Donald Trump

Donald Trump Puts His Ridiculous Campaign Promises in TV Ad Form

|

Foter / Gage Skidmore

Donald Trump, who is currently leading the GOP primary field by an average of a little more than 15 points,* released his first TV ad this morning, after previewing it to The Washington Post yesterday. The tone of the ad is aggressively doomy and gloomy, with darkened images of masked men carrying the ISIS flag and grainy shots of what are supposed to look like crowds of immigrants, presumably streaking across the U.S. border. At the end, there's a shot of Trump himself, standing at a rally, declaring his intention to "make America great again."

It's like a teaser trailer for the apocalypse that ends with the promise that only voting Donald Trump for president can stop it. 

But otherwise there's nothing new or particularly remarkable about the ad, except in the sense that everything about Donald Trump's presidential run is in some way remarkable. In the ad, a narrator reiterates Trump's constitutionally dubious promise to stop Muslim immigration, declares that as president he would "quickly cut the head off ISIS and take their oil," and says, for the umpteenth time, that he'll stop illegal immigration by building a southern border wall funded by Mexico. It's outrageous, yes, but typically so. There's nothing here that Trump hasn't said multiple times before.

In a way, though, it is Trump's campaign in miniature—a compendium of implicit smears delivered in the form of promises that he cannot possibly keep. It is Trump braying proudly about how awful he is, which is to say that it is Trump being Trump.

I'm somewhat hesitant to post the ad, given that Trump's strategy with the ad seems to be to get the media, and in particular cable news, to replay it over and over again. Trump has said he'll spend at least $2 million a week on buying time for this ad and some future spots that he claims to have in the works, for the foreseeable future. But the real story is that, as the Post notes, whatever it is he spends, even if it turns out to be much less than advertised, "will be amplified by the countless times [the ads] are likely to be played on cable news and across social media."

Political campaigns typically run two types of media strategies: Paid media, which covers the print space and airtime the campaign buys, and earned media, which covers the free airtime provided by news coverage. Unlike his GOP rivals, some of whom have already spent millions on paid media, Trump has relied almost entirely on earned media coverage to keep his campaign afloat. The release of this ad represents a strategic shift in that Trump's campaign will be producing spots and, he claims, buying time on the air. But it's not a very big shift, because Trump's new paid media strategy is really a kind of earned media strategy, reliant on outrage and awfulness to generate attention and controversy.

In that sense, I suppose it's working, much like the rest of his campaign is working (judging by the poll numbers). After all, here I am, writing about the ad first thing on Monday morning. But for Trump and his campaign, it's really nothing new. Watch the ad below.

*Although it's worth noting that no polls have been released since before Christmas. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Conservative Deviance Detection, CRISPR Cures Muscular Dystrophy, and Virtual Reality Ethics

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

  1. I’m somewhat hesitant to post the ad, given that Trump’s strategy with the ad seems to be to get the media, and in particular cable news, to replay it over and over again.

    Now you get it 😉

    1. I look forward to this sort of disclaimer whenever any political ad is discussed, because at this point that is a big part of any ad strategy: get eyeballs via free media reposting and discussion, not via paid placements which are merely priming the pump for the free media.

    2. And reason is on board with the “earned media strategy.

      “But it’s not a very big shift, because Trump’s new paid media strategy is really a kind of earned media strategy, reliant on outrage and awfulness to generate attention and controversy.”

      The “outrage and awfulness” is causing Reason to generate attention by commenting on this and posting the advert.

      Who are the idiots? The one who makes the outrageous and awful comments or the ones who talk about those comments and repost the video? Or both.

    3. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

    4. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

  2. Trump is giving a master class in how to provoke your opponents to react, and then turn their reactions back on them.

    I can hardly wait to watch the usual suspects beclown themselves responding to this ad.

    If Trump is doing nothing else that benefits the Republic, he is showing that the entrenched political “consultants” are fools, and only look competent when they are “opposing” each other.

    1. You have about the same take on Trump as Scott Adams (Dilbert) has.

      http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1…..own-genius

    2. “I can hardly wait to watch the usual suspects beclown themselves responding to this ad.”

      By ‘beclown themselves’ you mean ‘achieve crushing victory for Clinton’ right? Because that’s where Grandmaster Trump’s brilliant campaign ends at.

      1. Cytotoxic — Wanna bet?

      2. Trump has Bill being questioned about his proclivities.

        I’m not a Trump guy, but he’s very good at pointing out flaws and forcing attention to them, unlike other GOP candidates.

        Look how Trump took out Jeb with a simple “low energy” line.

        I believe Trump will be able to associate the Clintons with criminal activity so much that he will looked reasonable.

        He’s already backtracked half his crazy stuff.

        He also appeals to minorities way more than you’d believe possible.

  3. That’s possibly the greatest ad EVAH!

    1. ‘…and he’s gonna take their oil…and their women….and their mosaics…and their…’

      Cla-ssic.

  4. Donald Trump, troll level: Master.

  5. Was that the Mexican border or a scene from World War Z?

    1. It would be hilarious if he actually used footage from World War Z.

      1. Do zombies rape, though?

          1. That makes me hungry for some udon.
            *Yes, that’s where the word comes from.

            1. *watches commercial, still gets boner*

              1. Did you see these, HM?

                1. So, in Japan, Candy Crush Saga turns you gay?

                  Makes sense.

          2. “Zombie Bukkake: At the end you must ask yourself one question: are you dying to get off?”

            Only HM could find such a thing. I hope you all understand how lucky we are to have HM around. Really. The guy is one in a billion.

            1. The author’s site used to have excerpts from the book, which were hilarious. Unfortunately, he seems to have disavowed this book and has scrubbed all reference to it from his website.

    2. That movie was the most pro-Israel movie I have ever seen.

  6. Not holding my breath for the “take their oil” comment to repel some of the paleolibertarians that have been excited over Trump’s willingness to retrospectively call the Iraq war a mistake.

    1. Its understood by his supporters that he’s over the top and doesn’t mean half of this stuff.

      No, I’m not joking: focus groups found that out.

  7. Well good. I was afraid I wouldn’t make it through my morning without the requisite Reason ‘Attack Trump’ piece. Now I’m covered.

    1. But that’s the genius of Trump’s political/media aiki-jutsu. The more you attack him, the more damage you do to everyone else.

      Every time he has been attacked by a united front of politicos, operatives, apparatchiks, and their media toadies, he comes out stronger. It doesn’t hurt that this united front apparently has an average IQ in the double digits, of course.

      1. It doesn’t hurt that this united front apparently has an average IQ in the double digits, of course

        You leave Breitbart.com alone!

        1. How the mighty have fallen. You would think the conversion of Brietbart into WND.com with better graphics would have caused Andrew to rise from his grave and choke those responsible.

          1. I think he hired John Nolte, so it is his own fault. But the John Nolte/Ben Shapiro website is pretty pathetic.

            1. Yeah even under Andrew it had a lot of fail. The entire right-wing blogosphere is almost completely fail.

              1. I think Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, and Free Beason have done better…oh and the Federalist.

        2. Both of you wish you had a double digit IQ.

          1. It would make life more palatable, I imagine.

      2. It doesn’t hurt that this united front apparently has an averagetotal combined IQ in the double digits

        Fixed it for you.

        1. And the left is so much more intelligent because they support a corrupt, lying hag that put National Security at risk, or an old socialist fool that spent his honeymoon in Russia? You people are beyond pathetic.

          1. JohnD lives in a strange, sad world where the only two possible political outlooks are A. Trump, and 2. “the left.” Or possibly he is trying to underline my point. It’s hard to say.

            1. Whatever, you stupid, lefty, homo. Keep supporting Hillary with that attitude!

              1. I AM SO MICROAGGRESSED RIGHT NOW

                1. like all the way aggressed? how does that feel?

      3. The left are now calming themselves by bringing out their secret weapon, Slick Willy, to put the Donald in his place. They really believe this, so much in fact, that they can’t stop writing about it.

      4. Every time he has been attacked by a united front of politicos, operatives, apparatchiks, and their media toadies, he comes out stronger

        Comes out stronger to whom?

          1. Not against Clinton. Trump as nominee = Hillary is a lock.

            1. Bill just got taken down a peg as women start questioning his antics.

              I predict this “asset” will end up like Bill Cosby by October.

              Hillary won’t give him up, so voters will have to decline to have a First Husband who was a rapist in the White House.

      5. “It doesn’t hurt that this united front apparently has an average IQ in the double digits, of course.”

        Stupid is as stupid does.

        Wait… you said he is winning?

      6. By ‘stronger’ you mean ‘still going to be crushed by Hillary’ right? You can’t be delusional enough to believe otherwise.

  8. Suderman had to come up with homework. Do some more Obamacare research, this schizoid hate-promote opinion stuff is tedious. Try adding something to the discourse.
    Explain how Trump is in any way different than the other candidates -“. . . a compendium of implicit smears delivered in the form of promises that he cannot [will not] possibly keep.”
    Explain how Trump can’t do what he says he’ll do. Prove your point. Logic and reason, not emotion or reference to authority.
    Then – ” After all, here I am, writing about the ad first thing on Monday morning. But for Trump and his campaign, it’s really nothing new. Watch the ad below.”
    Yeah, there really is nothing new or substantial in this piece. But it’s really nothing new.

    1. The “new” is the existence of the ad. This is a blog post informing us of its existence, with some commentary about how Trump is different in his brazenness and how his media campaign works.

      It’s not hard to understand.

      1. Nice try. “with some commentary about how . . .”
        With a bunch of vapid and predictable emotion-speak that blares subconsciously – “I WANTED RAND PAUL.”

        1. So is it commentary or is it not?

          The release of this ad represents a strategic shift in that Trump’s campaign will be producing spots and, he claims, buying time on the air.

          What vapid emotion-speak! Suderman needs to change his diaper.

          Yes, Suderman doesn’t like Trump. What’s your point? You’re angry that he doesn’t go through and explain why every proposal is silly? (a point you seem to concede, by acknowledging that all politicians make promises they can’t keep)

          1. Throttle back and take your head out of Suderman’s ass.

            1. A well-reasoned response, Greg.

              1. Why should I do what I say I want others to do?

                1. Why should I do what I say I want others to do?

                  Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.

            2. “Throttle back?” You’re the one who came in here hot.

              I’m perfectly calm, dude. Calmer than you are.

              1. You can’t be calmer than me. I’m so calm I can’t finish . . .

          2. You guys think you can trust any campaign promises? How’s that Hope and Change thing working for you?

            1. Do you think this website is full of Obama supporters?

              1. Do you think

                Given JohnD’s responses thus far, you might want to try a different verb there.

            2. Yeah, what?

              Of course you can’t trust campaign promises. But that still doesn’t tell you much about what a candidate might actually do.

    2. If Trump thinks he’s going to sieze the oil in Syria and Iraq, he is fucking delusional.

      You’re talking an occupational force in the hundreds of thousands and with casualties of a few K a year… to seize a commodity that is abundantly available in the U.S.

      “Figure out what’s going on” What the fuck does that mean?

      Decapitate ISIS? How’s he going to do that? Oh yes, by invading a place where the U.S. has no regional allies and its supply lines have to travel through hundreds of miles of hostile territory.

      If I were to judge Trump by the content of his campaign speeches, the guy is an imbecille who couldn’t count to potato. The reality is he’s smarter than that; he just panders to voters who struggle to count to potato and tells them that they are, in fact, the only ones smart enough to vote for him.

      1. “Figure out what’s going on” What the fuck does that mean?

        Exactly. BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!

      2. Since Syria has no oil, he is really delusional. And what good would it do anyway? We have plenty of oil thanks to fracking.

      3. If Trump thinks he’s going to sieze the oil in Syria and Iraq, he is fucking delusional.

        He is, but its not as hard to seize the oil as you make out. All you really have to control is the refineries and shipping facilities.

      4. Or . . . those “who struggle to count to potato” know he’s grossly exaggerating (“The seas will cease to rise!”) and believe when he’s in office he will proceed like he really is “smarter than that” as you suggest.

        1. So, exactly the same shit that Obama supporters did with their guy.

          Remind me how that worked out.

          1. A sample of one is not real reliable (though I concede that a sample of 42 or 100% is predictable.)

        2. Or . . . those “who struggle to count to potato” know he’s grossly exaggerating (“The seas will cease to rise!”) and believe when he’s in office he will proceed like he really is “smarter than that” as you suggest.

          Sooo, your argument is that he is making imbecilic comments not to pander to morons, but to pander to smart people who are just hoping for the right intelligent guy with the courage – that other less worthy people lack(!) – to say the imbecilic things that need to be said? That by saying those imbecillic things he’s really signaling how clever he is?!?

          1. This isn’t a philosophy class. Do you really know the definition of imbecilic? His statements are highly simplified generalizations meant to be sound bites for the media. Not imbecilic. His supporters are not “morons” as many people in the Reason commentariat so quickly jump to when their assumptions are challenged by argument or snark directed at their pompous comments.
            There are 17 or so turds in the toilet. Reasonable people, not morons, can filter Trump’s theatrics in a way that they can rationally believe that of the 17 turds, the Trump turd probably has some salvageable gold in it. They support him – assuming he may be an effective executive – because he has a track record of executive management that virtually every other turd lacks. They’re all liars, but we only get to pick from liars. They hear his comments and figure he’s a smart guy *(as you concede?) and say WTF.

              1. If “succ” is in it . . . I don’t do it! It’s in the moron creed.

            1. Greg, that was an awfully wordy way for you to say “yes”.

              1. Try reading the Origin of Species.

              2. “The reality is he’s smarter than that; he just panders to voters who struggle to count to potato and tells them that they are, in fact, the only ones smart enough to vote for him.”

                I’d say my point was “no”. Yes he’s smart – you got that right. But no – it isn’t directed at people who struggle to count to potato and, no, the aren’t imbeciles or retards as your comment implies.

                How’d you get “yes” out my comment? Count to potato for us, please.

                1. Leseee, I wrote:

                  Sooo, your argument is that he is making imbecilic comments not to pander to morons, but to pander to smart people who are just hoping for the right intelligent guy with the courage – that other less worthy people lack(!) – to say the imbecilic things that need to be said? That by saying those imbecillic things he’s really signaling how clever he is?!?

                  To which you replied

                  There are 17 or so turds in the toilet. Reasonable people, not morons, can filter Trump’s theatrics in a way that they can rationally believe that of the 17 turds, the Trump turd probably has some salvageable gold in it. They support him – assuming he may be an effective executive – because he has a track record of executive management that virtually every other turd lacks. They’re all liars, but we only get to pick from liars. They hear his comments and figure he’s a smart guy *(as you concede?) and say WTF.

                  I suggest that during your next physical you discuss this and any other instances where your short-term memory failed you. It could be nothing, or it could be an early manifestation of a serious condition which, if treated promptly, could be arrested before it does debilitating and permanent damage.

                  1. Uh, duh, Tarran, you’re just so much smarter than us morons. I’ll potato my way over to the doctur now. Thanks. And just so you’ll be happy – You are completely right.

                    1. Is there anything you retards won’t believe to rationalize your pathetic caudillo worship?

                    2. If real life were a video game, would you seriously not want to save game right now, and then do a run through with Trump as president?

                      I do not understand why, but I find him very entertaining.

                      But, life has no save game, so I worry about him.

                      Other problem is Cruz is unelectable: too shiny, too smarmy.

            2. Focus groups of Trump supporters found that they didn’t believe Trump really means all of what he says.

              Kind of like how progressives probably really don’t believe Obama could “heal the planet” or “cause the waters to recede.”

    3. Relax, dude. It’s a blog post about a current event which probably took him 10 minutes to put together.

      1. Well, he wasted that 10 minutes. He should have stayed in bed.

        1. Then the news about Trump’s first campaign ad doesn’t get posted. Which I would be fine with, but it’d be strange for a political blog to ignore it.

    1. You wanna go shoot up some bull shark testosterone?

      1. Maybe after I squat. I do not want my Alpha thighs to drop under twenty-four inches.

        1. Ok.
          /returns to rolling around on ab ball

          1. Ab ball? You may as well go watch your wife get plowed by a couple of darkies, or adopt a chinee child. So beta, dude.

            1. watch your wife get plowed by a couple of darkies

              /becomes visible aroused

              1. Same here. It is pretty hot to think about…

  9. The tone of the ad is aggressively doomy and gloomy, with darkened images of masked men carrying the ISIS flag

    Sounds like he’s getting his Republican on. The establishment can now embrace him.

  10. I can’t believe they actually wrote an ad where someone other than Trump has to say “temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can figure out what’s going on” as if it doesn’t sound completely retarded. I’m not talking about how the proposal sounds in moral terms, either. I can’t be the only person who thinks “shutdown of Muslims” makes them sound like they think they’re some kind of robot army. And the whole “until we can figure out what’s going on” bit just sounds bizarrely casual. “What’s going on here? What’s going on with all this ISIS stuff? What’s up with that, dude?” Yeah, man, like, until we can figure out what’s going on up in here, best shut that shit down.

    1. Wrong. Muslims are bad. Let’s figure this out. Make America great again.

    2. “What’s going on here? What’s going on with all this ISIS stuff? What’s up with that, dude?”

      Needs the right soundtrack

      1. What’s the deal with airplane Muslims?

        1. They just want to get home in time for al-Festivus.

    3. Maybe we should shut YOU down!

      /Trumptard

    4. Come on, Nikki, as has been explained to us many times here, all billion-plus followers of Islam are agency-free automatons who aren’t capable of making their own moral choices. They basically ARE a robot army! Haven’t you been paying attention?!?

      1. You guys are fools if you think they have the same morals and values as you.

        1. Cool response, bro. My mind is certainly changed.

        2. They can learn those morals and values the same way everyone else in this country does, at the end of the barrel of a gun if it comes to that.

          I don’t agree with the “refugee” resettlement bullshit, but there is a solution to the problem of people acting without regard to the rights of others.

    5. That’s what I asked in the Lynx. I still can’t believe it’s not a parody ad or attack on Trump. Why would you still use that kind of weak language? Why would you double-down on the “Mexico will pay for it” part? Are they incredibly lazy and didn’t want to adjust the copy, or do they think it’s actually persuasive? Or is it trolling, intended to get us to talk about how silly the choice is? I don’t know what that gets him that can’t be gained by a more ‘serious’ ad.

      1. Yeah, this is basically what I’m wondering. My only real guess is that, uh, he’s pandering to actual retards. I mean, that’s the language he’s been using since he originally brought it up (I’m referring to “shutdown” and “figure out what’s going on”) and it’s worked somehow…

        1. My only real guess is that, uh, he’s pandering to actual retards.

          Well, some of that, of course. But the retards he’s really targetting with this are the other candidates and their swarms of handlers and consultants.

        2. I think he’s both pandering to retards and people who just think the whole thing is a hilarious joke. It’s kind of brilliantly retarded.

          1. Or retardedly brilliant. It’s not clear.

        3. Soooo… which Republican hopefuls are pandering to people who can simplify a fraction?

      2. He deliberately choose his 3 most controversial statements, and did not change any words.

        This is a big F-U to the media and “right thinking people.”

        Its either brilliant or dumb.

    6. Hey smart girl, can you figure it out? And when Johnny and Susy Jihadi come shooting up a school bus full of children what are you going to do? What, you didn’t want to curtail liberty while you stand on a pile of dead children, that’s stupid. That’s why we have to stop importing Muslims before they kill your children. Once we figure it out we can bring a few of the good ones in to meet our diversity quotas. This isn’t hard, people.

    7. It’s the casual, non-committal approach to immigration policy. Maybe after banning Muslims and Mexicans from crossing the border, we can go catch a movie with the highly-skilled Euro immigrants or go bowling, maybe? I heard Sisters was pretty good. How’s that sound?

      1. What’s the deal with bowling?

    8. I kind of like it based on the NAP. In fact, mass deportation of ALL religious conservatives of BOTH persuasions and pigmentations would leave These States populated by folks who do not advocate the “free exercise” of the initiation of force.

  11. Today I said to one of my co-workers: If I was writing a book where there were two candidates running for president; one was an ex-president’s wife, and all her baggage, and one was a reality TV star/billionaire real estate mogul, no one would buy the premise. But here we are.

    1. Similar conversation today for me. Choose the lesser of two weasels.

      1. It’s really hard to find the lessor weasel. They aren’t common.

  12. I wonder how long it will take before EndTheGOP shows up and attempts to repel people away from supporting Trump campaign by means of some insane “pro-Trump” comments.

    1. tarran ? YOU MAKE ALL OF US LAUGH!

      You NEVER get tired of me eating your lunch, do you?

      Readers, see how I took tarran to task and made him cry like the little girl he is.

      Go to:

      Ed Krayewski’s article @ Reason, December 23, 2015

      Article titled: Trump ? Clinton Spats Over Schlonging

      Go down 8 comments from the top and hilarity begins. You’ll LOVE this!

      You never learn, do you tarran? Of course you’ll NEVER respond to this, will you, you big PUSSY?

      1. ////////CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE\\\\\\\\\

        My college room mate (TheStopper) signed on using MY computer without my knowledge. The above comment was actually by me, EndTheGOP, in response to The Idiot know as tartan 2 comments up.

        Come on tarran. Make ONE anti-Trump comment and watch me bring you to tears.

        I DARE YOU!

        PS. Why in the hell would I ever want “to repel people away from supporting Trump”?

        And name me ONE “insane pro-trump” comment I EVER made. YOU CAN’T

        USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD!

    2. What’s the matter tarran, cat got your brain?

  13. I do have to wonder if Donald Trump sits around his office with his people brainstorming “What’s the most outlandish, outrageous and batshit crazy thing I can say?”

    1. But it seems to work. He gets more media attention than anyone else. I bet that frosts your balls, doesn’t it?

      1. Dude my balls are so frosty right now.

      2. You grossly overestimate the relevance of Donald Trump to my life.

      3. I bet that frosts your balls, doesn’t it?

        Watching Obama II: Electric Boogaloo does many things, but none of them involve my balls.

    2. The best part is that, thanks to Nixon, YOU are paying for the teevee and radio handwringing reaction to Trump Perot that carefully elides mention of the word “libertarian”… There truly is a sucker born every ten seconds.

    3. Two of the ten or eleven basics he has outlined in his book the art of the deal are “know your market.” He sure has done that, with each terrorist attack or crime by an illegal he plays into their fears and prejudices. The second is, “Get the Word Out. ” in an article in the Business Insider, “Trump says that he’s always embraced a healthy dose of sensationalism and controversy to pique the media’s interest.” Trump: “I play to people’s fantasies…People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts.” Two good things if he remains true to what he is doing is, “Deliver the goods,” and “contain the costs.”

      He’s playing right out of his book, and it’s working for him. The only thing he has no control over is will those who say they like him actually get off their fat asses and vote?

      1. If elected, he will deliver some portion of the wall, with some tax on remittances to pay for some of it, and that will be enough to claim “delivering the goods.”

        probably under cost.

  14. “…Trump’s constitutionally dubious promise to stop Muslim immigration,”

    What part of the Constitution covers this statement?

    1. It’s the part that says “a consensus of pundits” . . .

    2. The part about shouting “Allahu akbar!” in a crowded theater.

    3. The Preamble which, if I recall, starts with “We are the world, we are the children….”

      Did I get that right?

    4. Deporting immigrants legally here could be constitutionally dubious. Although its been done before.

      Preventing more immigrants? I’m not sure what provision of the Constitution would dubious it, unless its the First Amendment. Reading the establishment and exercise clauses to protect a right to immigrate to the US would be . . . novel, to say the least.

      1. Before the Kennedy immigration reforms, the US made all kinds of distinctions about which groups were worthy of admissions and which groups were not. There was never any Constitutional issue with it.

        Reason hurts the cause of open borders by being so obviously defensive about the issue. For the last four or five years they have given up on making any kind of reasoned case for open borders and have instead relied on indignation and invective. It is not a sign of strength.

        1. Before the Kennedy immigration reforms, the US made all kinds of distinctions about which groups were worthy of admissions and which groups were not. There was never any Constitutional issue with it.

          Yeah, but I don’t much recall ever hearing one of those distinctions being the religion of the prospective immigrant, which our Constitution kind of specifically says (establishment of religion and free exercise thereof) we’re not supposed to be doing.

        2. Before the Kennedy immigration reforms, the US made all kinds of distinctions about which groups were worthy of admissions and which groups were not. There was never any Constitutional issue with it.

          But were any of the restrictions based solely on religion? As you often point out, religion is a special case under the first amendment. There is no constitutional right to immigrate to the US, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that any and all laws and restrictions on immigration are constitutional.

          1. They were based on race, which receives the same level of scrutiny basing them on religion does.

            1. Could be that the courts got it wrong there. It happens. Or maybe it was constitutional, but immoral.

            2. Even if, practically, based on race, weren’t they technically based on country of origin?

            3. Basing limitations on race should be much more offensive than basing them on one’s ideology, which was also done in the 20th century with restrictions on the immigration of NAZIs and Commies.

              Religion is just a subset of ideology, after all, and at some level requires affirmative belief on the part of its adherents.

              It’s just insane to say that we have to admit people committed to destroying our form of government and society because they call their ideology a ‘religion’ and that in doing so they are following god’s will.

              1. Every Muslim is committed to destroying our form of government? I’m a lot more worried about all of the US citizens committed to destroying our form of government.

                It’s also worth pointing out that for many, probably most, Muslim immigrants, their religion was not really much of a choice for them. I think you know what happens to a Muslim who decides to change religion in most Muslim countries.

      2. Reading the first as protecting a right to immigrate would be a stretch. Though restricting immigration simply based on religion seems like it might run afoul of the 1st since it discriminates simply based on religious belief. They could shut down all immigration, or even immigration from specific countries and that would be fine constitutionally. But to base it on religion alone would be questionable, I think.

      3. Immigrants legally here are deported every day. One need only drop a hemp seed into someone’s pocket, point and hiss “kingpin” and they’ll be lucky to live long enough to BE deported. The same holds true for Americans living everywhere but Malaysia and the Philippines, where a death sentence obviates the need for having angry Methodist mobs tear you limb from limb. Portugal is about the only place an American is safe from prohibitionist deportation.

    5. Hey fool, the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact.

      1. And you call yourself a patriot. A true Oathkeeper will defend the Constitution and its values with his or her life. You disgust me, you craven piece of shit.

      2. Good think no one is suggesting that it is.

      3. If the people who signed it, and the Declaration of Independence before it, didn’t want to put their lives on the line for the values and principles espoused therein, then we wouldn’t have a country in which to have this argument.

        “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” has to be the stupidest thing that has ever been said about it. For the metaphorical meaning of “suicide” being used, of course it is. The people who wrote it and signed it meant it to be.

        The real argument is over what it means and how to apply it, but anyone who rejoins “well sure that’s an acceptable/correct reading of it, but we don’t have to follow it because we might get hurt” completely misunderstands the point of it.

    6. Herbert Hoover’s gubmint stopped foreign ladies from being granted citizenship even if married to teetotalitarian American… er… “men.”

  15. Well, if the Donald was saying everything that libertarians want to hear, he’d be polling lower than Rand Paul. You got to bring the retard to excite the masses. Trump didn’t miss that.

    1. Which is why the Founders established a representative republic. Fuck the 17th Amendment.

      1. The way we’re heading, it won’t matter for much longer anyway. The ruling class have just decided that they’re going to do whatever they want and the hell with congress and some old document. They’re getting away with it, so they’ll just keep on going until we basically have a oligarchy.

    2. Do drop below young Paul you pretty much have to demand the death sentence for using birth control…

  16. “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”

    Well at least in 2016 we will find the answer to this fake Twain quote.

    1. Didn’t we learn that when Obama won?

  17. So the idea of stopping Muslims from coming into the country is “ridiculous” but the Libertarian Candidate’s promise to eliminate 70+ years of federal government growth in one fell swoop is totally reasonable?

    The open borders people do their case no good when they claim “you can’t do that” instead of engaging in actual debate. Even if you can’t 100% close the border, there are degrees of success. Just because you can’t stop every person doesn’t mean it is not worth it to try and stop most.

    1. I don’t know if that idea specifically is ridiculous. But some of the things he has said certainly are. Particularly the part about Mexico paying for a border wall.

      In terms of practicality, yes, libertarian ideas about the scope of government are also ridiculous. I don’t give a shit. Trump is wrong about immigration and libertarians are right about the proper size and scope of government. Whether the ideas are practical or likely to happen isn’t terribly relevant to whether or not they are any good.

      1. The people who want to close the borders don’t give a shit that it is impossible to do it completely. They want what can be done, done. You people act like your the only ones who can consider an issue important.

        1. Huh? “You people”? What does that have to do with anything I said? Trump declaring that Mexico will pay for a border wall is, in fact, ridiculous, whether or not wanting a border wall at all is. Where did I say that no one is allowed to think that restricting immigration is important? I just happen to think that people who want to severely limit immigration are wrong.

      2. We could ‘pay for the wall’ by taxing remittances to Mexico or enacting a tariff.

        Just because something is a bad idea does not mean that it is impossible.

        1. I said “ridiculous” not impossible. Many things could be done if you don’t care about shooting yourself in the foot.

          1. Oklahoma already taxes the remittances.

            So far, no NAFTA case against them.

            Keep in mind, if you file your income taxes you can get those taxes back.

            The physical wall is easy to build.

  18. I’m not a big Trump supporter, but I do know that Suderman is an idiot.

    1. Suderman seems bound and determined to make people like Trump.

    2. Expect spectacular fits from the cosmos and lefties as Trump gains momentum. The tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth will be an epic spectacle. I am not a Trump fan, but goddamned it is good to see him poke everyone with a stick.

      My preferred candidate probably won’t make it so I am just popping corn and sitting back…

      1. Hitler?

        1. It’s starting to sound like a dog name.

          1. One you could never get away with in my neighborhood, what with all the Hasids.

          2. didnt the venture brothers have a dog named hitler in one episode?

      2. I thought George Wallace was daied…

      3. My preferred candidate probably won’t make it so I am just popping corn and sitting back…

        This.

        I was asked at Christmas who I liked- I said “Rand Paul, but he can’t win”. When asked about Trump, “He’s a moron”.

        Asked, who do you vote for… I said, “Ted Cruz”- the gnashing of teeth was glorious!

  19. Actually, it’s worth supporting Trump just to annoy the left.

    1. It also annoys George F. Will, who I generally like, but he can’t stand the idea of rubes selecting the Republican party’s nominee.

    2. Well, yeah… but my actual vote will be cast for whoever wins the Libertarian nomination.

  20. I moved recently. Well, kinda. I had a pre-911 private mailbox to which my drivers license, tax returns, and all government related correspondence was sent. It was my public-facing home address. I started renting this back when I could walk onto an airplane after buying a ticket with cash. The mailbox store closed on Dec 31.

    Why can’t I get another private mailbox like that again? If you know how, let me know. I blame Muslims immigration, Senator Manboobs, and Dubya for this. Among others, of course.

    1. I’m pretty sure private mailboxes are still a thing. Look up the “UPS store”. I think they still offer mailboxes.

      1. I want a pre-911 private mail box, Zeb.

        1. Ah, I missed the distinction.

    2. HM,

      The catch is that the government (fed and state) has a database of private mail box addresses now. So I cannot get a CA drivers license with a PMB anymore. I can use the PMB as a mailing address, but not as my home address. The registration forms are clear about this. May I pretend to rent a corner of your bivouac for $1/year?

      1. May I pretend to rent a corner of your bivouac for $1/year?

        Why not!

  21. Blame the Muslims for everything. This comes right out of the Nazi play book. And FYI, Hitler didn’t start out with the idea of killing all the Jews. That came much later.

    Homegrown terrorism (aka ‘mental illness’) is a far bigger problem, and attacking ISIS or banning Muslims will not help one bit. Instead parents much teach their children that killing other people is wrong. Yes it really is that simple, and obvious if you look at all the specific cases.

    1. You signed in with the H&R squirrels to post that?

    2. Blame the Muslims for everything. This comes right out of the Nazi play book.

      Yeah, everyone knows that it’s actually the one percenters that cause everything bad.

    3. In point of fact, H.L. Mencken, who like Ayn Rand contributed money to save jewish folks from National Socialism, predicted the Germans would make some sort of effort to murder them in large numbers based on a visit there in 1919.

  22. Holy Shit!

    You Cosmos are already in a wailing frenzy.
    Keep it up, I love feasting on your tears.

    This is going to be a great year!

    1. Holy Shit!

      You racist bitter clingers are already in a wailing frenzy.
      Keep it up, I love feasting on your tears.

      This is going to be a great year!

      Obama supporter, 2008

      1. I’m pretty sure that is, verbatim, a joe from lowell quote. How tall are you, VG?

  23. If the Scott Adams site seems a little tame, fundamentalist Republican and Communist Trump haters can visit Doonesbury, where looters gather to discuss the mystical variant of their altruist political faith. As long as Nixon-diverted cash is paying for the trump Perot campaign, I want the Beltway DemoGOP to lose–assuming it’s not all another ruse.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.