Election 2016

Trump-Clinton Spats over Schlonging, ISIS Recruitment, Illustrative of Bullshit Distractions 2016 Election is Centered Around

Who got schlonged in 2008? America. And it's been getting schlonged since.

|

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump said a stupid thing so mainstream media, and social media, followed a by-now familiar cycle that involves obsessing over the Trump comments mostly to the exclusion of substantive policy engagement.

Last week, Donald Trump said Demoratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton got "schlonged" in the 2008 democratic primary, which she entered as a prohibitive frontrunner and exited hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign spending later, in second place. Maybe the word Trump was searching for was shellacked? It could have been a spoonerism, as the Washington Post speculated when Michelle Obama flubbed the name of a candidate she was stumping for in 2014.

Regardless, Clinton spent millions of dollars on a highly touted strategist, Mark Penn, who incorrectly thought California was a winner-take-all primary and that that would propel Clinton to victory. Schlong is a Yiddish term for a penis. That Hillary Clinton got fucked in 2008 is a debatable point, and not one the facts permit to be dismissed out of hand. It's hardly gendered. More importantly, it's irrelevant. But Hillary Clinton got to call it sexist, and use it to talk about how bigoted and hateful Donald Trump is instead of having to talk about her own failures, or accomplishments for that matter.

And before the schlong comment sucked all the air out of the room, a different Trump-Clinton spat dominated. That one, over whether Donald Trump vids were being used as recruiting tools by ISIS, was just as stupid. Trump insisted Clinton produce an ISIS video featuring trump. When a Clinton spokesperson clarified that she meant Trump's rhetoric was being used as a recruiting tool, Trump called her a liar and demanded an apology. The ISIS comments, but especially the schlonging comments, gave people on social media another opportunity to signal how awful they believe Trump to be. But especially with liberals, that signalling is largely unconnected to the role the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations played in cultivating the sentiments Trump is exploiting.

This was a stupid argument too, one that played out in the media much more favorable for Clinton than it necessarily had to. It's not difficult to imagine the image of Donald Trump making into an ISIS recruitment video—the terrorist organization has displayed a millennial-level of media savvy. Yet the biggest recruiting tool for ISIS remains U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East—because the bloodshed and chaos it causes makes radicalization easier, because it can be interpreted within the framework of a war on Islam even if the Obama administration's particular rhetoric (mostly aimed to an English-speaking, domestic audience) can't be, and because it has opened up the physical space for organizations like ISIS to thrive.

In that last regard alone, Clinton has probably done more to support ISIS than Donald Trump's rhetoric ever could. As ISIS loses territory in Iraq and Syria to a U.S.-led coalition, they are reinforcing their hold on Sirte, a city on the Mediterranean coast of Libya. ISIS could be planning to fall back to Libya if its leadership is actually pushed out of Iraq and Syria. ISIS is reportedly already training pilots in Sirte with a possible eye toward aerial attacks on targets in Italy and elsewhere in Europe. Libya is also a hotbed for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Weapons and fighters belonging to the Qaddafi regime, which Clinton boasted about toppling, made their way as far as Mali and Nigeria to the west and Syria and Iraq to the east.

NEXT: 10 Rand Paul #Festivus Insult-Tweets That May Amuse and/or Bemuse You

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. Before yesterday I was unaware that schlong was a verb.

    1. Its not long….its schlong! As one of my old college rugby buddies would say.

      1. A fellow rugger? Shoot tha boot! Shoot tha boot!

        1. Where/when did you play?

    2. it’s English, where any word can be whatever you want it to be. How else to explain “concerning” being used to refer to a level of a concern as opposed to the equivalent of “regarding.”

      1. it’s English, where any word can be whatever you want it to be. How else to explain “concerning” being used to refer to a level of a concern as opposed to the equivalent of “regarding.”

        It’s only every human language in the the known universe in which words can change meaning over time.

      2. Making nouns into verbs is pretty standard in English. If you can get dicked over, you can get schlonged.

    3. ALL RIGHT ALREADY!

      For Christ’s sake, we get it. EVERY writer at Reason hates Trump. So fucking what?

      I challenge every write here to either write a pro-Trump article or tell us who they want for president. But we all know NONE of you have the cojones to stand by your convictions.

      Plus you don’t want to be embarrassed when I shred you choice for president into a million pieces bringing you to tears.

      Journalists-in-training. That’s all you are. And that’s all you’ll ever be.

      1. Lay off the stupid pills. Seriously.

        1. scarcasmic — If you ever have an intelligent thought and can figure out a way to actually express that thought, I would love to do a nice long tap dance on top of that tiny space you call an intellect.

          If there’s something you disagree with me on, why don’t you grow a pair and state that disagreement, sit back, and watch me destroy whatever ignorant statement you make.

          I dare you.

          1. But do you Triple Dog Dare him?

            1. you don’t go straight to a Triple Dog Dare, WTF, there are protocol you know, it’s like you never even watched The Polar Express.

          2. Fine. Don’t take my advice.

      2. I challenge every write here to either write a pro-Trump article or tell us who they want for president.

        No one is going to take up your challenge because it is stupid.

        1) Trump is such a fascist buffoon that it would be almost impossible for a self-respecting libertarian to write a pro-trump article. Why not demand they write a pro-Mussolini article while you are at it?

        2) They don’t need to tell you who they like for you to savage anyone. In fact, publicly supporting *any8 candidate might make their jobs harder.

        Here is a list of the people who have a shot at being the next president. It is all but certain that this list contains the name of the next guy. Instead of whining and demanding that a reason reporter give you a name, why don’t you just start going through them in order?

        Hillary Clinton
        Bernie Sanders
        Martin O’Malley

        Jeb Bush
        Ben Carson
        Chris Christie
        Ted Cruz
        Carly Fiorina
        Jim Gilmore
        Mike Huckabee
        John Kasich
        George Pataki
        Rand Paul
        Marco Rubio
        Rick Santorum
        Donald Trump

        Have at it!

        1. PART 1

          tarran — Allow me to educate you on how this self-respecting libertarian (with a small l) is able to write a Pro-Trump Article. Read and learn.

          What all of the dunderheads like you don’t realize is the state of our country presently. If Hillary wins in 2016, she will probably bring the senate with her and maybe the house. She will get the opportunity to nominate 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices and at that point our capitalist system is over and done with for the next 75 years minimum and socialism wins. And Communism is just a short slide down that slippery slope away.

          So at this point in time I don’t give fuck about yours or my precious libertarian ideology. What good is that going to do us when we’re living under socialism?

          Trump is the ONLY candidate who has a chance of winning. He is wildly successful at everything he does. He KNOWS how to win, which is more than can be said for the crowd of losers on the stage with him.

          More importantly, Trump knows how to fight. Every single republican who has gone after Trump has lost and lost big time. The same will happen with Hillary.

          1. PART 2

            Not only does he have more charisma than any of the other candidates, but he has more charisma than any other politician in our lifetime. People (democrats and independents) are going to vote for him solely because he’s entertaining.

            I’ve heard as much as 20% of democrats like Trump.

            Trump is the only candidate who isn’t owned by the lobbyists, Wall Street or ANYONE!

            Nobody else running can beat Hillary besides Trump and I’m not even 100% sure he can win since the country is so far down that socialist path already.

            Tell me, what good will your self-respecting libertarian ideology do you when the socialist have killed Reason’s staff and anyone else who dares to go up against them?

            And the reason no one is going to challenge me is because they know they are going to lose.

            I’m looking for a fight. I’ll destroy any one who challenges me because Trump is a better candidate than anyone they can name.

            Now grow a pair of balls people and come after me. I like embarrassing jerks like you in public.

            1. Dude, it doesn’t matter: either Trump or Hillary are going to win or lose and how Reason.com covers it, or how everyone here votes, or how you vote isn’t going to effect it, practically at all.

              Sorry, but life’s too short to fantasize that gaming your vote is going to actually effect the outcome in any meaningful way, much less censoring yourself from calling an asshole an asshole or a bitch a bitch just because you’re afraid that the other asshole/bitch might win office, solely because of something you said or wrote.

              That’s the way democracy works, and, in the end, I’d rather be saying “See, I told you so” than “I voted for that dick… but I didn’t really mean it!”

              1. Brian — Do your research. There are PLENTY of elections that have been determined by one vote.

                And won’t you feel great when you get to say “See, I told you so” while you’re children are sitting in leg irons because Chelsea Clinton didn’t like them talking about rights and freedom? Or maybe she’ll just kill them! Won’t that be nice?

                And if you really don’t give a shit who governs you, why even bother reading and commenting at Reason?

                YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

                1. Ill take a swing at you,
                  Okay, so your premise is that you will vote for the Fascist Clinton supporter Donald Trump (who was a socialist/democrat up until he decided to run in the primaries) and this will in turn be the best bet to somehow not get Clinton elected and not have a sociopathic socialist in charge but instead empower a sociopathic fascist and that this will be obviously better because the socialist may put everyone into gulags while the fascist will just throw dissenters into concentration camps. Meanwhile you will refuse to support the even marginally Libertarian candidate in the GOP or vote for the LP and pat yourself on the back because at least you voted against the she-demon by voting for a guy who represents the exact same ideals as Hillary but with worse hair and less brains who is in most obviously running as a statist plant to put on a big fanfare election up to the point where he somehow throws the election and gets her elected anyways.
                  Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?

                  1. Vic — Your 100+ word name-calling sentences are boring and incoherent. And since you repeated yourself and made basically the same comment below, you will find my answer your intellectually challenged comment there.

                    If I paid you would you go away?

                    1. I agree with Vic. I don’t think it has been as elegantly stated. Can you refute what he says, or must you resort to childishness? Basically, there’s no reason to believe Trump isn’t a Clinton plant. They are equally statist, so what is your reason for believing Trump’s version of statism is superior to Clinton’s?

                    2. Caroly — Brace yourself. I’m going to ask you a question that’s going to rattle that little pea-brain of yours. It is probably even going to give you a headache. Okay, here it is:

                      How is Trump a statist?

                2. Enjoy your fantasies.

                  1. Brian — What, you still can’t come up with an intelligent response or question for me?

                    I think you might be better off just reading the articles and comments. You’re not quite intellectually ready to actually comment.

                    Best of luck.

                    1. Your ability to overcome intelligent argument through that-time-of-the-month hysteria is truly inspiring.

                      I tap out.

                    2. Brian — Well, you are correct. You are definitely tapped-out

            2. Oookay.

              So your pro trump argument is:
              1) He isn’t Hillary. Presumably the fact that everyone else, including Bernie Sanders, isn’t Hillary has escaped you.

              2) Trump is truculent.

              3) Trump isn’t a socialist. No. He’s a fascist. But fascism and socialism are pretty close cousins – like wolves and coyotes. And unsurprisingly, they pretty much share the same problems.

              4) Trump is successful…. I think you and I have very different definitions of success. I don’t consider declaring bankrupcy after loading all your debts into one business while the profits essentially go into a different business to be a success. But then again perhaps you are the sort of person who thinks what Obama did to GM counted as “success”.

              5) Trump is charismatic! If true, that makes him a more dangerous form of fascist.

              6) He is the only one that can beat Hillary. Whoo de doo. A collectivist can beat another collectivist!

              7) Trump is answerable to no one! Geez, you really like your fascism pure and unadulterated do you?

              8) Only he can prevent the country’s slide into socialism!

              If this is the best you can do, I suggest you join Hillary Clinton’s campaign. There your self-sabotaging efforts can do the country some good. Actually, stick to supporting Trump as well. I don’t really care which enemy of a free country you support, so long as your support is as consistently incompetent as what you have demonstrated here over the past few days.

              1. PART 1

                tarran ? Is that all you got? This is going to be too easy.

                You said, “So your pro trump argument is:”

                1) “He isn’t Hillary. Presumably the fact that everyone else, including Bernie Sanders, isn’t Hillary has escaped you.”

                Have you lost your mind? When did I say or imply that Trump wasn’t Hillary? Get your shit together. Quit making crap up.

                2) “Trump is truculent.”

                Yes I said Trump is a fighter. Since you are not refuting me, I have to
                assume you agree. You’re going to put everyone asleep here tarran.

                3) “Trump isn’t a socialist.”

                Well of course he’s not a socialist. What’s your fuckin’ point? Why don’t you try this since you are obviously new at this debate/refuting arguments thing? Try actually ‘quoting me’ and then see if you can refute my statement. You won’t embarrass yourself as much that way. I’m here to help.

                1. PART 2

                  4) “Trump is successful…. I think you and I have very different definitions of success. I don’t consider declaring bankruptcy after loading all your debts into one business while the profits essentially go into a different business to be a success.”

                  Using your faulty logic, since Trump isn’t batting a thousand in real estate, he must be a failure (He’s actually only batting .957 when you consider his overall success rate in real estate projects). Therefore Babe Ruth who only batted .342 for a lifetime average must be the biggest failure in the world in you mind. You have a great deal of difficulty comprehending logic, don’t you tarran?

                  5) And your dribble continues: “Trump is charismatic! If true, that makes him a more dangerous form of fascist.”

                  Are you unable to determine if Trump has charisma or not?

                  And I think this would be a good place for you to inform the readers of why you think Trump is a fascist. I will then destroy whatever lie or delusion you come up with.

                  6) “He is the only one that can beat Hillary. Whoo de doo. A collectivist can beat another collectivist!”

                  Well now we’re getting somewhere! You admit Trump is the only one who can beat Hillary. This might be a good place for you to tell us who YOU want to be the next president. Then you can sit back, relax and watch me destroy your choice right in front of your very eyes! You’re in for a good cry.

                  1. PART 3

                    7) “Trump is answerable to no one! Geez, you really like your fascism pure and unadulterated do you?”

                    Again, you’re making up shit. Where did I state “Trump is answerable to no one?” Let me show you how to have big-boy debate. This is what I actually said:

                    “Trump is the only candidate who isn’t owned by the lobbyists, Wall Street or ANYONE!”

                    Now try to refute what I actually said instead of the crap you make up in that delusional mind of yours.

                    8) “Only he can prevent the country’s slide into socialism!”

                    Obviously you agree with me since you offer nothing to refute my argument.

                    You haven’t refuted a word I’ve said and you lack the intellectual stamina to allow me to systematically destroy your choice for president. I can’t blame you though. You know I would have a metal midget such as yourself in tears in the first sentence.

                    I’ve already wasted way too much time dealing with your nonsense. One can only hope I’ve been able to help others while I deciphered your crap for them.

                    Your homework for the next 6 months is as follows:

                    Work on your logic, or should I say your lack of logic. Unfortunately that’s something you just about have to be born with, we’ll see. And?read me and learn! I’ll be the one destroying all of the anti-Trump articles here at Reason. Best of luck

            3. “PART 2”?

              Holy shit, fuck off back to your mom’s cunt you stupid dipshit.

        2. Trump plays a buffoon, but there is little that is fascist about him or his political program.

          The most fascist-leaning candidate in this election is Bernie Sanders by far.

          1. Win Bear — I’ll give you that.

            Trump is comical, funny, hilarious and amusing. He uses that to his advantage. Every time he speaks I laugh and I laugh hard. It is part of his charisma. It is part of the reason he is going to win the presidency.

            And can you imagine how dejected and rejected the witch Hillary is going to be when it sinks in that not only an incompetent black man beat her but also Trump beat her?

            Hillary is going to be on a suicide watch. I can’t wait!

      3. Well, leading in the polls as a major party candidate is kind of news worthy. If you don’t care, don’t read it. That’s what I do.

        I’m sure the only thing stopping Reason writers from publicly endorsing candidates at this point is their terror at your staggering intellect.

        Amazing how the people who declare their brilliance at every opportunity are embarrassingly stupid.

        1. Zeb — You say, “I’m sure the only thing stopping Reason writers from publicly endorsing candidates at this point is their terror at your staggering intellect.”

          We are in agreement. I’m glad you’re starting to come around. I’m starting to doubt what those other readers write about you. You’re really not all that dim like they say, are you?

          You continue with, “Amazing how the people who declare their brilliance at every opportunity are embarrassingly stupid.”

          Again, I know exactly what you mean. You would think Reason’s writers would be too embarrassed to even put their fingers to the keys.

          Thanks for your support!

          1. Well, you did warn him what would happen if he came after you. And you certainly delivered. Very impressive takedown of every point he made. I specially like the “I know you are, but what am I” argument. Very impressive.

            And the reason most people aren’t going to challenge you isn’t because they’re scared of you, it’s because you’ve proven yourself to be 100% retarded. Most here have learned that you can’t argue with a mentally retarded toddler having a temper tantrum and don’t want to engage you. No one seems to have told you that yet so I figured I’d let you know. No one’s afraid of you or your astounding intelect, they simply have better things to do than argue with a retarded child. G’night.

            1. Dey — Please inform the readers what “I know you are, but what am I, argument” you are referring to.

              Name me ONE thing I wrote that isn’t true. You can’t. So who’s the retarded one?

              I’m particularly fond of your last sentence:

              “No one’s afraid of you or your astounding intelect, they simply have better things to do than argue with a retarded child. G’night.”

              Obviously YOU don’t have better things to do. Neither do all of the other writers with their lame comments.

              Come back when you have something. Quit embarrassing your self.

              1. You wrote that Trump is the best bet for defeating Hitlery this is a false statement as he is a Clinton donor and supporter up until recently, so either he is an unscrupulous business man who is not above bribing politicians to get special favors (abusing governmental powers) or he is just running to make republicans look like xenophobic racists and unhinged lunatics to scare enough middle of the road people into actually supporting that sociopath Clinton (because of the same reason you would support Trump)
                I know its not your fault your parents let you eat those paint chips, but please spare the rest of us your “brilliant intellect” unless you can come up with a cohesive argument for Trump that doesnt devolve into “HES NOT HILLARY!!!111!!!eleventy!!!!”

                1. rattlehead — Does your wife actually allow you to play on the internet?

                  You’ve got nothing. Nothing but name calling. Boring.

                  The ONLY argument you appear to be making is that Trump is bad because he has changed his mind.

                  I listed at least a half a dozen reason why numbskulls like you should vote for Trump and that’s all you could come up with. You have embarrassed yourself yet again Vic.

                  I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Please don’t waste anymore of our precious time.

      4. I expect they will endorse the Libertarian party candidate when one is announced. It might be Gary Johnson, but last I heard he had not yet decided whether he will run.

        You might expect the reason writers to endorse Rand, but he is only “Libertarian-ish,” not a real Libertarian, as he has, sadly demonstrated this election cycle.

        Last time I checked, the whole magazine is libertarian, so I don’t expect them to come out for any non-libertarians anytime soon.

        1. Usually they endorse the Democrat.

          1. If by “usually” you mean never. Yes, some of them voted for Obama. But if you read their reasoning, they all fell well short of an endorsement.

          2. CE — Well isn’t that precious? I never knew that before. That just makes me want to destroy their little pea-brains even more.

            Bring it on Reason writers (or anyone really).

            1. PART !
              EndTheG[L]OP: It must be fun to have a self-inflated ego almost as big as your hero:The Donald. I don’t believe you could put together a cogent argument if someone else wrote it and all you had do do is sign it. Every time someone either refutes you or ridicules your “great intelligence” your only response is to spread more bovine scat than an entire herd of cattle. Care for an example or two?

              Zeb: “I’m sure the only thing stopping Reason writers from publicly endorsing candidates at this point is their terror at your staggering intellect.” Obvious sarcasm.
              You: “” You say, “I’m sure the only thing stopping Reason writers from publicly endorsing candidates at this point is their terror at your staggering intellect.”
              We are in agreement. I’m glad you’re starting to come around.” Obviously ignoring Zeb’s point.

              end part 1

              1. PART 2

                Tarran and you: “2) “Trump is truculent.”

                Yes I said Trump is a fighter. Since you are not refuting me, I have to
                assume you agree. You’re going to put everyone asleep here tarran.” I guess you are unaware, in your brilliance, that truculent is not the same as being a fighter. According to Merriam-Webster: simple definition, “easily annoyed or angered and likely to argue” Full Definition:
                “1: feeling or displaying ferocity : cruel, savage
                2: deadly, destructive
                3: scathingly harsh : vitriolic
                4: aggressively self-assertive : belligerent”

                You can spin the destructiveness of Trump as much as you like but in the end all that will happen is you will get even dizzier and fall down – hard.

                1. Part 3 (the overlooked)

                  Tell me G[L]OP, when is your hero gonna stop spouting his mouth about *what* he is going to do when POTUS and actually give a policy decision he will make; give us the meat and potatoes – how is he going to take over for Obama and actually (constitutionally) implement some of his bloated rhetoric i.e. stop Muslim immigration completely or, better still, how is he going to make Mexico pay for a wall that he thinks is “Immigration Reform”.

                  1. Erisian

                    You dribble the following:

                    Part 3 (the overlooked)

                    “Tell me G[L]OP, when is your hero gonna stop spouting his mouth about *what* he is going to do when POTUS and actually give a policy decision he will make; give us the meat and potatoes – how is he going to take over for Obama and actually (constitutionally) implement some of his bloated rhetoric i.e. stop Muslim immigration completely or, better still, how is he going to make Mexico pay for a wall that he thinks is “Immigration Reform”.

                    Do I look like Trump’s campaign manager? Trump is running a perfect campaign to date. He’ll let you know when you need to know.

                    Now why don’t YOU grow a pair and tell me who you want for president? I will bring you to tears when I destroy him right in front of you every eyes. Won’t that be fun?

                2. Erisian –DO an AOL search enhanced by Google and you will see the following:

                  truc?u?lent
                  /?tr?ky?l?nt/

                  adjective
                  1. eager or quick to argue or fight; aggressively defiant.
                  2. synonyms:
                  defiant, aggressive, antagonistic, combative, belligerent, pugnacious, confrontational, ready for a fight, obstreperous, argumentative, quarrelsome, uncooperative, bad-tempered, ornery, short-tempered, cross, snappish, cranky, feisty, spoiling for a fight

                  “[Quick to fight] ready for a fight. spoiling for a fight” A truculent person sounds like a fighter to me and everyone else familiar with the English language.

                  Really? Is this the best you can do? You’re putting the readers to sleep here.

              2. Erisian — Are you kidding us? Because I respond to sarcasm with my own sarcasm you think I’m, ” Obviously ignoring Zeb’s point.

                This is all you have? Where has anyone refuted my argument? Quote that argument. You can’t!

      5. Or take one of those online tests to see how close your positions are to those of the various candidates, weighted as you like. I know, doesn’t acc’t for intangibles like style & trust, doesn’t acc’t for issues that aren’t on the agenda, etc., but what else ya got?

    4. So…..she got smacked with a cock? Probably the first time since she was inseminated with Chelsea.

  2. “has displayed a millennial-level of media savvy”

    *headdesk*

    1. This Guy’s Head Hit His Desk And You Won’t Believe What Happened Next = But it Will Warm Your Heart

  3. I gotta say, I’m coming around on the whole “amusement” factor of having Trump in this race. Sure, it’s sad and all to reflect on what a sad reality TV farce politics has become, but since things were already sliding in that direction long before Trump arrived on the scene, he’s an improvement insofar as he’s at least fun to watch.

    Case in point: schlong-gate (I’m lifting my personal rule on -gate suffixes for this one for reasons I hope are obvious). Watching the media work themselves into a frenzy about who can be the most outraged that he said that is entertaining as hell. I even saw a couple headlines censoring it as “schl***ed” or somesuch. It’s so outrageous we can’t even say this perfectly commonplace word that we’re going to try to make into an unspeakable slur for the purposes of further shaming a man who demonstrably has no shame at all.

    1. I love it that Bernie breaking into DNC files is the only thing in 40 years not referred to as something-gate

      1. and what an indictment of the culture and journalism, maybe both, that more time and space have been spent on the schlong comment than on the files kerfuffle.

      2. In fairness, it’s not clear if there’s anything that particularly stands out you can attach the -gate to.

        1. Watergate-gate 2 Electronic Boogaloo

      3. You know who else broke into DNC files?

        1. Hi…..no, wait; this is one time where that answer is not applicable at all.

          1. nah it probably is as he is the avatar of all things shitty and bad

      4. Berniegate

      5. What did he know? When did he know it? Where’s Dan Rather when you need him? Oh, yeah: he was Bushed.

    2. “schlong-gate”

      …narrows eyes…

      1. What you did there…

      2. Or on the interwebz:

        “e-schlong-gate”

        1. *widens gates

          1. Awwwww yeaaahhhhh…now we are talking

            *leers creepily

    3. As long as I can assure myself Trump won’t carry out his policy proposals, but is just pulling them out of his butt for the campaign and will flush them down the toilet after the election, I will be able to enjoy his candidacy.

      1. As long as I can assure myself Trump won’t carry out his policy proposals, but is just pulling them out of his butt for the campaign and will flush them down the toilet after the election,

        If basically any presidential election of the past is any indicator, then you can rest assured.

    4. IT MEANS SNAKE! If you’re using it for “penis”, you’re already using a euphemism. They might as well write, “sn**e”.

  4. That freaky-ass phony Hillary smile creeps me out every time.

  5. *buys a year’s supply of popcorn and a comfortable recliner*

  6. OT: Army vet and wife of hunter gets freaked out by open-carry

    While I was shopping I passed by a gentleman in the store and happened to glance down. He had a handgun strapped to his belt. He was not a police officer. I know what those holsters look like and this had elastic bands. Not only that, the man was extremely overweight and he wasn’t wearing anything to signify he was any part of law enforcement.

    The further I got from him, the more upset I got. I brought my grandchildren to the store. I spoke with a young woman who said she was a manager. She shrugged off my concerns as if it was nothing. I decided to not finish the shopping and went to check out. The cashier saw how upset I was and I told her about it. She wanted to know what the man looked like because it upset her as well. As I was leaving, she spoke to another person who looked more like a manager than the young woman from before.

    I got to my car and I was pretty near crying. I came home and called corporate about this only to find out they have practically zero policy when it comes to open carry. I was still pretty upset on the phone with the woman I spoke with. She said she was sending my concerns up to the higher ups which I doubt will do any good.

    Read it all. It gets even more ridiculous.

    1. And the gunschlonger’s name?

      Haven Monahan.

    2. The guy was overweight and didn’t “look like” any type of law enforcement officer, eh?

      So if he had been in good shape, with close cropped hair and a tidy mustache, and had been wearing aviator-style sunglasses and cargo pants, i.e., reeking of the stereotypical off-duty cop look, she would have been fine with his open carry?

      Sounds to me like this particular SJW needs to check her privilege and her appearance-bigotry!

      1. Yeah, we all know cops are never overweight…

      2. Body shaming micro aggression! This person should be sued for forcing that open carrying porker into his Safe Space.

      3. If you believe the photo attached to the comment, it was a man.

        I am not sure what it says about you that you assumed it was a cis-female that made this comment. I think it shows you’re a member of the patriarchy who hates womyn.

    3. For some reason I don’t believe a single word in this story. It’s ridiculous.

      1. Well, it’s true that people open carry at Walmart. Some Walmarts even sell guns. That much is true. Most shoppers don’t seem to mind, and those that do are welcome to go elsewhere.

    4. HAHAHAHA!

      Let me guess…

      Never been to Montana?

    5. Apparently, she doesn’t know where to find the Butthurt Report Form. It’s online, you overly emotional ball of fluff.

    6. What a faggoty pussy.

    7. “he wasn’t wearing anything to signify he was any part of law enforcement.”

      Aren’t Democrats the ones always shouting the loudest about how cops are a bunch of sociopathic racist murderers? (not that that sentiment is entirely unfounded)

      But here in this situation, something to indicate that this gun-toting customer was a part of law enforcement would have assuaged all of the author’s concerns. Because law enforcement members never shoot innocent people, apparently.

    8. needs hand holding HAHHAHAHAHAHHA they satire themselves no ridicule needed what a fucking tool, and obvious liar that woman is

    9. “All I can think of is my grandchildren and all the shootings that are now so common.” really? really? youre more likely to be killed by an on duty police officer than you are by terrorists. im pretty sure that’s not real

  7. A spoonerism? Didn’t Trump grow up in Brooklyn? Even as a non-Jew, I don’t believe for a moment he was unaware of the meaning of this Yiddish term. What puzzles me is that I was unaware the verb form could be used in a negative sense of an unexpectedly bad loss. I thought it was much more restricted to a sexual meaning only, as opposed to other Yiddish terms, such as “putz,” which also means penis, but is quite often used to mean a stupid, loud-mouthed and boorish person.

    In any case, is it just me or has the ENTIRE discussion so far been exclusively about immigration issues and foreign policy? What happened to the idea of an election being a referendum on the economy? Is the economy actually in a strong recovery, or is that just fudging the numbers like never before?

    1. The economy is too depressing and nobody except Paul and Cruz plan to do anything constructive about it. Bernie wants to start a conversation on how Americans don’t have enough free stuff, but I’m not sure if even Democrats will buy that. But one never knows with Democrats.

      So there’s an incentive for distraction.

      In any case, immigration *is* being discussed as an economic issue, in the sense that maybe they’ll be taking scarce jobs from the voters?

      Which could well happen in the short term, though if we pick the *right* kind of immigrants, they may be able to *create* jobs for the American-born.

      If we pick the *wrong* immigrants then those who have jobs will have to support them.

      1. Which could well happen in the short term, though if we pick the *right* kind of immigrants, they may be able to *create* jobs for the American-born.

        If we pick the *wrong* immigrants then those who have jobs will have to support them.

        The right kind of immigrants then are Europeans and East Asians. The wrong kind are from basically everywhere else. If we’re going by rates of welfare consumption…

        1. right or wrong depends on your view of welfare consumption. One party seems okay with more of it. The other makes a show of opposing it but hard to tell if it really does.

          1. I’m not talking about parties, not that I disagree with you on that count. Just that if we’re doing a cost benefit analysis on immigrant groups it becomes clear that one of the aforementioned migrant groups take far more from the economy than they produce.

      2. Well, nothing spells economic success better than letting millions of illiterate indigent refugees flood uncontrolled across the border and then offer them welfare and benefits.

        1. To the tune of 250k per year per household (and not counting “public goods” like police, fire, judicial, education and other such things afforded by tax payers). This necessarily implies that unskilled immigrants “doing jobs that Americans won’t do” doesn’t really hold water if we’re counting how much tax payer subsidy it takes to induce foreigners to do jobs Americans won’t do in a land with such a high cost-o-living.

        2. “I swear if we let in any more of these Micks, Wops, and Kikes — mosta which can’t even read and write good and are a bunch of Papists — the whole country’s gonna fall apart!”

          — Every WASP guy, circa 1890 to 1918

          1. this country’s only gotten worse since 1918 in every imaginable, and some unimaginable, way(s)

          2. They weren’t getting welfare then.

    2. What happened to the idea of an election being a referendum on the economy?

      It’s a Democrat incumbent. They routinely get a pass for the most egregious economic calamities that they’ve caused.

      1. It’s Bush’s fault.

        1. Of course, he drove the economy onto a ditch so bad, even the Lightworker couldn’t fix it.

          1. But at least the oceans have stopped rising!

  8. Schlong, it’s been good to know you.

    /try the veal

    1. Me love you schlong time!

      1. A schlong time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…

        1. Can’t we all just get aschlong?

    2. Schlong. It’s whats for dinner.

  9. The blowhard vs. the criminal. To replace the tin-pot dictator.
    It has a certain amusement value.

    1. I may need to take the reigns of control sooner than originally planned.

  10. Re: the alt-text.

    Way to culturally appropriate, and therefore offend, all Australians but especially Aboriginal Australians, Ed.

      1. +2 jumbuck for dinner

  11. Surely, we must be close to peak Trump.

    There’s no way the man’s shelf life could be this long.

    Six months from now, he’ll have exited the headlines like Caitlyn Jenner, and we’ll wonder why we paid so much attention to him.

    1. Wow, Ken. It must have been a privilege for you to interview with the Onion.

      1. Oh, well obviously if the Onion is making fun of something, then that must be . . . indicative of something or other.

        Trump sucks.

        He has no chance of being President.

        That was true months ago.

        It’s true now.

        It’ll be true months from now.

        And having said so repeatedly doesn’t make it any less true.

        1. I don’t disagree that Trump sucks. I thought a month ago and the month before that that his campaign had to crater eventually. Now, I think the truth is that he is riding a wave of support from people who do not see things the way you and I do; people who do not care about the Constitution, liberty, the rule of law, etc. They just know that they want their own bully to replace the last bully. Like it or not, Trump is America’s Odoacer and we are in Rome circa 475AD.

          1. “Now, I think the truth is that he is riding a wave of support from people who do not see things the way you and I do”

            The “wave of support” is an illusion.

            If he has the support of 35% of registered Republicans, then maybe he has the support of 14% of the American people. Meanwhile, more than 35% of registered Republicans view Trump negatively.

            He doesn’t have a wave of support. He has a wave of coverage in the media.

            Meanwhile, he isn’t spending any money and doesn’t have any grass roots get out the vote organization for Super Tuesday. If and when he starts spending his own money after Super Tuesday, then maybe we should start taking him seriously.

            Right now, he should be taken about as seriously as Caitlyn Jenner.

            1. If he has the support of 35% of registered Republicans, then maybe he has the support of 14% of the American people. Meanwhile, more than 35% of registered Republicans view Trump negatively

              Trump scored 47-to-49 against Hillary in latest CNN poll from hour ago. He has gone from thirty-point gap against her to margin-of-error close in four months for hypothetical general match-ups.

              If election boils down to those two clowns, Trump can win the whole thing. Never underestimate Shrillary’s capacities to lose when dealt a winning hand in anything remotely competitive – it is her signature talent.

  12. As Trump successfully trolls, so go his polls. The establishment’s Playbook of Shame doesn’t work on Trump, and it is awesome to watch.

    Trump actually getting elected would be a disaster – but any of them would be a disaster. And the world would see a different America – uncouth, unhinged, loudmouth – versus the playable sucker Professor Newspeak-Doublethink we have now. And as an added bonus, the whole establishment, versus just one half, would try to restrain a President Trump; he would have no enabling faction for his worst tendencies.

    How bad can that be relative to the other options with a real chance?

    1. TheZ — Who are “the other options with a real chance?”

      I only see Trump as having a chance to beat Hillary. None of the other GOP nominees can out-smart Trump; they’re all too stupid.

      1. Who are “the other options with a real chance?”

        Cruz has a shot via the Fox News/church demo. Rubio is the establisock with a remote chance, so his resources will accrete quickly (where does the Jeb! machine go when Jeb! makes his exit official?) if he continues to poll well at all.

        Rand has an outside chance if Rand can survive with decent single-digit support, thereby earning second look while the other pretenders punch out. But Rand is not cultivating his base support and has no sugar-daddy. Rand must ask where Ron Paul’s supporters in places like Iowa have gone to. Uncomfortable (for libertarian) answer I think is that Trump has hurt Rand’s support badly, peeling off the stick-it-to-the-man types, bank-haters, tin-foilers, etc. with a better shtick. All while Rand doubles-down on things that alienate politically literate libertarian-types.

    2. I can’t wait for the presidential debates. I can just see Trump striding across the stage and pimp-slapping Hellcat Hillary until her ears ring.

  13. What’s the big deal? My wife gets schlonged like 6 times a year. Isn’t that a normal occurrence?

  14. “before the schlong comment sucked… a different Trump-Clinton spat

    Couldn’t this have waited until after lunch?

  15. Is it just me or does the Trump/Hillary pic remind you of the opening theme to “All in the Family?”

    1. Ah, Those Were the Days……….

  16. Yet the biggest recruiting tool for ISIS remains U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East

    No, their biggest recruitment tools are the Koran, and the screwed-up Muslim societies and governments. And like all deluded ideologues, they think the solution is more of the same. In their case, just Islam harder. If North America had never existed, if Europe had never existed, Muslim societies would still be awful.

  17. It means “snake”.

  18. Don’t count Senator Sanders short. Not one ballot has been counted yet.

    I am betting that Senator Sanders will beat Hillary just as Senator Obama did. The Democrat Party base are left leaning liberals who are the children of McGovern voters.

    They elected Obama over Hillary twice. They will elect Senator Sanders over Hillary this election.

    1. Not sure if serious….

      Obama was a half black somewhat young senator who had the support of the dnc

      Sanders is an old white guy who doesnt have dnc aupport

      Not the same

    2. No way. The DNC’s been stacking the deck against Bernie the whole time. They want an establishment candidate who promises free shit to the proles AND will line their pockets, not a communist Yankee fruit loop who only does the former.

  19. What was the point of this article? Holiday filler?

  20. Meanwhile, savvy and knowledgable Washington insiders continue to predict Trump’s imminent drop in the polls.

    1. By hook or by crook, they’ll take him down and elect imperatur HIllarius.

  21. Got news for you. Apart from the fiscal situation over the last 50 years, everything is bullshit. Immigration included.

  22. As far as the IRS Code–as amended by Richard Nixon and Congress–is concerned, the important thing is to shove Republican baby-savers and Democrat dole-socialists in front of every camera to blot out the existence of the Libertarian Party. THAT is what taxes are for.

  23. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  24. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.