Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Brainfart Fascism

The GOP frontrunner's presidential campaign is built on rambling, free-associative authoritarianism.

|

Donald Trump showed up in typical form at last night's Republican presidential debate, aggressively lobbing insults at his competitors and promising repeatedly to make America great again by…well, in truth it's never quite clear.

Trump frequently declines to propose anything that resembles what most would call a policy to resolve the problems he identifies, but even when he does, the legal and practical mechanisms by which he would implement those policies are almost always left unstated. He describes the effect he hopes to produce, but not the path by which he would get there, and when pressed, often waves off the question, saying, essentially, that details will come later, after he's in the White House. It sometimes seems as if Trump has a no-spoiler policy for his presidency. That it will be great and tremendous and classy and widely praised is all you really need to know.

One reason for this is that Trump often seems to have no idea what he is talking about, and frequently appears to be making it all up on the spot.

Perhaps the most telling instance of this during last night's debate was when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Trump about closing the Internet, an idea that Trump had previously brought up as a possible way of fighting terrorists. Here is their exchange:

BLITZER: Mr. Trump, you recently suggested closing that Internet up, those were your words, as a way to stop ISIS from recruiting online. Are you referring to closing down actual portions of the Internet? Some say that would put the U.S. in line with China and North Korea.

TRUMP: Well, look, this is so easy to answer. ISIS is recruiting through the Internet. ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet, and it was our idea. What I wanted to do is I wanted to get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they're doing.

You talk freedom of speech. You talk freedom of anything you want. I don't want them using our Internet to take our young, impressionable youth and watching the media talking about how they're masterminds—these are masterminds. They shouldn't be using the word "mastermind." These are thugs. These are terrible people in ISIS, not masterminds. And we have to change it from every standpoint. But we should be using our brilliant people, our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the Internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. And we can do that if we use our good people.

There is a surface level intelligibility to Trump's response, but upon even the most cursory inspection it becomes clear that he is barely saying anything at all, or at least nothing coherent. It's true enough that ISIS is using the Internet as a recruiting tool, but what does it even mean that ISIS "using the Internet better than we are using the Internet"?

That America's tech sector, which accounts for more than 7 percent of GDP, is somehow subpar when compared to ISIS? That's too dumb an idea even for Trump. That America's online intelligence operations are not as sophisticated as those of ISIS? It may be true that ISIS has managed at times to communicate online without detection, but that mostly serves to highlight the impossibility of effectively monitoring all electronic communications rather than any broad comparative judgment one can make about how ISIS uses the Internet versus how the U.S. uses it. That America is somehow worse at recruiting online? America, a wealthy 239-year-old nation-state, does not really engage in "recruiting," and to the extent that it does, it would be through immigration, which Trump wants to severely restrict.

It is probably a mistake to dwell on the details here. Trump certainly does not. He barely seems to even know what it is he is proposing, much less how to accomplish whatever that might be. Does he actually want to "close down" parts of the Internet, as he has indicated, or does he merely want to make a more concerted effort to stop ISIS from using the Internet as a recruiting tool? 

Indeed, most of his answer is just rambling, in which he lobs insults, vaguely insists that the solution merely requires identifying the right people (the best, most brilliant individuals that only Donald Trump knows about) and putting them in charge, and dismisses out of hand any concerns about freedom of speech and other individual liberties.

Trump's answer does not tell us much about his plans for the Internet, but it does tell us something about Trump, and how his mind works.

He clearly has no idea what he is talking about, yet even in his incoherence, he gravitates toward insults and power grabs while insisting that anyone concerned about freedom must be ignored.

In other words, Trump's response when he does not know what he is talking about, which is often, is to engage in a kind of brainfart fascism. It is the half-hearted, gleefully shocking fascism of reality television and social media flame wars, the fascism of whatever dumb idea pops into his mind.  

It's fair to say that Trump's brand of off-the-cuff statism does not meet the textbook definition of the committed, militarized fascism of early 20th century Europe (although it certainly shares many of the same elements), but it stems from a similar sort of impulse, one that has been combined with Trump's lazy and generally incoherent approach to policy. 

The result is a campaign in which Trump rambles and free-associates his way towards a half-baked authoritarian agenda that really only has one item on it: to put Donald Trump in power, and let him figure out the rest from there. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Ominous Cybersharing Legislation Finds a Seat on the Omnibus

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. Fascist ? Authoritarian

    Or, “you keep using that word…”

    1. Authoritarian is not necessarily fascist, but Trump is promising to be both.

      1. I have yet to see any indication that Trump adheres to a fascist ideology. To the extent he can be called a fascist, it is with regard to economic fascism, and his attitudes there are not out of line with the mainstream of political thought; in other words, he’s as much a fascist as any other major politician.

        He’s a populist, a nationalist, and an authoritarian. There’s not much to like, but he’s no Mussolini.

        1. Does fascism not involve the state controlling the economy even down to individual companies despite nominally not owning companies? Trump would have a hard-on for eminent domain and “terrorism” and has said that nothing so prosaic as property rights would stop him from enacting his policies to protect us. How’s that not fascist?

          1. Besides Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, which of the politicians now running for President has expressed any concern with the use of eminent domain? And absolutely none of them, except maybe Batshit Bernie Sanders, has left terrorism untouched as a political issue. And in Sanders’ case I think that’s because he’s more focused on the “terrorism” of people in this country not agreeing with him.

            1. You think Bernie would object to eminent domain being used to build subsidized housing for the poor? I doubt it.

              1. Paul and Cruz were the exceptions on eminent domain and Sanders was the exception on terrorism. I have no doubt that Sanders would exercise eminent domain in pursuit of his goals.

              2. I think he would nationalize a lot of things, like the oil companies, if he thought for a moment he could get away with it.

          2. He likes eminent domain laws. But show me where he said as part of his platform that he will go on an eminent domain rampage as president.

            1. It’s a given

              1. Why? Has he presented anything in that direction? So far, he mostly talks about secure borders, putting our foreign adversaries in their place through negotiation, restricting Islamic immigration, and maybe raising taxes on Wall Street. Not seeing anything about an eminent domain related program.

                1. Because past history is a good predictor of future behavior.

        2. I think the word “fascist” has had all real meaning pretty much scrubbed out of it.

          But, just out bored curiosity, what do you see as the important distinctions between a fascist and a “populist nationalist authoritarian”?

          1. A minor one, when you add the first two modifiers. Fascist governments nominally don’t claim sovereignty over private property, but authoritarians do. However, I was merely arguing the difference between fascist and authoritarian. Fascist is a populist, nationalist subset of authoritarian, but less honest.

            1. “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” ? Benito Mussolini

              1. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which” – George Orwell

          2. Political fascism is characterized by the close association of a political movement with a paramilitary one and a direct refutation of the founding principles of liberalism.

            Trump has no brownshirts and while many of his solutions are illiberal has not espoused any deep-seated hatred of freedom and individual autonomy.

            1. Fair enough.

              I’m buying the paramilitary part.

              The distinction between explicitly being illiberal and “accidentally” being illiberal doesn’t really seem that important to me. Once you start down the path to the dark side, it all works out the same. But I see what you are saying.

              1. I would say he’s selectively liberal, not “accidentally” illiberal. He picks and chooses when to be liberal and when not to be. A fascist opposes liberalism by default on principle.

                1. I guess from the perspective of a principled liberal, “selectively liberal” and “accidentally illiberal” are the same thing. For an illustration of why that is still better than “explicitly illiberal”, we have Bernie Sanders.

                  1. Actually, that’s not fair. Sanders is also “selective liberal/accidentally illiberal” but to my mind has directly espoused more weighty illiberal positions than Trump has. Sanders is no Lenin.

          3. “what do you see as the important distinctions between a fascist and a “populist nationalist authoritarian”?”

            The main difference is that fascism implies an economic theory, while “populist nationalist authoritarian” does not.

        3. Fascism is primarily an economic system. There is no coherent definition of what a “fascist” foreign policy would look like, thus the complete incoherence of people who insist on using the term in that context.

          1. Franco confounds the definition, but Hitler and Mussolini clearly espoused expansionist/imperialist foreign policies.

            1. Indeed, but those efforts are extensions of their Nationalism that, in limited circumstances, such as the economic benefits of Imperialism, align with their Fascism. The Foreign policy extends from Nationalism, even if it serves the strictly economic goals of Fascism.

              If you know a trained plumber that likes to play golf, you can’t then just say that golf is then a cenrral tenant of plumbing.

          2. Yes, for example, economic fascism would include the government forcing companies to close their overseas factories and manufacture their products in the US. (See Trump, Ford, Mexico.)

            Trump’s relationship to the Big 3 would be like Hitler’s relationship to VW. Profits are fine, as long as you do whatever the Great Leader tells you to do.

    2. He keeps using that word. I dunna think he knows what it means.

    3. What ALL of you knuckleheads at Reason fail to understand is where our country is presently. If Hillary wins she will probably bring the senate with her and maybe the house. She will get to nominate 2 or 3 supreme court justices and that will be the death of capitalism for at least the next 75 years. We will all be living the lives of 1950 Russians.

      It is time to throw away your libertarian ideals of a perfect life with no borders anywhere and people should be able to come to our country and participate in our wonderful welfare system and we can all sing Kumbaya around the campfire. WELL, FUCK THAT YOU IDIOTS! (You’re as bad as the fucking socialists)

      Trump is the ONLY person who has a chance of beating Hillary and even he may not be able to do that because we’re already so far down that socialist path.

      Even Ted Cruz is a loser because of his heavy evangelical leanings which is the root of the republicans problems. The GOP’s Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs the last 50 years have destroyed the party.

      1. And??..

        Consider the following:

        Trump isn’t owned by ANYONE! How fucking valuable is that?

        Many democrats like Trump (I’ve heard as much as 20%). They see he’s not so fucking heavy on the pie-in-the-sky evangelical bullshit.

        Trump has the most charism of any candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime. Every time he speaks I laugh and I laugh HARD. He will be more entertaining than any president we’ve ever had. Do you really want to see and hear Hillary and that shrill, condescending voice of hers in those God-awful pants suits for the next 8 years?

        Plus! Our first female president needs to be an attractive women.

        And for Christ’s sake, there are so many attractive, intelligent women out there. Do we really want a DISHONEST cunt to be our first female president? I don’t think so.

        1. Jeez, what a dumb-fuck you are. You fit right in with the shithead!!! Trump is an incoherent idiot with the brains of a fucking maggott.

          1. Hey pogo honey — If there’s something I said you disagree with me on, why don’t you grow a pair and tell all of us what that is?

            I didn’t think so.

            1. Holy hell, you’re retarded, EndGOP

              1. Artimis — Are you capable of developing an intelligent thought and then expressing that thought?

                What EXACTLY do you disagree with me on? Come on, act like a man for once in your life, pretend you have actually grown a pair of cojones, and say something intelligent for the readers.

                I dare you.

                1. They just want to homogeneously hate Trump. No pro Trump talk to be tolerated.

                  1. Team L has no candidate, so their only purpose is to tear down all the other candidates.

                    They sit here and bleat about imaginary future fascism and don’t realize that what we have now is a government that is increasingly totalitarian RIGHT NOW.

                    But they are all so much smarter than those dumb ol’ Team R fans, don’t you know…

                    1. Suicidy and jmomis — Both of you give me hope that at least SOME of readers here are intelligent and capable of forming their own opinions. It is unbelievable to me that a libertarian site has all of these gullible sheep buying into all of the crap Reason is trying to cram down their throats.

                      As the late, great philosopher George Harrison once sang:

                      Think For Yourself!

        2. “Trump isn’t owned by ANYONE!”

          Trump has a long & affectionate relationship with Wall Street & the financial sector that pretty much owns both parties. Even if he wants to screw over all of his friends & clients, it doesn’t matter when Congress is still owned.

          Trump is the funny guy at the front of the Brownshirts.

          1. Uncle Joe — Are you serious? Wall Street HATES Trump because they know they can’t buy him like they have bought EVERY other candidate running for president besides Trump. (This is basic stuff, Joe. Wake up!)

            You really need to pay better attention to the news. Hedge-fund billionaires detest Trump because he is the ONLY candidate to have told these bastards he’s going to raise their taxes through the roof.

            http://blogs.reuters.com/great…..mic-ideas/

            Congress WILL get in line when an ACTUAL leader like Trump is leading the country. They either get in line behind Trump or they lose the next election. This is how it works Joe.

            Since you act like you know so much, please tell us who YOU want to be president. Then just sit back and relax while I destroy him right in front of your very eyes!

        3. George Soros also has enough money that he can’t be bought. That doesn’t mean I want him to be president.

          1. RoninX — So out of what, a half a dozen reasons I gave for electing Trump you make up a False Comparison and give that to the readers.

            News Flash: George Soros is NOT running for president!

            You haven’t convinced anyone not to vote for Trump. Surely you can do better than that.

      2. “Trump is the ONLY person who has a chance of beating Hillary and even he may not be able to do that because we’re already so far down that socialist path.”

        I don’t think Hillary is so invulnerable. Hate by many, loved by few, with a disastrous reign as Secretary of State in her official acts, and thousands of justifiable criminal counts with her email shenanigans. Simply an ocean of corruption going back decades.

        1. buybuy — The GOP is so splintered that, just like in 2012, a good percentage of republican voters are going to stay home if their guy doesn’t get the nomination.

          Trump is the only candidate with the most amazing charisma I have ever seen in a politician. I believe he is the only one who has a chance of bringing the country together.

      3. A Cankles presidency will bring a thousand years of darkness.

        1. Suicidy – You are 100% correct!

      4. “Trump is the ONLY person who has a chance of beating Hillary”

        Which is why he’s consistently been the absolute worst Republican in head-to-head polls against Hillary for months upon months? Why he’s beaten Clinton in exactly one national poll not conducted by Fox in the last six months, as less controversial pols like Rubio and Carson poll as winners over Clinton constantly? (http://bit.ly/1m9PGom)

        1. Glide — If I remember correctly, YOU told me about 5 months ago that Trump wouldn’t even enter the race because you said he wouldn’t release his financials.

          Trump is a genius at getting the American public to do what he wants. The same way he has destroyed EVERY republican candidate in the race is the same way he will destroy Hillary. The fun is just beginning. Stay tuned.

          1. R v D polls this far out are meaningless.

            Clinton is a known and disliked quantity. The eventual R candidate has not even trained his guns on her yet. When he does, the polls will start to go the other way.

    4. Wow, what a crop of internet know-it all losers this article has generated. I think everyone pretty much knows what he means when he says Donald Trump is a shit for brains fascist. The only people who are more shit for brains are the zombified assholes who support him.

      1. “I think everyone pretty much knows what he means when he says Donald Trump is a shit for brains fascist.”

        Amusing defense of an article that castigates Trump for peddling light and fluffy know nothing bullshit.

        We know what Suderman means. He means he hates Trump, and he thought he would ladle on some light and fluffy know nothing bullshit along with that hate.

        1. Pretty much. And that sums up most of the Trump articles from Reason. In fact, there has been far LESS vitriol towards Cankles. Which is disturbing.

      2. One would think at a website called “Reason”, one would find some intelligence.

        You must have got lost on the way to Daily Kos.

  2. Donald Trump’s fascism is classy. Like a $500 whore.

    1. When was the last time you paid for a classy whore? $500 doesn’t get much these days.

      1. That depends on what part of the world you’re in.

        1. In Nunavut.

        2. That depends on what part of the whore you’re in.

      2. Yeah, it doesn’t cover the service charge and extended warranty.

    2. That’s “Classi”, with an I and a little dick hanging off the C and bends around and fucks the L in the A-S-S

    3. They prefer to be called escorts.

      1. Well I personally don’t patronize prostitutes of any sort. I treat them as equals.

        1. I am confused. Are you admitting to being a prostitute?

  3. Speak incoherently and carry a big bundle of sticks.

    1. +1 Trump Corollary

    2. I know faggots tend to be fit and thin, but wouldn’t that get heavy and tiring?

  4. OK Trump’s fascism can be blamed on a brainfart, what’s the excuse for Hillary’s fascism?

    1. Deflection. 5 points.

      1. What kind point system is that? Where can I get a score sheet?

        1. Can someone link me to the sorting hat thread. I forgot which house I’m playing for.

        2. It’s a fascist point system, and the rules are secret!

      2. Deflection 2016 should be Hillary’s campaign slogan.

    2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    3. Are you claiming she doesn’t fart? I guarantee the cuffs of her pantsuit flutter like flags in a gale.

      1. Thanks for that, Hugh. That was a good quality laugh…and I needed it!

      2. I picture a dusty quif.

      3. Only the living, and the very recently dead, expel gas. Not the unliving.

    4. Multiple concussions?

    5. Can evil be an excuse?

  5. It’s so hard to pick a favorite line. But if I had to, I think I’d go with: “And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS.”

    1. If I didn’t know better, I would almost suspect that Trump doesn’t know what the internet is.

      1. A series of tubes, right? I’m pretty sure it’s a series of tubes. I’ll have my aide send you an internet about it.

        1. Please don’t drag me into this.

      2. He knows what penetration is though.

        1. He’s almost certainly banged more hot models than Bob Barker. Though probably not quite as many as Hef.

      3. But he knows he should be able to penetrate anything he wants to.

        1. Technically prince albert was a commander in chief.

    2. “I don’t want them using our Internet to take our young, impressionable youth and watching the media talking about how they’re masterminds — these are masterminds.”

      Trump’s wordsmithery is truly a thing of beauty. So much beauty, we’re gonna get bored of all the beauty.

      1. I really can’t tell the difference between a quote from Trump and one from Obama.

        1. Same here. And they both sound like Bush to me — or actually a bit worse.

          It’s striking how most politicos are incredibly inarticulate the moment they no longer have a teleprompter in front of them.

      2. There were other “they’re using our internet”-type lines not quoted in this post that sounded much more like Trump was ISIS’s dad cutting them off the family mobile plan.

      3. So based on your love of flowery public speaking, I’m REASONING that your favorite President was Reagan.

    3. “I saw the movie Hackers this weekend. Have you seen Hackers? Great movie. Fabulous. Fisher Stevens is wonderful. Wonderful. Great guy. And Angelina’s tits? Yuge. YUGE. Jonny Lee Miller… He’s OK, just OK. Look, what they did in this movie… Was it a movie? Maybe it was a documentary. Anyway, what they did we could do to ISIS. Go on, smart guy. Go on. Ask another question.”

      1. Jesus, he doesn’t even love Johnny Lee Miller. What a fucking monster!

      2. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT ZERO COOL…I MEAN CRASH OVERRIDE

        1. CRASH & BURN 4EVA

          1. Hahahahahahahahaha

            HACK THE PLANET NICOLE

            1. Seriously though I want to fuck Johnny Lee Miller.

              1. /why I’m the worst

              2. gross, I thought we only objectified women on this website?

                1. Damn right, women are just things for our penile amusement.

              3. If you love him so much, spell his first name correctly.

                1. Love? Pfft.

              4. Yes, I am aware of that.

                I was going to make a joke about you liking Cereal Killer, but there was no way that was going to fly, even if you are the worst.

                1. Ugh, Cereal Killer. So stupid. You probably agreed with him that that chick wearing a spandex dress at the party was hot, too.

                  1. I’m sure I did. Look, agreeing with Matthew Lillard’s character does not mean one likes Matthew Lillard.

                    1. Epi it’s okay to like Freddy Prince JR vehicles, we are more accepting of that now than ever before.

                    2. So…I can finally come out of the closet about that?

                    3. So…I can finally come out of the closet about that?

                      lol no. It’s never safe to come out of the closet about that I can’t believe you fell for that.

                    4. GOD DAMN IT

                    5. Soothe your burn with this, Epi.

                    6. Like a land war in China amirite?

                    7. I met him once in the late 90’s when he was in my town filming some movie. He’s much lower key and far less annoying person. And not too bad about splurging for a few rounds.

              5. You really want to fuck Sickboy…

                1. I said splurging. Not splooging.

              6. Nicole, if you can’t spell Jonny’s name correctly, then you are disqualified for coitus with him.

      3. Needs more “seriously”, “beautiful”, “dumb” and a reference to “Melania”.

        1. “Idle Hands? More like Idle Brain. He’s a loser. A loser. He comments for free on the internet all day. He doesn’t make any money from it. Loser.”

          1. I think the real problem is nobody here has read his book “The art of the Deal” it’s all there for everyone to see.

            1. “You shouldn’t even be in this country. Look, look, I’m not saying half-Mexicans are all bad people. Maybe some of them are half-good. Like almost neutral. Look, I don’t know you, maybe you are just, you know, half a rapist, like you just put the tip in and shake it off like you’re peeing. The thing is, I don’t know, nobody knows. There’s a problem with you and no one wants to talk about.”

              1. The problem is the one-drop rule. I’m mostly white!

                1. I’m mostly white!

                  Here, Doyers, have a motivational picture.

                2. So….you’re one of those “white hispanics” MSNBC talks about?

              2. C’mon, dude, I should be a perfect target.

                1. “Old Man is a good friend. A good friend. Great guy. We’ve been going to Costa Rica together for years. Years.”

                  1. I feel much better now.

              3. Dude, the part Mexican isn’t the problem. It’s the part Mick that’s the problem. You should know this better than anyone, Paddy McMickerson.

                1. Oh that’s rich, coming from the most wop dago since wop came to dago town. Now eat your cannoli, Salvatore.

                  1. It’s sausage and peppers that I made last night, not a cannoli, asshole!

      4. No matter how many times I read that, it is invariably in Trump’s voice.

      5. I love everything about this comment.

      6. That is pretty good.

    4. Is it cheating to pick the first few sentences?

      “Well, look, this is so easy to answer. ISIS is recruiting through the Internet. ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet, and it was our idea.”

      They’re using our Internet! We made that!

      1. “ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet, and it was our idea.”

        is a good candidate for best line, for sure.

        1. I have to stop reading Trump quotes…make m’ head hurt.

        2. Yes. I wanted to include the vintage Trumpism, “Well, look, this is so easy to answer.”

      2. “We made that!”

        Sure as hell ISIS didn’t make it.

      3. Well, Al Gore DID invent the internet after all.

      4. *They’re using our Internet! We made that!*

        Clearly, the internet was founded in the Levant.

    5. He wants to fuck ISIS to death.

    6. NOT a good enough reason to use the word penetrate…

  6. Some snippets:

    11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

    Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

    12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

    13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

    14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

    15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

    17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

    18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

    19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.

    1. 20. In order to make higher education ? and thereby entry into leading positions ? available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.

      21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

      22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.

      23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press.

      Now, who looks the most fascist?

      1. Snippets from what?

        1. Some progressive party’s platform back in the *looks back at page* 1930’s I believe. They spilled a ton of ink whinging about corporations, the corporate state, the crushing and debilitating effects of capitalism… that kind of thing. Really, really hated capitalism. I mean, hated it.

          1. Some progressive party

            You misspelled “right-wing”.

            1. No, I spelled right-wing correctly, but I used the European usage.

            2. Yawn. Please explain to the class how National SOCIALISM is “right-wing”.

              1. Well, there are many ways in which “National Socialism” is right wing: it supports private property and Hitler himself strongly spoke out in favor of conservative values, including family, Christianity, the military, nationalism, and tradition.

                But the simplest way to see where they belonged on the political spectrum is to see how they related to other political parties. The Communists and Socialists voted against Hitler and the Enabling Act (that is, those that the Nazis hadn’t already put into camps), while the Catholic Center Party and other conservative parties voted to make Hitler dictator through the Enabling Act. Read the parliamentary speeches preceeding the vote.

          2. For a moment I thought you copied something from Sander’s campaign platform.

        2. It is rotten and dismal that a world of so many hundred million people should be ruled by a single caste that has the power to lead millions to life or to death, indeed on a whim…This caste has spun its web over the entire earth; capitalism recognizes no national boundaries…Capitalism has learned nothing from recent events and wants to learn nothing, because it places its own interests ahead of those of the other millions. Can one blame those millions for standing up for their own interests, and only for those interests? Can one blame them for striving to forge an international community whose purpose is the struggle against corrupt capitalism? Can one condemn a large segment of the educated Sturmer youth for protesting against the greatest ability? Is it not an abomination that people with the most brilliant intellectual gifts should sink into poverty and disintegrate, while others dissipate, squander, and waste the money that could help them? ? You say the old propertied class also worked hard for what it has. Granted, that may be true in many cases. But do you also know about the conditions under which workers were living during the period when capitalism “earned” its fortune?

          Note the scare quotes around ‘earned’. Almost feels like an Occupy WallStreet rant.

          1. Paving the road to hell.

      2. The Legislature?

      3. 11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort

        I have a feeling that’s not going to be too popular in today’s Murika.

        1. I assume that applies only to income from capital investments, and not welfare.

          1. This particular party was not averse to forcing people to work, and executing those who were physically or mentally unfit.

            1. Look, if you pray at the altar of economic progress, everyone must work. Capitalism is too soft. It lets people choose whether they want to work or not.

            2. Which is what the democrats would actually do once their authoritah is absolute. Then they no longer need to hand out the goodies, and the steady slide towards a Soviet/Maoist regime is assured.

    2. Until 19, it looked exactly like Bernie.

      1. Don’t be so sure. Sanders also believes that our legal system is broken; the specific keywords used to articulate his dissatisfaction with our legal system are different, but it amounts to the same thing.

  7. Everybody knows libertarianism is a failed system, because it cannot eliminate every conceivable risk.

    Totalitarian militarism is the only viable political system.

    1. NO! Although I am the only one worthy and capable, I refuse to take the reigns of control. So there will be none of that.

  8. So Trump is like every politician ever?

    1. But with the caveat is he’s dumber and more obviously craven. Sounds like the guy we need in these trying times.

      1. Yeah,he’s a total idiot that made billions of dollars in business. A real dummy.

    2. Not ever. Tommy Jefferson was ok, other than the slave thing. Washington was cool, too.

      1. Fuck Washington, he was a damn crony.

        1. He voluntarily stepped down after two terms. Can you imagine a politician doing that today?

          1. And his house is really shitty compared to Monticello. Jefferson had taste, he had style, he had a really cool clock in his house. Have you seen that damn thing!?

            1. He also spent his money like a drunk sailor.

              1. ECONOMIC BOOST!

        2. How?

          1. Whiskey rebellion?

    3. Well, let’s see:

      “There is a surface level intelligibility to Trump’s response, but upon even the most cursory inspection it becomes clear that he is barely saying anything at all, or at least nothing coherent.”

      Yup, just like every other politician, ever. Except when Trump does it, it’s superdoubleplusungood.

      1. Yeah, it would be better if Trump was flowery or had that swivelhead thing going on or rhymed like a Baptist preacher or talked about how his dad was a plumber/mailman/bartender whenever he answered ANY question.

  9. So… if he gets elected, what are the chances I’ll be able to get a cosmotarian lampshade?

  10. ” what does it even mean that ISIS “using the Internet better than we are using the Internet?””

    Naturally this Suderman character doesn’t get it. They don’t get it! They’re clowns. Love them to death, really. Fantastic people, but they just don’t get it. Waste of time. A Joke! #MakeAmericaSuperGreat

  11. What I wanted to do is I wanted to get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they’re doing

    “We”. “Our”. “They”. “People”.

    Who’s on first?

    1. Collectivism is the hart and soul of the American experiment. I’d show you where it says that in the constitution but it’s like 100 years old and practically written in a foreign language.

      1. “We the People…”

        See? See?!?

      2. +1 Hart to Hart.

      3. The Eee pleb Neesta?

  12. … that details will come later, after he’s in the White House.

    Pelosi logic says: We have to elect Trump to find out what’s in Trump.

    Reason commenter logic says: We have to woodchip Trump to find out what’s in Trump.

    1. Diane’s logic: We have to elect trump to make Democrats care again.

  13. No matter what anyone says, the one favor that Trump is doing everyone is that he’s talking about things that the left have dubbed off limits and making the left media shit their pants daily. I’m glad he’s running just for that.

    1. he’s talking about things that the left have dubbed off limits

      Honestly, this is such nonsense. What is he talking about that people weren’t talking about before, other than “banning Muslims” from entering the country? None of his ideas are new; they have all been batted around in the media for years. Just not by people who had his level of popular support.

      1. No politicians running for POTUS were talking about that stuff because they’re scared to. And even if they did dare speak it, they would apologize immediately as soon as the leftist PC mob pounced on them.

        I don’t agree with Trump on anything. I just find it amusing that he’s smashing the PC doctrine and no one can stop him.

        1. What “stuff” were politicians too scared to talk about? We’ve had presidential candidates talk about building a wall before. Everyone talks all fucking day long about terrorism.

          I see people claim “no one was talking about immigration before Trump” and I feel like I’m talking to people who were born about six months ago.

          1. Listen nicole. Last week, I was going to wish my mother a happy “Hanukkah”, but then I realized that Trump’s here and if we’re going to make America great again that we’d have to dispense with such PC bullshit. So I wished her a Merry Christmas instead. If she has a problem with that, then she can go crying to ISIS.

          2. Look Nicole, Trump is just saying what everyone–and mean everyone, you included–is thinking!

              1. Without clicking on that link… I’m going to do my best Johnny Carson imitation…

                *puts link to forehead*

                The scene from The Professional where Gary Oldman tells the other cop to send everyone, and the cop asks for specifics, and he yells back, “EEEVERRYYYONNNNEEEE!”?

                *clicking on link*

            1. Well we’re thinkin’ it now that everyone’s talkin’ about it!

          3. No one who is on a national stage running for President of the USA is just saying outrageous stuff like Trump is saying and daring anyone to do something about it. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Trump is infuriating the MSM and Obama and pretty much everyone on the left, but he’s just laughing at them and refuses to apologize for it. Who else is doing that? Because I haven’t seen it.

            To me, it’s comedy gold. It’s working for Trump because people are stupid. I just cannot see why anyone here takes anything this guy says seriously. Toothless rednecks who don’t want them furners taking their jerbz( that they don’t want), I can see, but I don’t see how anyone outside of those low information folks taking Trump at face value.

            1. No one who is on a national stage running for President of the USA is just saying outrageous stuff like Trump is saying and daring anyone to do something about it. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

              All you have to do to make that point is to give an example of something he said that no one else will talk about. I just think it’s a false perception.

              1. Well, excuse my wordiness!

              2. How about a policy to kill the family members of terrorists?

                1. How about a policy to kill the family members of terrorists?

                  That one does seem new. I find you have to wait for specific outrageous proposals before it becomes true that Trump is saying anything new. But somehow his making that statement translates, for people, into, “he’s the first person who will talk about the terrorist threat!”

              3. He’s the only one to openly support banning all Islamic immigration.

            2. I’m not sure if I’d say it’s a bad thing that most politicians shy away from being hugely offensive assholes and appealing to the basest idiots in the country. And he really isn’t saying anything new. Just saying it in a more obnoxious way.

              I do agree that taking him at face value is pointless and foolish. But the number of people who support him is a legitimate worry, I think. Though not too much of a surprise, I suppose.

              1. *But the number of people who support him is a legitimate worry, I think. *

                Yes, because by golly, if we don’t continue to elect the very same cadre of leaders who got us into this mess, we’ll never get out of it!!!!

    2. Yeah, people were totally afraid to say racist shit before Trump.

      1. What ‘racist’ thing has Trump said?

        1. Islam is not a race.
          Mexican is not a race.

  14. People! Rand Paul is not going to be president.

    1. And you point is?

      1. We’re supposed to rend our clothes and gnash our teeth. Duh.

        1. What? No sackcloth and ashes?!

          *stomps off in a huff*

          1. None of that newfangled Catholic stuff please; we take the good old OT approach!

        2. And here I thought most of here were like ok, he’s probably better off just staying in the Senate anyway.

        3. uh, this is Burberry.

          also, my dentist tells me i gnash in my sleep and i have to stop

          1. Have you been waking up your dentist with all that gnashing?

      2. Well, it’s as if you have to choose a $500 hooker.
        You look across the room and hope you see Katee Owen, but all you see is Hillary Clinton, JEB!, The Bern, and my dog Daisy.
        Hold your nose and give Daisy a bone. That’s my point.

    2. Don’t count him out yet. Voters still have a month and a half to come to their senses.

      And if not this time….

      Rand Paul 2020: A Clear Vision for the Future

      or

      Rand Paul: Hindsight is 2020, vote for the guy you should have elected in 2016

  15. “we should be using our brilliant people, our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the Internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. And we can do that if we use our good people.”

    That reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where the Pointy-Headed boss tells the engineers, “we must come up with a good product without any technical glitches,” then adds as he walks away, “I’ve covered the grand visionary stuff, the engineers can work out the details.”

    1. Trump is essentially the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert?

      1. More like him and Dogbert got into a teleport machine and fused together into one entity.

        1. I can kind of see that.

    2. Obama is one of our most brilliant right? I mean, he went to Harvard. I for one am totally for sending Obama to lead a troop of Harvard professors into ISIS territory to defeat them. Can we please live broadcast that?

      1. “If you like your head…”

  16. There is no need to employ such an emotionally-charged smear word like “fascist” when describing Trump when we have a perfectly acceptable and accurate descriptor: peckerwood populist.

    1. “”Peckerwood Populism is a marriage of libertarianism to “states rights” conservatism

      ‘states rights’ conservatism, at least in my lifetime, has mainly a reference to certain regional objection to ‘culture war’ issues – abortion, gay marriage… and of course the implication of historical jim-crow/slavery… making ‘States Rights’ basically a miscellaneous-bin for “using the state to pick on women, gays, blacks”

      What i find hard to believe is that anyone with even mild-libertarian leanings would want to get married to *that*

      A necessary precondition of libertarianism, in my humble understanding, is that my own liberty depends on insisting for the liberty of others. It would seem there’s some irreconcilable issues between the two.

      I’m not saying it doesn’t exist = Ron Paul has always had a crazy cadre of racist assholes lurking in his shadow. I’m just saying i don’t really buy it as a description of the source of Trump’s fanbase.

      1. I’m not saying that the average white, blue collar voter is a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe or a neo-Confederate.

        For that matter, I’m not even necessarily saying that the Peckerwood Populist agitator is a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe or a neo-Confederate.

        What I am saying is that the Peckerwood Populist agitator believes that the average white, blue collar voter is a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe or a neo-Confederate, and believes that he can get his hooks into the voter by playing on those assumed sentiments. The agitator may believe that because he’s a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe or a neo-Confederate himself and assumes that white, blue collar voters share his views — or he may just be an opportunist who believes that he can tap into sentiments he doesn’t necessarily share for the purpose of raising money and getting votes.

        1. I think Knapp’s description above explains a lot of what’s going on.

          1. Its still a bizarre argument that presumes that neither the agitator or his rabid fans *actually* have any racist/homophobic/neo-confederate sentiments… but that it is precisely those sentiments that somehow explain the agitator’s appeal.

            The argument there does not really compute =

            “I’m not saying that the average white, blue collar voter is a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe or a neo-Confederate…”

            but then yes, he is – because 2 sentences later has says that the candidate’s success is wholly reliant on the ability to “”tap into those sentiments”

            I am not at all disputing there is history of this kind of populist appeal and that there are indeed exactly these kinds of voters out there.

            I’m just dubious about the claim that it has any connection to “libertarian” strains at all… or that Trump has anything to do with either the ‘states rights’ crowd, or the libertarians.

            I think Trump’s appeal is oblique to these specific groups – it shares some qualities, but comes from another direction entirely.

            He’s more of a straight up anti-intellectual populist who is basically campaigning as a “Fuck you” to the elitists in Washington. His approach to issues like the Messicans isn’t popular because of some shared Xenophobia… its just that his ‘solutions’ are stupid and simple, and people want someone to provide stupid simple (unrealistic) answers.

            1. “I’m not saying that the average white, blue collar voter is a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe or a neo-Confederate…”

              but then yes, he is – because 2 sentences later has says that the candidate’s success is wholly reliant on the ability to “”tap into those sentiments”

              Remember, he’s writing this in 2009. The peckerwood populist with the most “success” at the time was Pat Buchanan. He’s not saying peckerwood populism was a necessarily successful strategy; just that it exists.

              I’m just dubious about the claim that it has any connection to “libertarian” strains at all

              You should read some of the shit that came out of the Rothbard/Rockwell camp during the early 90s when they were paling around with David Duke.

              [cont]

              1. Take the first paragraph of that essay:

                Well, they finally got David Duke. But he sure scared the bejesus out of them. It took a massive campaign of hysteria, of fear and hate, orchestrated by all wings of the Ruling Elite, from Official right to left, from President Bush and the official Republican Party through the New York-Washington-run national media through the local elites and down to local left-wing activists. It took a massive scare campaign, not only invoking the old bogey images of the Klan and Hitler, but also, more concretely, a virtual threat to boycott Louisiana, to pull out tourists and conventions, to lose jobs by businesses leaving the state. It took a campaign of slander that resorted to questioning the sincerity of Duke’s conversion to Christianity ? even challenging him to name his “official church.”

                Tell me you couldn’t play Mad-Libs with that paragraph and have it read like a contemporary argument about Trump.

                1. So when you say

                  He’s more of a straight up anti-intellectual populist who is basically campaigning as a “Fuck you” to the elitists in Washington

                  , I think you, me, and Knapp agree.

                2. Yeah, I think the argument he’s making about the voters makes a lot more sense…. if it were the early 1990s.

                  I still don’t see it having much to do with Trump. His appeal is fairly broad and doesn’t depend on quite that narrow sort of appeal to such a specific bloc.

                  He’s not even ‘conservative’ in any real way. He’s just a big loudmouth populist jerk, and that appeals to a wide range of people – including black voters, white voters, hispanic voters… he seems to be successful *despite* his so-called racist attitude towards moozies and mexicans, not because of them. The things like “border walls” and “ban muslims” are simple and superficially appealing. Its not a subtle appeal to racism so much as a stupid desire for Easy Solutions to complex issues.

            2. Yes, like having open borders.

    2. I feel the same way about most of the media’s criticisms of Trump as I did about the kookier Republican criticisms of Obama. Using distortion when there are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made does not help your side.

    3. “Peckerwood”. Definitely my favorite racial epithet.

      1. Personally, I prefer “Cracker”. But Peckerwood is pretty good too.

        1. +1 “We can kick up some dust!”

  17. Compare and contrast Reason’s approach to cops to its approach to Muslims. A cop murders a dog and more outrage and emotion is spilled than over 14 people murdered in California. The fact that not all cops are bad and some are in fact quite good people and public servants is never offered as any kind of mitigation for the continued and well documented misconduct of a small percentage of bad cops. Moreover, all cops are to be held answerable and associated with bad cops and expected to do something about the bad cops within their ranks.

    This of course is entirely reasonable. If good cops don’t want to be lumped in with the bad ones then they should either clean up their profession or quit being cops.

    All of this thinking goes out the window when it comes to Muslims. Everyone knows a nice peaceful Muslim, so therefore the Muslim community as a whole can never be associated with or expected to act no matter how many atrocities its members commit. The idea that like being a cop people choose to be a Muslim and if they don’t like being associated with murder they should either clean up their religion or stop being a Muslim is never raised.

    1. This country has had significant numbers of Stalinists and Fascists since the 1920s. Yet, there has never been any instances of such people showing up at their jobs and murdering everyone for being a capitalist or flying planes into buildings. To the extent that there have been mass shootings, they have always been people who were obviously mentally ill and complete psychotic misfits. In contrast, the Muslim killers have all been educated and seemingly well adjusted people right up until they started taking Islam seriously. The guy at Sandy Hook or the ones in Aurora or Charleston were clearly psychotic and delusional. There was nothing psychotic or delusional about the Muhammad Atta or Major Hussein or the couple in California. They were all quite clear headed and utterly evil due to their religion. Yet, let no one ever say the religion might be the problem or that importing millions more Muslims into the country ever be a bad idea. Hey, lets hire a million more cops and see what happens. I am sure most of them will be good law abiding public servants. Right?

    2. The idea that like being a cop people choose to be a Muslim and if they don’t like being associated with murder they should either clean up their religion or stop being a Muslim is never raised.

      Do you really want us to consider religion mutable from now on?

      Also, not all Muslims live on stolen money, so that’s kind of a big leg up on cops. Not to mention the whole “getting that stolen money in exchange for assaulting and kidnapping their neighbors” thing.

      1. So do you really think what cops do would be okay if they did it as volunteers? Who gives a shit if they are being paid by tax money? That isn’t good but it doesn’t make their behavior any worse or better and doesn’t make the people involved in the profession any less answerable for the general state of it.

        As far as religion, you are who you associate with. If I say I am a Christian and you associate me with some snake handling nut, well that just comes with the territory. And if I don’t want you to think I am a snack handling nut, it is on me to explain how I am not. And if I can’t handle being associated albeit tangentially with said nuts, well, I guess I better find a new religion.

        1. Switching the burden of proof for the win!

          1. Ah, you are just a snack handling nut!

            1. Um, no. I’m handling a nut snack.

            2. I don’t know whether to fondle my balls or have a snickers bar.

              1. Fondle a snickers bar. Go on. You know you want to.

                1. It really satisfies

                  1. And the snickers bar is having a cigarette, lying on a hotel bed, the room lit only by the red neon of the VACANCY sign.

              2. Did this Snickers fellow at least buy you a few drinks, or dinner, first?

        2. And if I don’t want you to think I am a snack handling nut, it is on me to explain how I am not. And if I can’t handle being associated albeit tangentially with said nuts, well, I guess I better find a new religion.

          You mean the millions of Muslims in America don’t prove that every day when they don’t murder people?

          1. Jesus Moff…means, motive, and opportunity!

          2. Thousands of cops work hard and are good public servants every day. Does that mean there isn’t a law enforcement problem? You will happily punish the good cops by taking away their immunity and union benefits because those things have been abused by the bad ones. And you are right to do so.

            So there are nice Muslims just like there are nice cops. If you are going to collectively judge the good cops, and this boards does that routinely, why won’t you do the same thing to Muslims?

            1. If you are going to collectively judge the good cops, and this boards does that routinely, why won’t you do the same thing to Muslims?

              Because, unlike Muslims, cops are bound by duty to enforce the law. The fact that they fail in that duty when the lawbreaker is a fellow cop means they collectively deserve nothing but scorn and contempt.

            2. Cops are sworn to uphold the law and are given privileges and immunities that supposedly are necessary to perform that duty. That’s why good cops are to be considered bad when they don’t intervene or arrest or testify against their fellow officers.

              The average Muslim citizen has sworn no oath, is not employed nor empowered by the state. Unless you want to resurrect the Stasi network of citizen spies, turning in each other due to fear of arrest.

              Of course, the way you are going, I’m sure the East German police state sounds right dandy.

              1. The fact that cops take an oath doesn’t make a difference when it comes to collectively judging them. I am talking about the cops who do uphold their oaths. They get lumped in and condemned with the bad ones on here all of the time. And I think they should be. They choose to be cops and if they don’t like being associated with the rest of the profession, too bad.

                The question is why do people who choose to be Muslims get a pass from that logic?

                1. I am talking about the cops who do uphold their oaths.

                  Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha! Whew! That was a good one!

                  1. sarcasmic|12.16.15 @ 2:56PM|#

                    I am talking about the cops who do uphold their oaths.

                    Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha! Whew! That was a good one!

                    Funny sarcasmic. Now why don’t you ever apply that standard to Muslims. Whenever someone gets on here and says “what about all of the peaceful Muslims”, why don’t you say “haha very funny”?

                    1. As soon as Muslims have the power of arrest, as soon as Muslims swear to uphold the law, as soon as Muslims gain immunity from the law, then I’ll think about judging them by the same standards as those who do.

                2. The collectivization, in both cases, is wrong.

                  1. No, it’s not. True, if someone claims membership in a religion, it is “collectivizing” to blame them for everything done by any other member of that religion. However, it is not “collectivizing” to associate them with the tenets of the religion they claim to profess. And Islamic law is quite clear on many things that are entirely contrary to Western liberal (and libertarian) thinking. It’s not “collectivizing” to say that Muslims believe women are inferior to men, and that unbelievers are inferior to women. It’s in the Koran. To be a Muslim is to believe the Koran. The less you believe it, the less of a Muslim you are.

                    And as religions go, it’s unusually violent. There’s also no other major religion that has a correlation between increased belief and increased violence.

                3. John, John, John……..when it comes to terrorism, we’re supposed to assume we had it coming because we made them angry, do nothing, except engage in much hand-wringing, and futilely hpe that if we ‘stop meddling in other countries’ that it will just go away.

                  Haven’t you learned ANYTHING from Reason?

              2. Don’t you take an oath when you come into this country?

                1. Um… not all Muslims are immigrants.

            3. To be fair, I’d happily punish good cops with taking away their immunity and union benefits because they don’t deserve that shit in the first place.

              Even if there were not a single bad cop in all of America.

        3. So do you really think what cops do would be okay if they did it as volunteers? Who gives a shit if they are being paid by tax money? That isn’t good but it doesn’t make their behavior any worse or better and doesn’t make the people involved in the profession any less answerable for the general state of it.

          I give a shit if they are being paid by tax money, because that is stolen money. It does make their behavior worse, and it makes everyone involved in the profession bad.

          1. As an aside, Reason supports the government stealing your money and giving it to Syrian refugees. Beyond that, your objection to their pay has nothing to do with their behavior. They could all be perfect and your objection would still be valid. You are talking about a completely different issue.

            1. Bullshit. When did they advocate for handouts to the Syrians as opposed to admission?

              1. They support the government doing it. Would they prefer we not pay for it? Sure. But they have never conditioned their support for admission on it not coming at government expense or written a single article I have seen objecting to it.

                So yes, they do support it or at the very least don’t consider stealing your money to re-locate them to be a harm worth objecting to the government admitting them.

                1. OK, so IOW, no, Reason never supported it (your words). You lied.

                  1. No, John is right, because refugees are almost always on the dole to some degree, so supporting refugee admission is the same as supporting the government giving them money. I may be wrong, but I’ve never seen a Reason writer say: “We support refugee admission, but only if it costs the government nothing.”

              2. Reason supports bringing the refugees here from Syria. that will have to be done with taxpayer money. That includes handouts. Did you think they were going to be dumped out on the street with no shelter and empty pockets?

            2. Beyond that, your objection to their pay has nothing to do with their behavior.

              Pretty sure the part where I said they get paid for assaulting and kidnapping their neighbors was an objection to their behavior.

        4. Please consult Planters for snack handling nuts.

        5. So do you really think what cops do would be okay if they did it as volunteers?

          They wouldn’t be doing what they are doing if they were volunteers. Likewise, they wouldn’t be doing what they were doing if they were working for a private security firm.

          If I say I am a Christian and you associate me with some snake handling nut

          Not at all. What I associate you with is a bunch of violent and intolerant religious writings, plus a more than two thousand year history of mass murder and oppression. Now, I’m fully aware that the overwhelming number of Christians get through the day without killing or oppressing others, but if you argue politics from a Christian perspective, then the nature and history of you religiously-motivated ideology become relevant.

      2. Cops live on stolen money? Pretty sure its all legal and approved. It’s no good blaming the cops in their various flavours, the entire legal system is fucked up beyond all recognition. The supreme court approved asset forfeiture. America is an amazing country as the commentariat here demonstrate but the legal system is something evil.

        1. Well, they could choose to do something else.

          1. Why would they? Relative to the cost of living. being a cop is a pretty sweet gig where I live. Great pay, benefits, lots of available over time. Lots of police union protection.

      3. Yeah, most people don’t really choose their religion. For Muslims not fortunate to have lived their whole lives in the US or some other place with some degree of religious freedom, there was definitely no choice. Any cop could quit at any time without worrying about being ostracized from their community, family, etc. or worrying that God now hates them and they deserve death.

        And it’s a good point that the job of police specifically requires brutalizing and kidnapping people, whereas there is nothing about being a Muslim that requires murder or terrorism.

        1. That is rediculous Zeb. People leave religions they are raised in all the time. You certainly choose your religion.

          1. Yes, people can change their religion. But it doesn’t contradict the fact that most people don’t choose their religion. Many people do. And many people choose to leave a religion. But for the most part people don’t choose their religion any more than they choose their name (which one can also choose to change).

            And since we are talking Muslims here, most Muslims in the world are most certainly not given a choice as to what their religion will be.

          2. Apostasy is generally punishable by death in Islam. So, Muslims don’t really have much of a choice.

    3. Moreover, all cops are to be held answerable and associated with bad cops and expected to do something about the bad cops within their ranks.

      Well, you know, being like law enforcement officers and stuff, that’s like their job and stuff. So that looks to me like a like false equivalency and stuff. You know?

      1. What difference does that make? It is not like a cop working in California can do anything about a bad cop in New York. That still doesn’t stop you from routinely saying things like “the 99% of bad cops give the remaining 1% a bad name”. You routinely collectivize cops. I know a lot of cops and the ones I know are very good people. That of course doesn’t mean we don’t have a huge problem with law enforcement in this country.

        When have you ever applied the same standards to Muslims? Yeah, some Muslims are great people just like some cops are great people. So what?

        1. Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that we have a “Muslim problem” in America. Cops unjustly kill more people in the United States than Muslims do and are seldom punished for it.

          1. We don’t have a Muslim problem? Yeah, I mean what is a few thousand people being murdered on 911? What is the entire media and the country being afraid of drawing Muhammad for fear of death?

            You guys get more angry about a dead dog than you do over 14 people being murdered. We don’t have a Muslim problem? Okay, exercise your 1st Amendment rights and to out and walk around with a Muhammad T-Shirt every day for the next year. Put your journey on Youtube. Since we don’t have a Muslim problem Geoff, that won’t be a problem right?

            1. We don’t have a Muslim problem?

              No, we don’t. 9/11 was Saudis, not Americans and it was 15 years ago. Our problem now is DHS assholes trying to justify the mulcting of our tax money.

              1. Okay Old man. Then take up my challenge and wear that Muhammad T-Shirt. Wear it for a year and wear it publicly. Put it on the internet and let the entire world know you are doing it.

                You going to do that? You know the woman who came up with “everybody draw Muhammad Day” had to go into hiding. If we don’t have a Muslim problem why did she have to do that? On the advice of the FBI by the way.

                You think nothing of ripping into Progs and Evangelicals and any number of other groups of people. Yet, you can’t bring yourself to say anything bad about a group of people who have made it impossible to criticize them in this country without risking death.

                1. When did you ever see me rip into Evangelicals? Or advocate that they (or Progs) be excluded from immigrating? That’s another lie.

                  You really do get pathetic when someone says anything questioning why you get to steal our tax money.

                2. Yet, you can’t bring yourself to say anything bad about a group of people who have made it impossible to criticize them in this country without risking death.

                  Do you honestly feel you are risking death by criticizing them? I seriously doubt it.

                  1. Okay Nikki, if that is not true, why did the woman have to go into hiding?

                    1. John. You are criticizing Islam right here and right now. Are you afraid for your life?

                      Guess what?I too criticize Islam! I think it’s completely retarded to believe in. I’m not scared!

                    2. BUT YOU WON’T WEAR A STUPID T-SHIRT. See, that’s your problem, Nikki.

                    3. It’s true. I won’t wear a stupid t-shirt.

                    4. It’s almost like John thinks everyone deep down is as afraid of Islam as he is and is lashing out at us for ignoring it.

                      Now what’s the word for that…pro-, -pro-something yes?

                    5. I am doing it anonymously on the internet. doing it publicly is dangerous. If you don’t believe me go ask that woman. Or go ask Penn Gillette who admits he doesn’t do it out of fear.

                      How do you explain Penn Gillette? And again, if it is not dangerous, why don’t you go do it and I don’t mean anonymously on the internet?

                      And BTW, go ask Pam Geller how safe it is. Two people showed up at one of her events and tried to kill everyone there. How can you possibly say we don’t have a Muslim problem in this country?

                    6. Okay, so when you said it was “impossible to criticize them in this country without risking death,” that wasn’t true.

                      Two people showed up at one of her events and tried to kill everyone there. How can you possibly say we don’t have a Muslim problem in this country?

                      Because it was two people.

                      You know who I don’t like? Moms. Can’t fucking stand them. Do you know how many moms abuse their children every year? Hint: WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY MORE THAN TWO.

                      How can you possibly say we don’t have a maternity problem in this country?

                    7. John, you are claiming that everyone is afraid and risks death if they criticize Islam. Then you cite the experiences of a few public figures to support that notion. Do you see the problem there?

                    8. Zeb that is called evidence. If Muslims are not a problem why are so many public figures afraid of them?

                    9. Public figures do clearly have some reason to fear publicly criticizing Islam. I don’t think that translates to the rest of us, though. You seemed to suggest that everyone has good reason to fear criticizing muslims, but only provided evidence that public figures do.

                      And why say “Muslims are a problem” when “some Muslims are a problem” is more accurate? No one here is denying that Islam is particularly violent and nasty among the popular religions. The objection is to the implication that all Muslims are therefore somehow part of the problem.

        2. Muslims are not authorized to use violence to enforce the law. Cops are. Muslims are not duty and oath bound to stop people who are breaking the law. Cops are.

          So when cops routinely ignore it when their fellow cops break the law, they are failing in their sworn duty.

          Muslims have no such duty.

          1. You miss the point. It is not about the law. It is about whether you can collectively judge a group of people who voluntarily associate with one another. Being Muslim is not a race. It is a choice. Just like being a cop is a choice. So if you can judge cops by their worst, why can’t you bring yourself to judge Muslims by their worst?

            1. I don’t judge cops by the worst. I judge cops by the supposedly good ones who look the other way or lie when their fellow cops break the law. I judge them not by the criminals in the ranks, but by the accomplices who stand by and do nothing. They are failing in their duty, and are not worthy of their privilege and power.

              Muslims have no such duty, no such privilege, and no such power.

              So we’re looking at a false equivalency. A fallacy. You know who else loves fallacies?

              1. I don’t judge cops by the worst. I judge cops by the supposedly good ones who look the other way or lie when their fellow cops break the law.

                Okay. So now apply that standard to Muslims

                http://www.washingtontimes.com…..#pagebreak

                They look they other way and allow the worst sorts of evil to exist in their communities. Are you going to hold them to the same standard you hold cops?

                1. Okay. So now apply that standard to Muslims

                  Talk about obtuse.

                2. Muslims are not obligated to police the behavior of other Muslims. Just like gun owners are not obligated to police the behavior or other gun owners.

                  1. *Muslims are not obligated to police the behavior of other Muslims.*

                    No, but I hear that they are obligated to fight the kuffar everywhere they find them.

                3. John, there will never be any criticism of Islam from these folks. You’re wasting your time.

            2. Being Muslim is not a race. It is a choice.

              I asked you before if you really wanted us to consider race mutable and you ignored it. Do you? How are you going to support freedom of religion rights for Christian bakers who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings if religion is only a choice?

              1. Religion is a choice. And those people have freedom of religion because the 1st Amendment says they do. If you think being a Muslim isn’t a choice Niki, then I don’t even know how to have a debate with you because you don’t live in the same universe I do.

                1. If you think being a Muslim isn’t a choice Niki, then I don’t even know how to have a debate with you because you don’t live in the same universe I do.

                  John, as a lawyer you should really know that religion is considered an “immutable characteristic” for purposes of antidiscrimination laws.

                  It’s normally people like me who think it’s a choice, and religious people who deny that, FWIW.

                  1. So what Nikki? It is still a choice in a way race or sex isn’t. If that means it shouldn’t be lumped in there with those two, take it up with the people who wrote the 1st Amendment.

                2. For the vast majority of Muslims in the world, religion is most definitely not a choice. The ones in the US are lucky. They are also lucky in that they have the choice to continue being Muslims and to be selective in how seriously they take the more violent aspects of the faith.

                  1. It largely Isn’t a choice in some countries because they murder apostates.

              2. If they don’t want to make cakes for gay weddings they can just choose to stop having a religious objection to homosexuality.

                1. And SF, you can judge them for their choices. And you do. That is your right. But you refuse to judge Muslims. It is funny. Gay marriage and gay rights is an incredibly important issue to you. And yet, you refuse to make any collective judgment about Muslims, the group of people in this world who are collectively the most anti-gay. of any.

                  Why can’t you say Islam is a shitty religion like you say the same about communism or Evangelical Christianity? Why do you always rush to the “but not every Muslim is a murderer” bullshit? Big fucking deal. Not every communist is a murderer. Does that fact make being a communist a good thing?

                  1. You make a good point. Which is why I advocate fro the removal of progressives from the US. They are not compatible with a constitutional republic. And neither are Muslims to an extent. But we are prevented from addressing that in any meaningful way by the progressives, and their PC Principal.

                2. Stop being religious or else! Yeah like that has ever worked. You just end up creating martyrs.

            3. John. If I understand your point then let me use this analogy assuming it’s a proper one.

              I’m Italian and Catholic. Mobsters are Italian and Catholic commit various crimes. I happen to associate with a couple at a party function or at Sunday afternoon soccer games.

              Should I be asked to renounce my heritage and religion? I mean, I’m voluntarily associating with them even though I have nothing to do with their actions.

              1. Should I be asked to renounce my heritage and religion? I mean, I’m voluntarily associating with them even though I have nothing to do with their actions.

                Yes, that is exactly what John is saying.

                1. Yes. I’m getting that sense.

                  Hear that Jews and the Irish?

                2. Back in the 70s my father would walk into the most notorious mafia bar in the city cigarette in mouth and a measuring tape to take orders for suits. He’s probably in a few RCMP photos taken by them during stakeouts.

              2. Rufus,

                Being Italian isn’t a choice. Being Catholic is. So the question is if several known mobsters go to your church and the church has no issue with it, can I judge you for attending a church that excuses mobsters? Damn straight I can.

                You guys are moving the goal posts here. I am not talking about the law. I am talking about your right to judge a group of people. You guys will happily judge groups of people all of the time. Does anyone on here say that “sure Stalin was bad but I know a lot of communists who are great people and you shouldn’t think worse of them for being communists”? Hell no. So the question is, if you are willing to think less of people who are communists, because communism has caused so much harm, why are you not willing to think less of someone who is a Muslim, given all of the harm Islam has caused and continues to cause?

                1. You guys are moving the goal posts here. I am not talking about the law. I am talking about your right to judge a group of people

                  That isn’t the issue. The issue is ignorant blowhards like Trump and his goose-stepping morons using their bigotry as justification for depriving Muslims of their constitutional rights.

                  I don’t care if you have an irrational fear and hatred of Muslims, I care if your ignorant bile is infecting public policy, which it presently is. Islam is a backwards and stupid religion but there’s no problem with Muslims in this country today. None.

                  1. I don’t care if you have an irrational fear and hatred of Muslims,

                    So it is irrational to think less of Muslims? Is it irrational to think less of people who claim to be communists? Since when can you not judge people by their ideology and thoughts?

                    Do you not think less of people who claim to be communists Geoff? If so, then why do you not do the same for people who claim to be Muslims?

                    1. So it is irrational to think less of Muslims? Is it irrational to think less of people who claim to be communists? Since when can you not judge people by their ideology and thoughts?

                      No, it’s irrational to be afraid of them to the point of advocating serious violations of civil liberties. Which, you know, is the biggest reason why libertarians are against Trump and why so many of us find his support in the Stupid Party disturbing.

                      You’re such a Trump beta-bitch you can’t handle Reason rightly eviscerating him and his troglodyte supporters for their hysteria, so you have to go changing the topic of discussion to something nobody is arguing against, namely that Islam is a dumb religion.

                  2. *That isn’t the issue. The issue is ignorant blowhards like Trump and his goose-stepping morons using their bigotry as justification for depriving Muslims of their constitutional rights.*

                    Foreigners hoping to immigrate to the US have no constitutional rights.

                2. Thanks for the clarification.

                  But I’m not so sure being Catholic is a ‘choice’. We’re born into it. I can ‘leave’ it in spirit but not legally unless I’m willing to go through the paperwork.

                  Also, I like telling tales of my father and his interactions with the mob.

                  1. Catholicism is pretty embedded, moreover, into societies like Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, parts of Germany, Poland, Croatia, Mexico, South America etc.to the point you can argue they’re inseparable. Yes, in places like Italy and France, people have ‘walked’ away (if attendance figures are proof of it) but the religion continues to feature prominently.

                  2. I don’t see how being Catholic isn’t a choice. There are millions of people who were raised Catholic and decide as adults to leave the faith. It is totally a choice.

                    If being Catholic isn’t a choice, then how is being anything that you were raised around a choice? Is being a communist not a choice if you were a red diaper baby? I don’t think so.

                    1. I get your point but I was BORN into the religion according to the law. I didn’t choose it.

                      I would have chosen Latvian Orthodox if it were up to me.

                    2. Leaving a religion can be a choice. The religion you are born into and raised in is not a choice. And for most people, leaving the religion of their parents is a much bigger deal than changing jobs.

                  3. You have to fill out and file paperwork to not show up to church anymore? Is this something that can be done online?

            4. The voluntary association in this example being… a collective sworn duty to uphold the law.

              One of these things is not like the other.

              1. They are both voluntary and that is the point

        3. You routinely collectivize cops. I know a lot of cops and the ones I know are very good people.

          Cops are government employees with extraordinary powers over life and death. That is a “collective” property inherent in being a cop. And as libertarians, we question whether that is a good arrangement. Whether they are individually “good people” (whatever that means) is irrelevant. In addition, people need to make an affirmative choice to be a cop, and they can easily leave and pick up another profession if they like.

          When have you ever applied the same standards to Muslims?

          There is nothing that all Muslims have in common. Many Muslims (like many Christians) are ignorant of what their religion actually says. Many Muslims never made an affirmative choice, they are simply Muslim because they were born into it and because declaring themselves anything else would result in serious punishment and repercussions.

    4. The cops work for me and have no rights while executing their public duties, only the limited power I give them (in theory, of course). I’m not violating anyone’s rights by insisting the cops operate within the limits of their enumerated powers or by insisting they hold each other accountable.

      Muslims are not government. They are a group of individual people with rights. I have no right to or power to insist they be their brother’s keepers.

      1. You miss the point. There is nothing wrong with holding cops to standards. The question is are the ones who meet the standard going to be associated with the ones who don’t. All of you have no problem doing that. And I don’t blame you. Yet, when it comes to Muslims no Muslim can ever be associated with anything bad.

        1. The only one missing the point here is you.

          Muslims have not taken an oath to uphold the law, while cops have. Muslims have no duty to root out bad actors in their communities, while cops do. So Muslims are not failing in their duty, while cops are.

        2. No, you miss the point.

          I (the people) have every right to insist cops (government) hold each other to a standard. This is proper because government has no rights.

          I (the people) do not have the right to insist Muslims (other people) hold each other to a standard. This is proper because Muslims (people) do have rights and one of those rights is the right to NOT be my brother’s keeper unless I voluntarily choose to.

          1. We are not talking about the cops who don’t meet the standard. We are talking about the ones who do.

            So, you can’t judge people by the people they associate with or by the actions of those associated with their religion or ideology? really? So if Progessives started blowing shit up in this country you would not make a judgment about Progressive ideology based on that? Bullshit.

            Do you think communists are not answerable for Stalin? I mean I know several people who claim to be communists and totally repudiate the murders that are associated with communism. Are you going to apply the same logic to communism you apply to Islam and not think worse of communists as long as they are nice people and renounce the murder?

            1. We are not talking about the cops who don’t meet the standard. We are talking about the ones who do.

              When you find one of those mythical cops who does not tolerate abuse of power by his buddies, who does not lie in defense of his buddies, who does not lie on police reports, who does not lie in court, and who is willing to arrest a fellow police officer who is breaking the law, let me know.

              I think you can find them on aisle six, next to rainbows and unicorn farts.

            2. We are not talking about the cops who don’t meet the standard. We are talking about the ones who do.

              If cops are tolerating bad cops, none of them are meeting the standard.

              Are you going to apply the same logic to communism

              Um…yes…of course I am. As a free person you can believe any nonsense you want, provided you aren’t infringing on anyone else. It is the communist governments that are responsible for the atrocities inflicted, as the government took the action.

              1. Bullshit. If you don’t less of someone for being a communist, you either don’t understand communism or you must like it. How could you not? Do you think less of people who are Nazis? I mean as long as they don’t try and kill anyone it was Hitler’s crimes not theirs right?

                I just painted you into an absurd position. That is called you losing the argument.

                1. I have a low opinion of cops because they actually have the power to do something about bad cops within their ranks, and they never do so.

                  The average Muslim doesn’t have the power to do anything. They can’t arrest bad Muslims. They don’t have qualified immunity. What the fuck can they do?

                  Cops are delinquent in their duty while Muslims have no such duty.

                  So your argument is fallacious from the very beginning because it’s based upon a false equivalency.

                  1. okay sarcasmic, do you think less of someone who claims to be a Nazi or a Fascist but is otherwise a hardworking nice person? If you don’t, why. If you do, then how can you not think less of someone who claims to be a Muslim?

                2. John, why is this so difficult for you?

                  Who said I don’t think less of communists? I think less of progs and Muslims and Christians too.

                  I think less of lots of people but there is a huge difference between thinking they are idiots and calling for inhibiting their rights (as you have in calling for deportation of all Muslims).

                  Do you think less of people who are Nazis?

                  Yes

                  I mean as long as they don’t try and kill anyone it was Hitler’s crimes not theirs right?

                  Correct. And this goes right back to the original argument. The only people responsible for the atrocities are those who took an active role in committing them.

                  It’s the NAP. You are allowed react in self defence to the aggressive act of another. You are allowed to aid another who’s been previously aggressed upon, but you are never obligated to. So the “Nazis” who lived down the road from Auschwitz and knew what was going on and did nothing are not responsible for the atrocity.

                  I may think less of them for not coming to the aid of the prisoners, but they are not obligated to and are not liable.

            3. I judge people all the time, and for all kinds of things. And appears pretty common from the other posters in this thread too.

            4. So, you can’t judge people by the people they associate with or by the actions of those associated with their religion or ideology? really?

              The vast majority of criminals in this country are Christian; not only that, Christians are statistically overrepresented in prisons. The vast majority of Nazis were Christian. Hitler himself was a Catholic and the Catholic center party cast the deciding votes to put him into power. Do we have a “Christian problem”?

              Do you think communists are not answerable for Stalin?

              Religion stands for a mix of cultural identity, spiritual belief and political ideology, while communism is just a political ideology. Christian political ideology, just like Islamic political ideology and communism, is drenched in blood and oppressions. But most “Christians” in this world are not Christian in the sense of political ideology, they are merely culturally and/or spiritually “Christian”. In contrast, all communists are communists in the sense of political ideology.

        3. when it comes to Muslims no Muslim can ever be associated with anything bad

          Who do you think is actually saying that, John? I think Islam is a pretty crappy religion with lots of nasty violent stuff in it. But I will judge individual Muslims as individuals. If they reject the nasty parts of their religion, that’s good.

          If cops reject the nasty parts of their job and don’t behave criminally, I’ll give them due credit. But I have yet to meet any cops who refuse to enforce laws against victimless “crimes”, so the opportunity hasn’t come up. I have met Muslims who are absolutely opposed to killing infidels and apostates. So they have cops beat there.

    5. A very good point. It’s funny how the usual subjects come up with utterly irrelevant distinctions between cops and Muslims. The issue raised by John is whether we can characterize the group based on the behavior by some of the group’s members. Libertarians are prone to over-generalization (like everybody else, but in other contexts) when they deal with the group they dislike – cops, much less so when the group in question is Muslims.

      1. John does bring up valid points which they proceed to ignore and beat him over the head with bullshit.

        1. And normally I would just disagree with whatever he’s stating and move along, but you guys on here do appear to collectivize certain groups and not others…/yokeltarian?

          1. The thing is, the cops really are out to get you. Even the supposed “good ones” (and there are cops who I know personally who I find to be decent people) signed up for a job that necessarily involves committing unjustified acts of violence against people. That’s not collectivism, that’s just a fact about how the legal system works. Muslims can choose to behave morally. Cops can’t while keeping their jobs.

      2. There is one very relevant distinction, though. Cops voluntarily sign up for a job that requires them to use violence against people for no justifiable reason (i.e. enforcing laws against victimless crimes). Muslims are free to choose not to kill the people who their religion tells them need killing. Furthermore, most Muslims are born into the religion. Police go out of their way to choose to be police. I think it is quite reasonable to hold the police more responsible for the group that they choose to be a part of than Muslims.

        That said, I don’t really see how anyone here is shy about criticizing the religion or ideology of Islam (or any other religion).

      3. The issue raised by John is whether we can characterize the group based on the behavior by some of the group’s members.

        Yes, and it’s the wrong question to ask. Libertarians aren’t generalizing about cops based on behavior or labels. Libertarians are (usually) not saying that cops would be better if only they attracted a different group of people.

        Libertarians are questioning the nature of the job itself: the nearly unlimited power over life and death, the government pensions, the legal immunity, and the tasks that are part of the job. Those are objectively verifiable aspects of being a cop, universally true for everybody who chooses that profession.

  18. I have this issue with Trump too: when it comes time for President Trump to take office, what is he going to do? What is his understanding of the authority of the executive branch under the Constitution? I mean, it’s mildly amusing to watch him piss on some holier-than-thou talking head but the job of president involves a little more than that.

    1. what is he going to do?

      Good question, I don’t think anyone knows. But I’ll take a stab at this being accurate:

      Nothing that he said he was going to do.

    2. Those are all legitimate questions. The problem is that you could say exactly the same thing about Obama. Sure, we should learn from the Obama experience and not elect a center right version of him like Trump. That is great and all but the media’s utter depravity in ensuring those questions were not asked of Obama makes it impossible for them to have any credibility when asking them of Trump.

      If we get Trump, thank every Obama supporter you know for it happening because those assholes and their appalling behavior set the conditions for Trump to succeed.

      1. True, I would say that about pretty much any of these candidates. I have to agree too that the media have poisoned their own well. Aside from that, I think that too many in the media would be fine with a dictatorship as long as they still get invited to the cocktail parties.

    3. I’m pretty sure his understanding of his authority is “whatever the fuck he can get away with”. So, pretty much the same as all the presidents since Calvin Coolidge (maybe throw Eisenhower a little credit for attempting to put some fig leaves on that shit sometimes?)

      1. Eisenhower deserves credit for giving people what they want while at the same time pointing out to them that a lot of it is ill advised.

        Coolidge : Jefferson or Madison :: Eisenhower : Washington

        1. Grover Cleveland should be added to that list, I would think.

      2. Eisenhower did more than that. He was a very law abiding President. I think you should say every President from Kennedy on.

        And your comment gets to the root of the issue about all of the hand wringing over Trump by people like Suderman; exactly how is Trump any different than the rest of them? That question never seems to be answered.

        1. I think you should say every President from Kennedy on.

          That’s not fair to Reagan and Carter. If you start from Wilson (inclusive!), the most law-abiding Presidents have been Coolidge, Eisenhower, Carter, and Reagan (in chronological order). The least have been Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama. The rest are a mixed bag.

          1. We have basically been in a period of administrative lawlessness for more than 20 years with no sign of stopping, if the presumptive Democratic nominee is any indication.

          2. Reagan? You mean like Iran-Contra?

            1. Nobody ever said he was perfect. But compared to Obama he was a saint.

        2. He was a very law abiding President

          With the possible exception of the Guatemala fiasco.

        3. Apologies to Eisenhower then. Seemed like too much of a pragmatist to me sometimes. Like he viewed the constitution as a thing to be worked around. But he at least worked around it. Nowadays they just laugh it off.

          1. Eisenhower was definitely a pragmatist. He was about as close to being a good technocrat as this country has ever had. The problem is that he was basically a fluke as far as the technocratic Presidents are concerned, with Reagan being the only President to bear even a passing resemblance.

    4. ” I mean, it’s mildly amusing to watch him piss on some holier-than-thou talking head but the job of president involves a little more than that.”

      I’m not sure all his supporters are thinking that far ahead.

      All they know is that voting never does anything useful for them, and in fact they continue to be ruled by people who not only do dumb shit, but express contempt for the voters while doing it.

      I imagine many Trump supporters assume Trump will do dumb shit too. But at least they get to watch him insulting the “mainstream” politicians, the media, and so on.

    5. Same thing he’s doing now: make speeches, get his picture taken, travel around, meet with people privately, sign pieces of paper he gets handed…you know, executive stuff.

  19. “Fascism” is dead. “Fascism” remains dead. And we have killed him.

    1. We can rebuild him, better, stronger, faster…. Oh wait this country is broke. Never mind. Thanks Obama this was your plan all along wasn’t it?

  20. My biggest fear of Trump is exactly the same fear I have about every other candidate. More cronyism, more government, more wars, more drug war, more police militarization, more debt spending, etc, etc.

    Trump deporting 30 million immigrants or deporting all Muslims and putting a ban on their immigration, building a giant wall around the USA? Lol, that’s fantasy fuel for his ignorant supporters. I’m more afraid of global warming killing us than I am any of that stuff happening, which means not at all.

    1. I agree. I don’t know what Trump would actually do as President. My guess is not a lot other than drive people like Suderman into hysterics.

      1. I don’t know, but I’m not going to vote for him. So whatever he does, it’s not my fault. I’m just choosing to not shit my pants over the crazy stuff he says, since obviously no one, including Trump will or even can actually do any of that stuff.

        1. Dude, they are working on Muslim Litmus Paper right now as we speak.

          1. Who is ‘they’?

      2. “Trump can hardly be worse than Obama” remains my go-to mantra for him. It is both a compliment (in the context of a current politics) and a damning indictment (there’s not much anyone can honestly say about what he’ll do besides that).

    2. The most he can do is tighten up border security, and put some restrictions on immigration and VISA’s from Islamic countries. Big deal.

  21. OT: we’re doomed, I tell you. Dooooooomed!

    I’d like to circulate a petition to nuke the elitist pigdogs at all Ivy League schools from the face of the earth.

    1. No worries, they’re going to be their own demise.

    2. I also think they should have a new edition of “God and Man at Yale” edited by a trans-sexual latino communist

    3. How can such minds be at Yale?

      Man they’re dumb.

    4. I think I saw that Bullshi!.

    5. Why does he blur their faces? Those people should be shamed by exposing their gullibility and stupidity to everyone…

  22. “(insert name) seems to have no idea what he is talking about, and frequently appears to be making it all up on the spot.”

    1. CNN supplied each dais with the back of a cracker jacks box.

  23. I am enjoying all this butthurt over Trump. I prefer Trumps in your face facism much better than Clinton, Inc.’s smile with a knife in the back version. With Trump I imagine a couple of Corlione goons with a Sicilian accent showing up at my door step “suggesting” a donation. With Clinton Inc., I imagine a judge citing Bull v. Shit (i.e. pissing down your back and telling you it is raining ) and decreeing with his magical legal reasoning wand that the enforced taking of your property is completely legal.

    This is no longer a republic of limited enumerated powers. Saying this is the freeist (sp?) country in the world is like bragging about being the tallest midget. The country is going to get more authoritarian no matter who is president because American are fucking cowards who can’t stand the thought of personal responsibility, risks associated with freedom, and free trade. This country is going to get more authoritarian because large numbers of Americans want it to be.

    1. Well said Troy ^

    2. libertarian moment, is that what you’re trying to say?

      1. I nodded my head in agreement. What the voices in your head tell you is your business.

    3. Bingo, Mr. boner. It makes me sad.

      I also enjoy all the proggie butt hurt over trump because I hate them so much, but I also know that Trump is the devil we don’t know…yet.

      I am keeping my fingers crossed for my second choice because I think there is a chance he can slow down the increasing authoritarianism a little bit: Cruz.

      1. And Cruz is too far right of libertarian, but does seem to be the least of evil. Why Rand, why? (Hope I didn’t just light the Hihnee signal)

        1. Are things about to become ‘unHihnged’ again?

    4. *Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap!

  24. It sometimes seems as if Trump has a no-spoiler policy for his presidency.

    Which is ironic since his candidacy may well be a spoiler for Republicans.

  25. Meh. Another Trump thread. Didn’t he jump the shark last week?

    1. That he did. Completely defied everyone and broke the 40% threshold.

  26. Funny how reason is starting to sound more like the shreikers almost every day. Since when did it become a liberAL rag?

  27. Il duce with a hair mop.

  28. gotta tell you I haven’t read the article – I just love the freaking headline. As Team America would say Fuck Yah! Now I’ll go and read this shit for reals this time.

  29. I see that Reason has been partying with the Progs, and now calls anyone right of center that they really don’t like a Fascist.

    Wow, Trump blows a lot of hot air, light on specifics. Must be a fascist. Never seen a politician do that before.

    Hope and Change. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change we seek. Blah blah blah.

    1. Nick and Co. are working hard to get Hillary elected. They must have been offered a place in the new order for their Satanic service.

  30. Look, Trump has a Final Solution to this country’s problems & it’s going to be *beautiful*!

  31. I have come to think a great deal less of you

  32. This editorial is as bombastic as Trump is.

  33. Fascism had very specific policies. So far Trump can only be said to be Fascistic on a very superficial level, since he has been light on specifics, but does employ the Strong Man cult of personality that often accompanies Fascism. Sadly, Reason is descending deeper into Progressivism – coincidentally the closest living relative to true Fascism. The headline would have been just as effective had it read, ‘Trump is a mean poo-poo head!’

    1. Coming next week from Reason! “Trump is a Mean Poo-Poo Head” by Steve Chapman.

  34. Here we go: arresting a muslim at the US border under Trump regime.
    Officer: Where are you coming from?
    Immigrant (maybe a terrorist maybe not): from Syria.
    Officer: Are you a Muslim?
    Immigrant: No
    Officer: Are you sure?
    Immigrant: Yes you can check my Facebook page. I have a picture in front of St Peter Church in Rome.
    Officer: This is not enough proof. Please, eat this Pork Chop
    Immigrant: I am a vegetarian
    Officer: Then you are a Muslim
    Immigrant: No I am a vegetarian
    Officer: If you do not eat the Pork Chop then I have to arrest you. The officer offer as alternative a slice of Salami. The immigrant refuses to eat it. The officer proceed to arrest him.

  35. Peter Sudeman is crass and dopey and has now penned 13456 straight anti-Trump articles. Note that during that span Trump has dominated the political scene and Sudeman has simply become irrelevant, if he ever was.
    Sudeman the fart needs to find another occupation, or I should say, way to make money. They are looking for a doorman at the Trump Plaza, Pete – that’s just up your alley.

  36. I get why people like Trump. He’s a cathartic conduit for all of the rage that people have about Political Correctness and the liberal media that is constantly pushing the progressive ideology. Those things piss me off too, so yeah, I can be amused by the outrage that he constantly evokes in the liberal elite.

    That said, I can’t see how anyone who is a libertarian could think Trump would be a good president. He is not someone who believes in freedom. He someone who believes in the Will to Power and a strong government that is led by a Great Man. He explicitly promises to get the government more involved in telling business what to do. He doesn’t care about civil liberties or due process. Yeah, he says the right things about gun rights now, but he used to say the exact opposite. He wants more government surveillance and a more militarized police force.

    If you’re for all of those things, fine, Trump is your ideal candidate. But don’t call yourself a libertarian.

  37. That said, I can’t see how anyone who is a libertarian could think Trump would be a good president.

    Easy: there’s a good chance he’d get very little done, because getting things done in Washington requires political skills he obviously lacks. Libertarians like ineffective presidents.

    1. I actually think Trump would be very effective at getting things done. I just think he would get the *wrong* things done.

      He’s good at making deals. His base will support literally anything he does, so unlike most politicians he is unconstrained by a need for voter approval.

      Hell, he just praised Putin (and was praised in turn), and the blowback from that was zero. I think he would be more “effective” than Obama in the sense that he could say something like, “Hey, Vladimir. Here’s the deal. You get Syria, and your boy Assad stays in power, and if you want to move on Kiev, I don’t care. We’ll take Iraq and seize the oilfields, and then start bombing Iran. Deal?”

      And Putin would say, “Deal. Nice to be dealing with a reasonable man.”

      Likewise on economic policy, “Hey Ford, if you don’t shut down your plants in Mexico, I’m gonna put a 100% tariff on your cars. But if you do shut down all your foreign plants, I’ll put a 100% tariff on all foreign-made cars, so middle-class guys won’t be able to afford them, and they’ll buy more Fords!”

      And Ford would go along.

      So, yeah, effective, just not libertarian at all.

      1. Of course, he would need to get Congress to go along on the domestic side, but I think if he were actually elected president, most Republicans would be afraid to oppose him, and he could probably pick up a fair number of Democrats who represent white, working-class districts and states.

  38. Gosh, and this is the one GOP candidate that party’s voters can stand! Imagine how awful the girl-mutilating prohibitionist warmongers must be to have a front-runner like Trump. Makes me glad I’m in a party that’s pro-freedom.

  39. Part of the problem with politics is asking EXACTLY HOW a candidate will do the things he/she wants to get done. The normal procedure is GOAL – STRATEGY – TACTICS. It is reasonable to want to know a candidate’s GOALS. It is unreasonable, however, to ask someone to reveal the STRATEGIES and TACTICS one would use to win the GOAL. Strategies and tactics need to be flexible, and hidden from opponents. In war and cards, the goal is to win. To reveal the strategy and tactics to opponents is foolish.
    I really don’t care to know HOW a candidate intends to achieve his/her goals. I want to know WHAT ARE THE GOALS, implicit and implied, and the CONSEQUENCES. Those two ideas are the only things we need to know in order to make a decision. Trump does not give away his strategies or tactics for a VERY GOOD REASON. GOALS AND CONSEQUENCES are the only reasonable ideas to consider.
    Getting hung up on the strategies and tactics a candidate would use distracts the conversation away from the CONSEQUENCES far too often. I want to know two things only: 1) What are the candidates GOALS (implicit & implied), and 2) What would be the CONSEQUENCES if those goals are achieved. How the candidate gets it done is immaterial.
    Perhaps this would be better understood if more people read The Art of the Deal.

  40. This article is riddled with intolerant ad hominem. attacks. Intolerance is the sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience. A truly profound education breeds humility.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.