any kind of detective work, let alone due process.

None of the Islamist terrorists to hit the United States since 9/11, including the Fort Hood shooter, the Boston Marathon bombers, the Chattanooga shooter, and the San Bernardino shooters were on no-fly lists. But countless innocent Muslims are, with little recourse of getting off, even if they're veterans. The no-fly list is not some carnival barker's brain fart on the campaign trail, it's a federal tool, with basically no oversight, that's used to keep thousands of Muslims from flying and that the ruling party in this country, right now, wants to use to keep thousands of Muslims from exercising their right to bear arms as well. But Democrats can point to Donald Trump, who has articulated a position—no Muslim entry into the U.S.—that is not shared by any elected Republican in Washington and that no politician is actively working to implement.

Similarly, the fears Trump exploits when he calls for an end to Muslim entry into the U.S., and that other nativists exploit when they call on suspending immigration from certain countries or for the U.S. to stop accepting refugees, exist in large part because of the policies of the Obama administration, and specifically those executed by Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state during President Obama's first term.

Today, ISIS is reportedly training pilots in Sirte, Libya, a city just across the Mediterranean Sea from the shores of Italy. ISIS is believed to be building up a base in Libya in case the international coalition operating in Iraq and Syria manages to dislodge them from the territory they hold there. The rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria is a result of the disastrous U.S. war in Iraq, but its ascendancy in Libya is a result of the 2011 U.S. intervention in that country, one that Hillary Clinton gave her full-throttled support as secretary of state. Clinton also voted for the Iraq war back in 2003. She's had to apologize for supporting the latter war, but the foreign policy and the professed anti-war positions of the Democratic base have not forced her to apologize for supporting the intervention in Libya. She continues to defend it.

That Clinton appears to be headed for an easy victory on the Democratic side without engaging with her responsibility for the situation today is a tragedy. So is that Republicans are poised to choose a candidate who won't be able to challenge Clinton on her positions because they support them too (and all the Republican candidates, save for Rand Paul and maybe Ted Cruz, do).

Advertisement

NEXT: Bernie Sanders: Defensive on Guns, Half a Cheer for Rand Paul

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. I am applauding the alt-text before I even read the article. Outstanding.

    1. Was ist? I’m on my mobile cellular telephone.

      1. “It makes a difference”

        1. Eewww!!

  2. …but is she a fascist?

    1. Someone got a nerve touched, didn’t they?

    2. Yes. You two have more in common than you think.

    3. Your lack of an Oxford comma is infuriating.

  3. Holy crap, Mr Krayewski! I guess donation deadline is when we pull all the stops?
    Good article, and it’s about time for it!

    1. @Pan Do Trump bashers give no points for integrity? Speaking one’s mind?
      When McCain said he’d “build the dang fence” what I heard was “All right, wacko base, I’ll SAY it but as all us sane people know, I won’t actually DO it.”
      So, Pan, when Rubio & Jeb come around to follow The Donald, do you believe they mean to build a fence? Of course you don’t.
      In order to be fair you gotta compare something to something. So who’s better than Trump? Rand? When he said “Okay. Okay. I’ll sign the dang Tom Cotton letter” he did not really believe in that letter. It was a Bill Kristol loyalty test. It demonstrated lack of integrity.
      Cruz? He called Chuck Hagel anti-semitic. Hagel bled in a jungle for his medals. Cruz’ ilk runs more toward squeaky-voiced Fox military expert, Ralph Peters who calls Obama a “pussy”.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzSlldIUHQ
      Trump’s off the cuff and over the toup comments are his own.
      If it has become de rigueur to agree with Ed that “Trump’s views are awful” then tell me who is better. The Donald is capable of looking AIPAC in the eye and saying “You cannot control me because I don’t take your money” when they come around with their next Tom Cotton letter and Bill Kristol war plan? Is Rubio? Does that capability — refusal to start wars in order to pander to a special interest — not count as a “view”?

  4. or for the U.S. to stop accepting refugees

    You don’t have to be a nativist to oppose our current refugee/asylum policy. It is one of central planning and government subsidy. Everyone should oppose it, particularly libertarians.

    1. I agree. I think immigration is good in a libertarian environment, but with live in a welfare state with various forms of forced associations. Furthermore, the motivations of politicians arguing for letting in refugees are self-serving: they hope for political advantage in the short term, and more “minority voters” in the long term.

      1. Thanks for expressing it well. Not all opponents of unlimited immigration are troglodytes.

      2. An expanding welfare state . . .

    2. I’d be more inclined to agree with you if you were advocating reforming the refugee system into a more libertarian model, free of the welfare subsidization attached to it. But it seems more often the reaction to our terrible system is to block refugees, rather than fixing the refugee system.

    3. We should ld only consider accepting Syrian refugees AFTER all the other Islamic Arab/Persian/whatever states t
      Are done absorbing them. Many of those countries are rolling in cash, have room, and can easily take the bulk, if not all of them. If we have to pitch in, I would rather throw a few bucks to help resettle them in their own region, rather than pay billions to bring them halfway around the world to take care of them.

  5. So what if we buried those two terrorist shitheads in Pig Carcasses? Deterrent or not? Too much?

    1. I think that would violate the right to life for murderers, “cruelty free” for pigs and the Constitution’s Freedom From Religion clause. Very problematic for half our commenters.

      1. But would it be a deterrent? It’s not like we can incite them to be any worse than they are.

        1. Really? You can’t imagine a worse assault than 2 people with .22 caliber rifles?

          1. You read much about ISIS? I have no doubt they did the worst they could. It’s not really a serious question anyways as we would never do it. More curious as to whether it would actually be a deterrent. Something that was brought up on a local radio call in show

            1. To answer the “serious” question, no – martyrdom trumps food purity laws.

              To answer the other question, yes I’ve read about ISIS. In terms of their ability to rain destruction on their enemies they are no Nazi Germany. They are assholes, but they are small peanuts – not worthy of the pants-shitting that’s been going on around here.

              1. No, my point was that your not going to incite them to be bigger assholes, not that your going to increase their capibilities. I was thinking less about food purity laws than burial rituals concerning entering heaven which is their whole goal with the martyrdom

                1. Maybe I’m missing the antecedent of your “them.” Who is the “them?”

                  1. Islamic Jihadist that commit terrorist acts here like the two in San Bernadino. Not dying is not a motivation so that’s what I was getting at.

                2. I don’t think you have much knowledge of Islamic burial rites. There is, yes, a preferred method of burial, but you don’t get excluded from paradise just because your body was mishandled.

                  The only religions I know of that require specific burial practices in order to actually go to the correct afterlife are mostly dead in these days.

                3. We should train pigs to sodomize their corpses and then roll the sodomized corpses in pig shit. Then let Jews dance on them. That should keep,them from Allah.

              2. So, circle, you do not support concealed carry? Why would any but a “pants-shitter” need a gun? You people really are a parody of thought.

              3. Just kill them all and leave.

          2. If you think a .223 Remington (5.56 NATO) round is indistinguishable from a .22 LR, well, you need to learn more. Otherwise you’re just deliberately obfuscating. But you’re probably doing that anyway. It’s pretty clear that AlmightyJB wasn’t trying to assert that the particular method they picked couldn’t be any worse, just that they couldn’t be any more radicalized.

      2. …Freedom From Religion clause…

        Um, that’s actually a freedom from government interference in religion clause.

    2. I think that burying them in pig carcasses might be a little extreme, maybe just beat the shit out of them and kick them out of the country. Make Hillary take Bill with her, make Donald take his hair with him.

    3. Cremate and toss the ashed in pig slop.

  6. the Democratic base have not forced her to apologize for supporting the intervention in Libya

    And they won’t.

    Democrats tend to be anti-war – not anti NATO-led bloodless (for the USA) regime change.

    1. anti-war explains both world wars, korea, and vietnam.

      1. Vietnam was pretty bloodless, right?

        1. And LBJ was rightly hounded out of a second term.

          1. A second elected term.

          2. That’s not anti-war. That’s anti-loser.

          3. By cancer.

    2. Not bloodless for the USA.

      1. But this time, Trump will have a general that is mean AND smart.

        1. You know who else had mean AND smart generals?

          1. Abraham Lincoln?

          2. That old guy who dies in the beginning of Gladiator?!

          3. William the Conqueror?

    3. Democrats tend to be anti-war

      Since when?

      1. 1969-1992

        1. Oh – and 2001-2008.

    4. So apparently you think it does not count as a war if we only kill the other guys?

      1. Qadaffi had it coming.

        In the end the people of Libya killed him.

        1. same could be said of Saddam in Iraq. And yet…

          1. Saddam did have it coming.

            But not for our $2 trillion and 4500 US lives.

            Why do you conservatives always ignore cost?

            1. PB I just talked to the Organ Grinder.

              Even he will not take you back.

              Apparently flinging poo at the customers does not make good tip’s.

              Stop that !!!!

              /WHACK

            2. You’re forgetting the multiplier effect. That $2 trillion probably generated $10 trillion or so of economic stimulus.

              There are also over 1 million members of the armed forces. 4500 is a drop in the bucket, and they knew what the deal was when they signed up.

              What’s your problem with this?

              Every country isn’t Libya. If you want regime change, sometimes it takes a little more than a few drone strikes to prop up a revolution that may not exist.

              1. @Brian: US taxpayers ought not be in the business of changing any regimes except for every fourth November within our own shores.
                Even supposedly “bloodless” coups may plant the seed of latent, pent-up bloodletting. Take, for example, when we installed the sadistic Shah: Do you not agree, Brian, that those Iranian humans whose parents or children were tortured by OUR Shah have every moral right to take revenge on America or Britain for the regime we installed there?
                Pottery Barn rule: we install a regime, we own the whirlwind.
                Now, with ISIS, our overwrought reaction to bloody beheadings overlooks the latent urges instilled by our more civilized use of silent drones, gleaming cruise missiles, and little-reported supplying of USA manufactured cluster bomblets that rip children’s flesh. The reaction internalized by family members of victims of USA’s MidEast meddling is heartfelt and lasting even if the US’s deployment of high tech weaponry made those deaths seem less barbaric to you.
                Lastly wrt your Keynesian “stimulus” by that logic we can employ 500,000 workers digging holes in the Mojave desert and another 500,000 filling them in afterwards to our economic benefit. Try reading Milton Friedman.

            3. I think I’ve seen only one person actually defend the invasion of Iraq here. Who are you arguing with?

              I may as well say, ‘why do you leftists always starve countries that don’t submit to your yolk?’ Should I just assume from now on that since you’re a lefty that you’re a big fan of Pol Pot’s killing fields?

        2. What did that have to do with what I asked?

          I believe our bombing killed some people in that conflict.

        3. “Qadaffi had it coming.

          In the end the people of Libya killed him.”

          Qaddafi wasn’t in serious jeopardy until the rest of the world provided support to the rebels. They also bombed the hell out of the Libyan forces.

    5. “Democrats tend to be anti-war”

      You lying little Turd Burglar PB !!!

      /WHACK

    6. “Democrats tend to be anti-war”
      Since when? Take your pills, buddy.

    7. Democrats tend to be anti-war

      Democrats delude themselves in all sorts of ways: they believe they are anti-war, anti-racism, pro-equality, even liberal. Of course, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

    8. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Roosevelt, Wilson . . . Dems are not “anti-war”.

      1. Don’t forget Clinton bombing the shit out of Serbia.

  7. New poll from the Live Free or Die state:

    Washington (CNN)Donald Trump has a growing lead among likely primary voters in New Hampshire, and both he and Marco Rubio have gained ground in the state since September, according to a new CNN/WMUR poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

    Overall, 32% say they support Trump (up 6 points since September), with Rubio a distant second place with 14% (up 5 points). That 18-point lead is almost double the 10-point lead Trump held in September over businesswoman Carly Fiorina.

    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie holds third place in the new poll with 9%, followed closely by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (8%), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (7%), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (6%), and both businesswoman Carly Fiorina and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 5%. Fiorina has dropped 11 points since the September poll.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/…..index.html

    But somehow he can’t win.

    1. His supporters have to show up on election day and vote for him to win.

      1. Just make sure there’s an eight-hour topless monster truck rally on the teevee on votin’ day and his supporters will not show up.

    2. PB you disgusting little poo eater !!!

      You have never met anyone from New Hampshire, or anyone out of the D.C.

      /WHACK

    3. And yet he’s behind Cruz in Iowa.

  8. If there’s any bright spot in a Trump/Clinton match-up it’s that at least …..

    Shit.

    1. A flimsy pretext to get stinking drunk?

      1. I think it’s a pretty solid pretext actually.

  9. Trump and Hillary riding the top of their respective polls are telling of what rotten institutions both Teams are. One is a pandering, lying sociopath willing to do or say anything to satisfy her political ambitions, the other is a clueless braying jackass who either has no idea what he’s talking about and is therefore a retarded clown, or he does in which case he is an unrepentant authoritarian caudillo wannabe.

    The fact that other candidates, even the ones with a documented history of being adults or at least principled, are trying to edge into the spotlight by copying these fucking monsters should be a cause for dismay for anyone who still thinks the American political system is still worth a tinkers damn. Even those of us who have transcended such petty mortal concerns are not unmoved by the sheer dipshittery of it all.

    1. Well-said.

    2. or he does in which case he is an unrepentant authoritarian caudillo wannabe.

      Thanks, now I have an urge to play Tropico again, and let Se?or Presidente show them how it’s done.

      1. +1 China Development Aid with illegal emigration for maximum evil.

    3. so what are you trying to say, Hugh?

    4. Yes the overwhelming feeling i get in the face of all this dipshittery is dismay.

      The only measure available for candidates to measure success is the various and sundry polls. So long as Trump and Clinton continue to lead there the other candidates will attempt to imitate them.

      Until someone has the courage, cojones, to stand up to these two and their respective asshattery I shall have to become accustomed to being dismayed.

      1. Don’t forget to shout down the 30% of Americans who lean Trump. That would be the politically incorrect 30% who believe Islam (at least some significant fraction) is at war with America/the world.

        1. Shouting at those people does no good. They have Fox News and talk radio turned up too loud to hear that Islam is not a thing that can declare war on anyone.

          1. They have Fox News and talk radio turned up too loud to hear that Islam is not a thing that can declare war on anyone.

            The Caliphate may be a ridiculous pipe dream at this point, but it shows that Islam is at least in principle “a thing that can declare war”, and has done so.

        2. “Don’t forget to shout down the 30% of Americans who lean Trump.”

          Don’t worry, I will. They’re a bunch of cunt-brained retards and I will always call them out on it.

    5. So, libertarian moment then?

    6. My Venezuelan friends, who immigrated here a few years after Chavez got elected, say that Trump reminds them Hugo. They say that Hugo promised to do ridiculous things before he was elected, but moderate opponents of the incumbent regime knew that he was just posturing and voted for him anyway. Then, after he was elected, Hugo went full steam ahead on the ridiculous things he promised. They’re afraid Trump would do the same if elected.

      1. We now have multiple candidates who openly don’t care at all about the Comstitution or limited government. The worst in that regard–Clinton and Trump–are both viewed with too much of a jaded eye to be the final step towards an openly authoritarian government, not to mention that neither is charismatic in the jefe sense, but if either is elected, the republic is in huge trouble.

      2. This. Trump’s rise is also eerily reminiscent of Corbyn.

        1. Is Corbyn set to guarantee an electoral win for the Tories? (not a rhetorical question, I actually don’t know, don’t follow British politics much).

          I think Trump’s (and to a lesser extent Carson and whatever circus animals may follow them) legacy is mainly going to amount to ushering in an era of Democratic dominance (however long it lasts who can say). What’s more they will be able to take more extreme positions knowing that they won’t sound as maniacal next to Trump.

          He may be the result and continuing cause of an irreparably fractured GOP. Nothing holds that party together, too many different wings. A growing libertarian wing, but also a (perhaps faster) growing populist wing (protectionist, anti-immigration, etc.); moderates, traditionalists, etc. and the plain I-hate-everything crowd that’s rallying behind Trump. The Dems, o the other hand, seem more ideologically consolidated than any time recent memory. I expect they’re going to gain ground on the national scene over the next few years.

      3. Trump can’t do the many things he’s promised to do without support from the Senate and the House.

        1. Neither would Rand Paul or any sensible libertarian candidate, for that matter.

    7. Even those of us who have transcended such petty mortal concerns are not unmoved by the sheer dipshittery of it all.

      When I attempt to look at you, I’m blinded by the light… literally blinded!

    8. Bet none of us ever thought we’d see something that made a Jeb Bush-Joe Biden showdown look good.

      1. It’s so sad. I would’ve, did in fact, scream and rail against Jeb, but I would vote for him if I knew the only options were Hillary or Trump. Biden would be preferable, because I don’t think he would actually get anything done.
        The republic is dead, killed by democracy.

  10. Respectfully disagree Ed. Trump is the frontrunner and his lead is growing. It’s time to stop acting like there is no way that he can get the Republican nomination or doesn’t represent the Republican Party. He’s pulling 30% support. Further, there are a lot of lower class Democrats that I think would pull for him in the general. In fact I think he’d match up well with Hillary. She’s boring, elitist, cerebral, cold, and uninspiring. He’s new, refreshing and channels the American id like a pro.

    I’m starting to think that our only hope against a Trump presidency may be Bernie Sanders. God help us all.

    1. ” In fact I think he’d match up well with Hillary.”

      And I think you need to look at the H2H polls which show him losing to her clearly.

      The only thing candidate Trump will accomplish is a landslide for Hillary. The Millenialls will turn out in droves as does anyone else not enthused about bashing minorities.

    2. You can’t have any less class than Hillary; is she voting for Trump?

    3. I think you’re actually right about Trump having more appeal among Democratic voters than any progressive would be willing to admit, but I don’t think he would come anywhere close to beating her; any Democrat-leaning voters he picks up will be more than cancelled out by the Republican-leaning ones who go third party, don’t bother at all, or just hang themselves on election day in despair.

  11. I think this Tom Cruz guy has an outside shot.

      1. What about Jeb Jeb Bush?

        1. Cruise is old, Kilmer is fat AND old, neither would still be serving as pilots so what is the conflict going to be?

          1. Retirement home shenanigans with Carly Fiorona.

            1. I think most of the script will still work for that.

          2. Half nekid volleyball in the seniors home.

            1. I feel the need. The need for a nap.

              1. I feel the need. The need for a nap.

                Holy shit, if they used Bubba Ho-Teph as a template, I’d actually watch that, and not to mock it!

                1. “Look, man, do I look like an ichthyologist to you? Big damn bugs, all right? The size of my fist. The size of a peanut butter and banana sandwich. What do I know? I got a growth on my pecker!”

            2. It’s gonna be Wii Bowling instead.

          3. Same as the last one: Beach volleyball and steamy showers.

    1. Well, if Cruz is the nominee it will be Highway to the Danger Zone.

  12. Donald Trump is an Awful Frontrunner, But Hillary Clinton Is Worse, for Practical Purposes

    Will the yokels please shut up now?

    1. I seriously doubt it.

    2. I didn’t get a metric on how worse. Until I see numbers, I’m not satisfied. I for one await more signaling.

  13. No historical parallel for trump?

    Jimmy Carter = OH?Bummer!
    Reagan = Trump

    1. How exactly does Reagan = Trump? and…this only works if it were Obama vs Trump, which it’s not.

      1. I take it you did not live through the Carter era.

        Look up “national malaise vs national greatness”.

        BTW if you look carefully at what I posted you will see the parallel. Exact? This is not ground hog day. Close enough.

        1. Fail.

          Reagan touted his 12% Misery Index as a success.

          Today it is at a 50 year low of 5%.

          1. And yet there is so much grumbling about the economy. Participation rate keeps declining.

            On top of that – keeping the economy flying for another year with all the NINJA car loans coming due is – problematic. Would you believe Congress wanted to reign that in? Obama vetoed. Because racism.

            1. Republicans grumbled about the economy during the gung-ho 90s. They said Bill Clinton’s balanced Omnibus budgets would kill jobs and destroy the stock market.

              Recently they claimed Obama would create hyperinflation and kill jobs.

              Republicans are always wrong.

              1. Recently they claimed Obama would create hyperinflation and kill jobs.

                Breaking news:

                CBO confirms that ObamaCare costs us 2mm FTE jobs over the next decade.

                ObamaCare will force a reduction in American work hours ? the equivalent of 2 million jobs over the next decade, Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper said Monday.

                The total workforce will shrink by just under 1 percent as a result of changes in worker participation because of the new coverage expansions, mandates and changes in tax rates, according to a 22-page report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

                http://thehill.com/policy/heal…..-obamacare

              2. Err it was a Republican congress that prevented Clinton from unbalancing the budget. I don’t doubt that they talked out of both sides of their mouths, it’s how politicians and pundits make sure they’re always at least half right. Like how Paul Krugman worried about the effects the Bush admin’s spending during the 2001-2002 recession on investment, but suddenly in 2009 and 2011 crowding out is no longer a thing. Isn’t it magical how people’s opinions do a 180 when the election cycle turns over? You could probably get a good look at the phenomenon if you looked in the mirror once in a while.

          2. Seeing as the misery index is the sum of famously gamed government stats (unemployment, inflation, etc.), well,

            garbage summed is still garbage.

          3. The “misery index” (sum of unemployment rate and inflation rate) is meaningless. Our employment picture is poor, with labor force participation; and abnormally low inflation increases misery.

      2. Reagan called out “The Evil Empire”
        Trump calls out Muslims.

        1. Hardly comparable. Reagan was talking about the Soviet Union and the ethos of communism, Trump is, as best I can tell- talking about a race vis-a-vis a religion.

          And Democrats lost their shit after that speech because they felt he was provoking us into a war with the Soviet Union. Democrats: Anti-war at that time.

          1. Remember that? An actual existential threat, and we managed to retain some semblance of limited government. Now we cower before a few psychos, willing to toss core principles into the trash. All while the far greater threat to our prosperity, health, freedom, and future comes from our own government.

            1. I remember the speech where Reagan was interrupted by a communist in the audience, people tried to shout down the heckler, Reagan told everyone to let the man speak. AFter the man finished, Reagan quietly pointed out that the U.S. had a first amendment, Russia did not.

              1. Gosh, freedom by example. The U.S. should adopt this strategy.

              2. “AFter the man finished, Reagan quietly pointed out that the U.S. had a first amendment”
                Don’t worry, they’ll fix that one way or another in a few years/

            2. I have said it before, and will say it again: Winning the cold war was the worst thing that ever happened to American freedom.
              Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that the Evil Empire is gone, that the people living behind the Iron Curtain are no longer enslaved by that horrid system.
              But, there was a time when authoritarian abuses were met with shouts of “What is this, Russia?!?”
              If the USSR still existed, the NSA would not be reading your email, we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, and the explody variety of Muslim would be shooting down MIGs with American-made surface-to-air missiles.
              Meanwhile, where’d that “peace dividend” go? Why do we still have bases in Germany? Why the hell haven’t we sent the Castro brothers packing?
              The Republic is dead, long live the Empire.

    2. It’s absurd to compare Trump to Reagan. Reagan was a two term gov. of CA with a very specific political viewpoint. Trump is an opportunist – the very definition of a demagogue with no solid or predictable ideology.

      1. Can you differentiate between resume and campaign theme?

        1. Reagan was coherent and civilized in addition to being strong. Therein lies the difference.

          1. Their campaign themes are close to identical.

            1. There is only one vague similarity – the tough talk. And Reagan did it better and more coherently.

              I should mention – not a Reagan fan, but compared with Trump, I would take even Zombie Ron.

            2. They’re not. Not at all. Reagan was largely pro immigration and still believed in the long-forgotten idea that the U.S. was a lang of opportunity for people fleeing totalitarian regimes. He believed that this country was a beacon of freedom.

              The complaint of Democrats (then called “liberals”) at the time was his hard-line stance against the Soviet Union, and his generally free-market trickle-down economics theory.

              Those two things were the central theme in 90% of all complaints from the left.

            3. No they’re not. You’re a moron.

            4. All campaign themes are close to identical; there’s some enemy class or group of enemy classes (Muslims, 1%ers, Jews, Big Corporations, whatever) that needs to be confronted, and in the process we’re all going to have to give something up, some rights, a tithe, but it’s okay because we will beter fulfill the values which make us truly American, blah blah blah.

          2. What if Obama had packed his bags and run after 241 Marines were killed by Jihadists?

            Like Reagan did?

            1. That’s correct… Reagan was not a big fan of vague foreign entanglements. Those 241 marines killed by a bomb represented Reagan’s realization that the Middle east was an unwinnable shitstorm.

            2. For the record, I didn’t complain when Clinton ran from Mogadishu. He realized that Somalia was an unwinnable shitstorm.

              1. America totally could have ‘won’ it just would not have been worth it.

                Gotta hand to McCain he totally called it wrt Lebanon.

            3. In other words, what if Obama made the right decision? Now that’s quite a hypothetical you’ve put to us.

    3. We are all dumber for having read your post. Your like yokel PB.

    4. Reagan was arguably less anti-immigration than anyone even in the Democratic field. Your head, it’s in your ass.

      And Obama is decidedly more popular among Democrats than Carter was.

  14. My brother and his girlfriend play a game when they go out. They’ll assign strangers, usually transients or horribly obese or decrepit old codgers, to each other’s “team.” The team is who they’d ostensibly be leading around in the zombie apocalypse. You don’t want a blanket-wearing schizophrenic ninety-year-old with overwhelming B.O. on your team.

    You know who else plays this game? Democrats and Republicans. The lunatic who shoots up a PP clinic? Obviously Team Red. The screechy, obese, genderless thirty-something with blue hair and several liprings? Emblematic of Team Blue. Your nativist uncle is parroting lines straight from GOP HQ. Those students at Yale and Brown are pretty much the Democratic base.

    National party politics does not rise above the intellectual commitment a bored couple invests while driving to the grocery store.

    1. You’re obviously a Yokel who’s voting for Trump

    2. “You don’t want a blanket-wearing schizophrenic ninety-year-old with overwhelming B.O. on your [zombie apocalypse] team.”

      I’d take him on mine. Rank B.O. — if it smells like decaying flesh — would render him undetectable to nearby zombies, who would perceive him as just another walking corpse. And if he was attacked, throwing his blanket over the oncoming zombie would quickly trip up the shambling, uncoordinated assailant and make it easy to finish off with a quick blow to the head.

      But the screechy, obese, genderless thirty-something would be a different story. S/he probably could not run worth a damn, would likely to be devoid of any practical survival skills that don’t involve gluten-free baking, and would no doubt get killed while trying to explain to a zombie why it’s guilty of cultural appropriation of a venerable Mexican holiday as well as a tool of the capitalist funeral-industrial complex.

  15. Yeah, Hillary’s pretty great.

    1. Yes, but can you really support a woman who can’t even keep her man satisfied?

      1. Would any man be satisfied with that witch?

      2. Ignoring that there isn’t a “sexual skill” box in the grading rubric…

        I doubt any of the other contenders would do a good job of keeping a man satisfied, so I don’t see a reason to dock her points for that.

        1. I actually hear tell Kasich gives quite a BJ.

  16. She’s had to apologize for supporting the [Iraq] war, but the foreign policy and the professed anti-war positions of the Democratic base have not forced her to apologize for supporting the intervention in Libya. She continues to defend it.

    She does not just defend it; she brags that it represents “smart power at its best”.

    1. “Smart” = not wasting $2 trillion and 4500 US lives.

      1. “Smart” = giving ISIS another base of operations.

        1. Give it up, man. Shriek has been Ready For Hillary for some time now. See how he is sliding from full time LIGHTWORKER fellatio to I AM READY, HILLARY!

          Fook it, I am still voting for Rand Paul.

          1. Farook it?

          2. Nope. I just hate conservatives. The GOP candidates are openly pining for war with Iran – which is 3x the size of Iraq.

            All of them except Rand Paul. And Rand Paul is rounding error down from zero in the GOP horse race.

            Pitiful.

            After all that effort to turn the GOP into libertarians.

            1. and again – the world wars, korea, vietnam – shows progs as being quite warlike.

            2. Yeah, so we need a democrat who won’t engage in wars in the middle east to fix that, like we fixed in 2008.

              God, do you learn nothing? Hillary, unlike Obama, even has a track record of warmongering, so you can’t blame naivete in her case.

        1. You little poo eating primate PB !!!!

          Stop That !!!!

          /WHACK

      2. Shillin’ for the Dems again. How tiresome.

    1. Make them illegal to protect the freedoms!

    2. Banning bittorrent would fix this.

    3. Well, I don’t think they’re getting a cent of that back.

  17. Republicans are complaining that MSNBC is airing Trump rallies live:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/why…..p-rallies/

    Crowd gets ugly – turns on reporter (the gorgeous Katy Tur)

    1. Just like those college students at Missouri. But they were minority so it was okay then I guess.

    2. the gorgeous Katy Tur

      blind pigs – acorn, stopped watch – twice a day….

  18. Fascist Uber-Bitch Queen Hillary Demands an End to Encryption

    Heil Hillary !!

    http://downtrend.com/donn-mart…..ncryption/

  19. “The rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria is a result of the disastrous U.S. war in Iraq, but its ascendancy in Libya is a result of the 2011 U.S. intervention in that country”

    Wrong and wrong as usual. There is no reason to believe Syria would be any more stable with Sadaam around nor is there any reason to believe that Qdafi would still be in charge if America had not intervened there.”

    1. So, you’re saying that airstrikes aren’t that important in deciding the outcome of wars. All the more reason not to bother with them in Syria, then, I suppose.

  20. Well, I’d say it’s about time to call it in. Hillary’s a shoe in. Even if Trump doesn’t get the nomination (and I still think he almost certainly won’t), he’ll run independent and seal the deal for Hillary just like that dumbass Ross Perot did for her husband. Trump has just thoroughly eviscerated the Republican party from within. It’s a shame no one’s doing the same to the Dems, maybe would’ve toppled the two party system. Oh well, let’s all get ready to bottom for Hillary!

  21. I’m not sure most people could tell you the candidates names. We’ll have to see how it shakes out but I suspect a lot of Trump support is name recognition from people who don’t vote, just like his tough talk.

    IMO people tend to vote for who they trust. Hopefully that isn’t Trump. Even people that like him have to suspect he’s a little slippery.

    1. Even people that like him have to suspect he’s a little slippery.

      And the people who vote for Shillary?

    2. It would be amusing, and refreshing, if after all this, Trump comes in 8th in Iowa, and we can all just forget about it like a bad dream.

  22. I’m convinced Trump is running to dig the Republicans into such a deep crazy hole, they won’t be able to win the general election against Clinton, regardless of who is the nominee.

  23. After a bedtime reading session with my 4 year old daughter, I have come to the conclusion that Hillary is, in fact, Yertle the Turtle.

  24. It appears there will be no good outcome in a year. I’ll settle for a divided government, much less chance of a major fuckup like Obamacare or Bush’s drug plan.

  25. The Donald will have such a classy presidency. And the winning. Don’t get me started on the winning.
    His “You don’t like me because I don’t need your money” was a Declaration of Independence from the Wall St. NeoCon pantsuit crowd.
    His zany over-the-toup eyepokes are more genuine than HRC’s focus grouped, poll-tested donor-driven drivel.

  26. We are so screwed.
    Sell your real estate, buy gold and silver.

  27. I know this was crafted mainly as a slap at Clinton, and I agree with that part. However, I think it somewhat undersells how problematic Trump is to the chances of (a) electing Republicans, (b) electing Republicans that actually value liberty. I mean, it’s not a shocker that at least 30% of Republicans don’t give a shit about eminent domain or religious liberty for non-Christians or a number of the other big-government things Trump has said. But it’s definitely a negative development that they’re willing to package all of them up in one candidate, and then accuse anyone who says “um, guys…” of not being conservative.

    I still think he loses in the end, but his supporters see the power of a big, authoritarian mouth to shape the discourse. There will be more Trumps.

  28. About time we get an article that examines the other truly awful front-runner.

    As for me, I ain’t noways tahrred of putting down Hill to everyone I know.

    She basically combines the foreign policy wisdom of Bush II, the egoism of Obama, the moral code of Nixon, and the personal charisma of Mike Dukakis in a single person who also happens to look like a casting director’s dream of a prototypical shrewish and aging ex-wife.

  29. The mass media make trump . They cover everything he says incessantly . He is on TV all the time . if they ignored him he would vanish from the polls . They elected Obama and now they will try to make Trump the Hillary alternative, so we get a bigger more controlling federal government no matter what

    1. So long as you remember that “mass media” in this case includes Fox News, the whole docket of conservative/Republican bloggers, and so-on. If this is a conspiracy, it’s the bipartisan action of century.

  30. I think that the GOP is making a HUGE mistake in joining in the attacks on Trump…Trump is a buffoon, but the elite leadership is phuking up in a HUGE way with the base of the party when they jump in and follow the lead of Media Matters, et al, aka, #DemocraticOperativesWithBylines. They’ve forgotten the commandment of Ronald Reagan,

    Thou Shalt NOT ATTACK OTHER REPUBLICANS.

    If the leadership of the GOP pisses off Trump enough, he will leave and run on a 3rd party ticket and GIVE THE ELECTION TO HILLARY. The leadership is being stupid and will live to regret this.

    1. Um, Trump got to where he is mainly by attacking other Republicans. I don’t think the kind of people who like Trump are impressed by candidates just taking it in stride; if anything, I suspect the best way for a candidate to benefit from the Trump hysteria is to go on the offensive against him. The only reason Fiorina isn’t still a nonentity is because she went after him. There’s nothing to be gained by anyone from avoiding confrontation with him.

  31. I agree Hillary’s PARTY is as bad as the GOP. If Trump Perot drops out after so much gratuitous abuse from Reason, the LP is not likely to get any contribution checks from him. If he runs independently, the LP gets blanked out of all coverage (bad) and the Dems win again (no difference to me). It is the height of idiocy to keep nipping at his ankles while he is the best thing the GOP has to offer–likes libertarians and is good on prohibition planks. If the magazine must keep nipping his socks, at least explain which of God’s Own Prohibitionists are less totalitarian, racist, superstitious, dangerous or obnoxious (beside’s Ron’s boy the birth-forcer with no support there).

  32. If not how good terrorists in the world.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.