Conspiracy

No Vast Vatican Conspiracies for Trump

Rome's got nothing on Mexico City, apparently.

|

You know what leaped out at me in Donald Trump's weird screed about the pope today? These eight words:

Curse you, Donald! I will not be demoted!

"They are using the Pope as a pawn"

Back in the day, people like Trump thought the man in Rome was the grand chessmaster, not a mere pawn of a Mexican cabal. Along with all the other ways he's shaking up politics, Trump is now turning the old nativist conspiracy stories on their head.

NEXT: Vaping isn't smoking, for purposes of N.Y. state ban on smoking in many public places

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. Donald Trump got into a fight with who, now? The Pope?

    Never heard of him. Must be a loser.

    1. The Pope? How many casinos does he have?

  2. By Trump standards, Trump is being gentle on the Pope, saying that, well, His Holiness was badly advised.

    Trump doesn’t want to burn bridges with U.S. Catholics, who may not see eye to eye with the Pope but don’t want him bashed too much.

    1. The current pope is a turd. A socialist tool. His influence will cause starvation, blight and misery for tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of people around the world.

      1. You’ve left out Opus Dei and the reverse vampires.

  3. Yeah, but what does Trump have to say about The Mouse?

    1. As a member of the mouse’s vanguard I can tell you trump better keep his filter cocksucker shut if he knows what’s good for him.

        1. Whew!! I thought FM had come up with a way of insulting the Trumpster by comparing him to a baleen whale, or a krill, or something.

          /Totally awesome!

  4. I’m really confused why this warranted a post.

    1. Because Reason.com is in thrall to the Papist forces secretly undermining the American way of life. Why do you think they employ so many dagos and Micks?

      1. I’m just saying, the basic message of this post is “Donald Trump does not believe Know Nothing conspiracies about Popery.”

        Apparently every time Trump doesn’t believe a conspiracy theory we need to talk about it.

        1. “They are using the Pope as a pawn” -how si that *not* believing in conspiracy theories, even with the ambiguity of ‘they’ aside?

          1. Saying Mexico is using the Pope to attack Trump is hardly a conspiracy theory.

            Reading stories on this, it appears this came up because the Pope was specifically asked about it by a Mexican reporter. Saying Mexicans who don’t like Trump are trying to get the Pope involved to attack Trump is hardly a conspiracy theory.

            1. “Saying Mexicans who don’t like Trump are trying to get the Pope involved to attack Trump is hardly a conspiracy theory.”

              Okay it’s just completely unsupported.

              BTW remember when Trump seriously asked a critical questioner if they worked for the Mexican government? I think he might be thinking the same thing here. Remember: Trump is nuts.

      2. So Reason is part of the cooperation between the church, the White House, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral commission, the Boy Scouts, and Chipotle in this “Papal plot”?

        1. I have had it with rabid anti-Chipotlism on this board. You would almost think Chipotle was owned by a Jew or something.

          (Full disclosure: Even though I am a Germanic neo-pagan, I have significant Jewish connections. This post was intended as satire and any attempt to tie my faith to the Nazis will be met with a berzerker’s rage which will develop into a full on strongly worded response, less than 1500 characters)

          1. You know who else threatened angry diatribes to defend their Germanic Heritage against slurs and libels?

            1. The Thule Society?

          2. “I have had it with rabid anti-Chipotlism on this board.”

            Only because you own stock in Chipotle-Away. Admit it!

          3. Just admit qdoba is better and all will be forgiven.

    2. You must not have read this.

      1. Good point. It is kind of in Walker’s bailiwick.

      1. This just inspired me to find my oldest comment. Google is giving me “1/23/05” but I can’t believe I only posted eight times that whole year.

        1. You were younger and had other interests. I have no idea when my first comment was. Early 2000s I suspect.

          1. Well, same job but probably busier. Busier social life too. Hell, even a SO.

            I’m going to hide under my desk and sob for awhile now.

            1. You should accept your fate like the rest of us have.

    3. Because Trump said something and knees jerked, saliva flowed and somebody posted something.

      The instant and predictable response of the scribbling classes to anything the man says makes me doubt the existence of free will.

      1. That people write critically about the unhinged blathering of a leading candidate for the most powerful job in the world amazes you?

        1. His unhinged blather is so constant that I have no idea why the innocuous phrase “they’re using the Pope as a pawn” needed a full post to itself.

          This is about the 900,000th most newsworthy thing Trump said in the last week and a half.

          1. Well at least Reason will have lots to write about after President Trump’s inauguration next year.

        2. It isn’t the “writing critically”, it’s the automatic responses and predictability. Trump Says Stupid Stuff, Details at 11.

          No shit. Water is wet, the sky is overhead and people eat hot dogs.

        3. The fact that Trump is considered unhinged but Cruz, Bush, Clinton, Sanders, Kasich *aren’t* amazes me.

          1. Because they’ve *all* been spouting unhinged blather this campaign cycle.

          2. difference is we’ve heard their garbage every four years since ever. Trump brings in a new refreshing style of vomit of the mouth.

    4. Because it’s a blog? Electrons are cheap.

    5. I’m really confused why this warranted a post.

      Not everyone has already read about the story on Stormfront, Irish.

  5. Donald Trump is a joke, but so is the (communist-sympathizing) Pope, so it’s a wash.

    1. One isn’t poised to become the next President.

      (Then again, the other does mystify and enthrall his supporters in a similar way to the Donald…To watch a Catholic conservative’s head spin, ask them how they feel about the Pope being a Socialist…oh the rationalizing)

      1. Stop picking on Eddie!

      2. Being Pope doesn’t make him a nice guy. One of the Borgia family was once Pope FFS. And this one is an even bigger shitbag in his own way. Someone needs to slip him the de-Poping pill so he changes back.

        1. There’s nothing to change back, he’s always been a shitbag – he didn’t suddenly take to socialism upon his election to office.

      3. Sure, I’ll rationalize. The Pope is a dolt, but he has a big heart. The previous Pope is incredibly smart, but he wasn’t relatable. Francis is able to build bridges that Benedict couldn’t. Like when he met with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch the other day. That was, I believe, the first time the Pope has ever met with the Russian Patriarch. It’s been 1,000 years. In the end, his economic ideas are doomed to failure, but the good that comes out of his papacy won’t be due to his intellect. I think he realizes that on some level, which is why he chose Francis, rather than a St Benedict or Ignatius, as his papal name.

  6. The only thing better than Religion thread or a Trump thread….

    1. …is a Trump plus religion thread.

      1. I supposed it would be the height of foolishness to ask if we could get some abortion up in this thread too.

        1. I have decided to circumcise my newborn son.

          1. Good for you, show who’s boss.

          2. Did you just watch the Penn and Teller episode on circumcision too? If not, there’s some old dude who shows you his weird looking dong you might be interested in.

            1. If not, there’s some old dude who shows you his weird looking dong you might be interested in.

              There must have been some geriatric event at my gym this week, because when I walked into the locker room I was greeted by the sight of around fifteen very naked and very old men. I was surrounded! I tripped over two canes! My point: I have seen enough old dude dong to last me a very long time, maybe for even an entire month.

              1. I tripped over two canes!

                I hope in the name of all that is good and holy that you mean that literally.

                1. Yes, literally two canes. Literally.

              2. I have seen enough old dude dong to last me a very long time, maybe for even an entire month.

                I can email you pics of mine.

                1. I’ll be contacting you in a month.

              3. I was surrounded! I tripped over two canes

                …are you sure those were canes?

              4. Should last until you have your very own old guy dong.

            2. “Things you can’t unsee”

          3. I’m saddened by that, CJ. History will not be kind to post-millenial mutilators.

            1. Crap, you were trolling. (I think.) You got me.

          4. You actually let the mother carry him to term?

          5. I have decided to circumcise my newborn son.

            I hope it’s using the traditional methods involving teeth.

            1. You laugh, but anyone else would have gotten charged with a huge list of offenses. The religious nuts get a total pass on this.

              1. Wait, what religion does it with teeth?

        2. It does mention the Pope. So Eddie should be showing up soon.

          1. Later this afternoon he’ll be here, commenting to himself.

  7. Homeless population pulls the city’s card, gets all libertarian, refuse to trade liberty for security:

    ‘There’s no freedom’: Not all homeless living in vehicles welcome city’s ‘safe lots’

    Seattle is aiming for a humane response to homelessness and complaints about RVs with its new “safe lots.” But it is coming into conflict with those who have something others on the streets lack: a home, of sorts, and with it autonomy and a sense of ownership.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..safe-lots/

    1. When I clicked on that link, Seattle Times website served me an ad for their local home show. Oh, the irony.

    2. Cautiousness erupted into full-blown revolt this week, after social-service providers hired by the city came around the West Amory Way lot with a three-page document outlining rules for the new areas. No use of cooking stoves, propane heaters or power sources in the RVs, no unauthorized guests, no alcohol, drugs or smoking of any kind in vehicles. No exit or entry into the lots from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

      “There’s a whole bunch of can’t, can’t and can’t,” said Fletcher. “There’s no freedom.” He added: “I should be able to do whatever I want in my home.”

      Uh-huh.

      1. The article is solid gold. In my opinion, it deserves the full Reason treatment (with requisite hat tips and free swag).

        1. One free orphan servant and a bottle of Napa Valley wine?

          1. a bottle of Napa Valley wine

            What causes that hatred within you?

          2. A few orphans are also needed for an ongoing supply of extra blood, and possibly spare organs.

    3. So if I understood the article, the lots are for “homeless” people who own their own RVs? Or are there RVs placed there for the use of homeless people.

      And what did it mean the people found a spot but a shipping company “claimed” it. Did the shipping company own it? Then they can do what they want. Did the city or state government use eminent domain on someone? (Damn Republicans they hate the homeless….. you mean the mayor is a progressive Democrat? huh)

      And where else did these “homeless” people park their RVs? If they are on private property, screw em. If they are on public areas, and don’t interfere with the use of those area, then maybe there is an issue there.

      1. So if I understood the article, the lots are for “homeless” people who own their own RVs?

        Yes. They seem like classic “bums” to me.

      2. No, they have their own RVs in various states of repair and are living in them.

        And where else did these “homeless” people park their RVs? If they are on private property, screw em. If they are on public areas, and don’t interfere with the use of those area, then maybe there is an issue there.

        Many are parked on city streets. If I park on a city street for a given amount of time without moving my vehicle, I get towed. But there’s an open secret in Seattle that the homeless people are off limits. They can park a vehicle on the street essentially forever. And live in it.

        Seattle, being the proggiest place since Prog Man came to Prog Town, if you interfere with a homeless person, you’re “criminalizing homelessness” and that is absolutely Red Letter Verboten.

        So what’s happening is there’s this new, very strange tension between homeowners in neighborhoods where these RVs are parked and the city.

        The homeowners are all your typical proggy fare, so they spend a lot of time balancing a thin line between wanting these people removed but making sure they loudly signal that they don’t want to criminalize homelessness. It’s a real popcorn show for sure.

        1. The homeowners are all your typical proggy fare, so they spend a lot of time balancing a thin line between wanting these people removed but making sure they loudly signal that they don’t want to criminalize homelessness.

          ^This.

          1. loudly signal that they don’t want to criminalize homelessness

            How about just stop handing out free shit to young, healthy looking people? There shouldn’t be any guilt about cutting the spigot off for moochers.

            1. I have been honestly asking (for various reasons) if the homeless population here (which has shot up dramatically over the last five years) is newly minted or being attracted here. My speculations are leaning me strongly in the ‘attracted here’ definition what with everything going on.

              1. How about just stop handing out free shit to young, healthy looking people?

                So, you can diagnose mental health with a single glance. That’s outstanding, Rhywun. That’s almost as smugly presumptuous as the socons’ claim that they know what others are thinking.

                1. I wasn’t talking about mental health, which I thought was obvious from my second sentence. Maybe not. But since you brought it up… some might say that choosing a lifestyle of homelessness is itself a mental health issue. Where do you draw the line?

                2. And its almost as smugly presumptuous as assuming that all the people have metal health issues instead of just really low expectations and standards.

                  1. Bang your head! Metal health will drive you mad!

                3. Tonio, very few of the homeless people being covered here, talking to reporters and jeering the king’s men reading the decrees have mental health issues in the traditional sense. Those are the homeless people hiding from the reporters and mental health people when they come around. Generally speaking.

                  The with big tent where he “entertains ladies”, has a stack of mountain bikes, propane stoves and foldout tables is probably just fine.

                4. That’s almost as smugly presumptuous as the socons’ progressives’ claim that they know what others are thinking.

                  FTFY

      3. And what did it mean the people found a spot but a shipping company “claimed” it.

        According to the article, that was a different location where the homeless had started settling; not a city-approved (and presumably public property) location like the one where the now are. But, yeah, the reporter’s seeming indifference to the ownership of the various locations is not helpful.

    4. No use of cooking stoves, propane heaters or power sources in the RVs, . . .

      This is just insane.

  8. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. And they’re bringing those problems with us (them.) They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And, some, I assume are good people.”

    Notice, he said Mexico is sending its people, not that Mexican people are just choosing to come across the border illegally. He’s saying that there is a deliberate effort by the government of Mexico to send bad people here. A way for Mexico to get rid of its undesirables or a deliberate low-grade invasion of the US? Either way, it’s clear Trump thinks the illegal immigration problem is due to deliberate acts of the Mexican government, quite plausibly an act of war. Those inscrutable Hispanics and their devious treachery! Why would such criminal masterminds not be capable of manipulating the Pope into doing their bidding?

    1. Yeah, sounds like he is casting about for a cassus belli.

      Those inscrutable Hispanics and their devious treachery!

      You, sir, win the coveted narrow gaze.

      1. More like …

        *suspicious squint*

        1. I’m sorry, Swiss, I try to fill-in as best I can, but you are the undisputed master.

    2. Isn’t it mostly Central Americans coming through Mexico now anyway?

      1. “Isn’t it mostly Central Americans coming through Mexico now anyway?”

        Yes. Mexico deports more Central Americans than the US, or at least is close.

    3. You mean like how the Mxican government actually advertises how to talk to US authorities so they can stay on the US? Yeah, that IS actually happening. The Mexican government knows damn well if they were forced to deal with their peope without having Uncle Sugar provide for so many of them that there would probably be a revolution there.

      1. Additionally Mexicans here send tons of cash back to Mexico. It is a significant portion of their economy.

        1. The immigration is also having negative impacts on Mexico ? so many Mexican workers are in the US that Mexico’s income tax collections are down.

    4. The sad thing is that there’s a non-trivial number of people who believe that these guys *are* the vanguard of an invasion.

  9. The Pope is completely clueless and is being used as a pawn to promote communism and the drug war. The Vatican is a den of corruption from which flows a constant stream of stories of their exploits and capers. If they are not abusing children they are collaborating with the mafia and endless other shenanigans and the Pope was elected because he could plausibly ignore it while gently scolding his underlings and the rest of the world. His basic message is no different from militant islam – “Western infidels lusting after riches and hedonism.” Of course he doesn’t say to cut off heads, but his insistence of doubling down on the drug war implies it. The Pope is not ‘Christian’ and has no right to chastise Trump. Trump’s criticisms are pretty funny actually, especially as they both support the drug war.

    1. The Pope is not ‘Christian’

      That’s an odd claim to make. And everyone has the right to chastise whomever they want.

      Otherwise, yeah.

    2. Re: dajjal,

      The Pope is completely clueless and is being used as a pawn to promote communism and the drug war.

      Well, the D.E.A. needs all the help it can get to keep the lavish budgets it is given every year. The Pope is only doing his part to keep the boys in the payroll.

  10. Pope: Trump is a poopy head!

    “Pope on Trump: Anyone who wants border walls isn’t Christian”
    […]
    “Pope Francis said Thursday that Donald Trump is “not Christian” if he wants to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border….”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..839519.php

    1. Asked what he thought of Trump’s pledge, Francis said: “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel.”

      Not having heard about Trump’s border plans independently, Francis said he’d “give the benefit of the doubt.” But he added: “I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.”

      Ah, I see the problem now. The Pope just said, in effect, he has no idea who the hell Donald Trump is or what he’s been saying. That’s what’s chapping Trump’s ass.

      1. Claims to be, which is good enough for me. As a non-christian it would be inappropriate of me to question that. But I’m sure there are any number of annoyed, self-professed christians, who will claim he isn’t. Who else wants popcorn?

      2. According to him, yes.

        According to my BS-o-meter….. no.

  11. Jesus Christ. Just listening to CNN on all this crap about walls and bridges – have none of you stupid fucks ever heard of a metaphor? Or are you really that goddamn twisted that you’re just going to pretend you’re so obtuse you don’t understand the Pope’s talking about metaphorical walls and bridges? It’s a basic tenet of diplomacy – you can defeat your enemy by making him your friend just as surely as you can by destroying him. It’s what’s known as a “win-win” situation. (Trump’s supposed to be a big businessman deal-maker, maybe he’s heard of this thing.)

    1. …what?

      1. The Pope didn’t actually say anything about Donald Trump and a border wall. The Pope didn’t even know who Trump is or what he said. Somebody had to tell him, and that’s when he said his thing about walls and bridges. “If this guy’s talking only about building a wall and not talking about building a bridge, he’s not a good Christian.” You think the Pope is seriously suggesting Trump should advocate building a bridge across the Rio Grande? No, the Pope is just saying that interacting cooperatively with others is better than shutting them out.

        That’s supposed to be the deal-makers credo – find a way to make the other guy see that he’s benefitting from making the deal. How is Trump selling the idea of a wall to Mexico? You can say a wall benefits us, how does it benefit Mexico? (A wall doesn’t benefit us as much as building better bridges – if we can do more business with Mexico and make them more prosperous, there’s less of a desire for Mexicans to come over here. That’s a win-win deal.)

        I suspect from Trump’s point of view, this whole business with a wall is just a way to sell us on the idea that we’re going to get something we want if we give Trump what he wants – he wants to be President and we want to believe Trump’s not a big bag of shit. That’s not going to be a win-win – but that’s Trump’s idea of a good deal.

        1. No, the Pope is just saying that interacting cooperatively with others is better than shutting them out.

          Not being able to understand figurative speech is a classic sign of autism.

        2. Re: Jerryskids,

          The Pope didn’t actually say anything about Donald Trump and a border wall. The Pope didn’t even know who Trump is or what he said.

          A reporter asked him specifically about Trump and in his response included the aphorism we are now talking about.

          I suspect from Trump’s point of view, this whole business with a wall is just a way to sell us on the idea that we’re going to get something we want if we give Trump what he wants[…]

          Isn’t that the nature of all politicians, though? What differentiates one from others is how much preposterous the promises, like for instance that wall, or that he will deport 12 million people, assuming they will let themselves be snatched that easily as if it were the Rapture for undocumented aliens.

    2. Jer, you didn’t drink or eat anything provided to you by Agile, did you?

      1. Yeah, that is not really a good idea to accept on of those “portabella sandwiches”…

    3. The Pope is an atheist and a communist and very ‘open-borders’. Just listen to any of his speeches. It’s all utopian nonsense. He doesn’t believe in any of the “Christian” stuff except as far as it can be used to promote ‘from each according to his needs’ theology. As in “Jesus says you should work hard to clothe the poor people” and “If you are nice to each other then the evil will go away”. You might as well learn your life skills from Barney. Trump knows all this and there is no point in trying to make friends with the Pope. When he said that ISIS wanted to destroy the Vatican he was being serious. It was almost like a threat or invitation. Trump and his followers are spoiling for war. (That’s why for them 2A trumps 1A.)

      1. The Pope is an atheist…

        BZZZZT. Sorry, but that’s not the right answer. Thanks for being on the show and enjoy your year’s supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat(tm).

        1. Well, you see, anyone who’s theology differs from that of dajjal is, by definition, an atheist. See how that works?

          1. Dajjal reminds of those who like to call me a “god-less heathen”. I have more gods than I know what to do with!!!

            1. You two should get along. The Dajjal (that is, the Muslim name for the false messiah) has one eye, Odin has one eye….

              1. Interesting. Thanks.

              2. I did not know that. But I bet the Dajjal didn’t lose his eye seeking wisdom. Probably just had a camel spit in his eye and it got infected.

                (Just kidding!)

        2. I have to admit, I get pretty incensed about some of the shit that we all argue about here. But since i don’t have a god in this fight, I can just sit back and laugh…………. 😉

          1. Wait, I thought incense was a catholic thing.

      2. Atheist or not, his nonsensical marxism is enow.

  12. I remember when I was a younxter, the too far gone evangelicals all held that the pope was the antichrist and Satan’s viceroy on earth and what not, whilst more reasonable folk recognised that the pope was only a pawn in the hands of the jewmasons.

    At least the latter built their thinking around the obvious fact that the pope hasn’t been in charge of anything since before 1960. Also, that’s not particularly noteworthy, since there’s been centuries of history where the pope also had zero influence or no ability to determine what policies he propagandised for his handlers.

    So, Trump’s view is more consonant with obvious facts and it is not particularly at odds with what the less crasy people have thought over the past century. I mean, decades ago I remember the only folks who thought the pope ran anything were also the sort who’d say about somebody, “She’s not Christian! She’s a Catholic.” And they didn’t seem to think they meant it in some metaphorical sense, but that Catholicism fell in the same range as snake worship and satanism. Oddly, Mormonites, who unambiguously fail to meet the definition, were considered Christian by many who refused to admit Catholics or Jehovahs, both of whom tend toward a very conservative interpretation of things.

    1. Abortion, or rather opposition to it, was the unifying factory. Catholics used to want nothing to do with those indescribably vulgar protestants with their tent meetings. Protestants wanted nothing to do with the statue-worshipping papists (their term, not mine, sorry Eddie). But shared belief in the humanity of balls of cells of undifferentiated tissue united them, and now they are besties!

      1. I remember them being “devil-worshipping papists” not “statue-worshipping papists”. Also, “motherfucking papists” or “cocksucking papists”. I wish I lived in your world where folks is so nice and friendly I don’t believe they could be mean. For what it’s worth, the Roman Papists have gone way off the deepend in all sorts of political qu?sti?nes, so it’s not really valid to argue that abortion be the central cause, since a lot of it involves a total reversal from conservatism or even freedom to something that smells dangerously like progressism. Read some lay-authored, imprimatured commentary from 1935, then read a present day “Catholic” article–the politics has almost, or, perhaps, has entirely, reversed. I recommend lay crap, since the bishops tend to write about the phantoms of their minds and lose focus when it comes to quotidian bread and other issues. I have a huge library of ancient crap I’ve picked up over the years, including a lot of stuff I can’t find on the internet, which probably means it ain’t tha, and the old “Catholic” writing was always on the flipping fringe of present-day conservatism, some of it doubtless crossing the line into freedom. It was some of that cnap that convinsted me to give up fear. And, following the philokalia, it fucking works, mah frenz; and then you arsk, like muh harf bror, “Mama, what means fear?”

        1. In view of that, fear ain’t no mindkiller. Hope is the mindkiller, by which I mean hanging on to every judgment of the Qu?stio, concern about what evil men may do in respawns, rather than how the more rightly considering the honour or dishonour to the first person according to his response.

    2. I shad have said “tended toward” for the Catholics. The Jehovahs are about the only Western sect that refuses to upgrade its beliefs to suit the modern world. You have to stop a moment and think about any religion that tries to reason people into converting. It’s that weird. The Mormonites are a different story, since they seem to bear two different truths, a public truth and a private truth, the latter of which is only revealed to true believers and some random outsiders based on instructions given individually to the membership by God (at least that seems to be a good distillation of the reasons why various mormonites have felt free to tell me all sorts of weird crap about how things really are, cosmicly), the former of which is regularly updated to improve their public image. Then there’s the unnumberable orthodox sects, which all seem to believe the same thing and generally profess the same thing they were saying fifteen hundred years ago, but make big arguments and schisms out of things which are obviously, at least to me, a philologist/psychologist (not a cognitive psycholigist–fuck, those people are nuts), artefacts of the languages involved and don’t reflect actual differences in meaning. So if he’s talking about the pope of Alexandria, rather than the pope of Rome, or even the pope of Mushroom Rock, he’s totally wrong.

      1. The Jehovahs are about the only Western sect that refuses to upgrade its beliefs to suit the modern world.

        LOL. No.

        Still plenty of creationists out there, particularly the young earth variety.

        The amish, while small in numbers are notable for their “quaint” ways.

        And glad you mentioned the mormons; they still believe that there was a pre-columbian white people civilization in North America, despite the lack of any archaeological evidence available for analysis by outsiders.

        1. The creationists are reacting to perceived marginalisation. It’s not adherence to old timey beliefs but rather a revision of their current beliefs to make them even more opposed to modern thought. Jehovah creationism is a different thing, in that it’s the same they been saying forever. Wi the less weirdo Xtians, creationism is uniquestionably reactionary.

      2. The Jehovahs are about the only Western sect that refuses to upgrade its beliefs to suit the modern world.

        Huh?

    3. Dyschorus: I was christened after the first pope of Alexandria (PBUH) and bear his name as my middle name–Athanasius Alexandriacus. Onced I was in court and the judge had to read off my full name and stopped for a moment to consider and said, ‘Well, I think I can say this…’. He could. As a child I remember the other children at recess tanting me with cries of “Unbeliever”. It wasn’t particularly effective. Probably because I didn’t ‘believe’. And I had one grandma who claimed to be Jesus (and had a lot of folks who believed her) and another who claimed to be a trulgu, which is, in Tibetan buddhism, I think, somebody whose attained the necessary spiritual development to snuff himself out (nirvana) but instead chuses to be born again in order to teach others. “There’s nothing for me to learn, here,” she used to say, “I am here to teach.” She also used to emphaticly point out that “evil” spelt backwards is “live”, poignantly, like there’s a lesson there.

    4. I remember an old lady in Iowa when JFK was running for President. She told me “The Pope has his grip all packed ready to come here and take over if that Catholic gets elected”.

  13. Aren’t Catholics like the second largest bloc of voters behind AARP?

    1. Just ahead of the trans population.

  14. My roomate’s sister makes $56 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 4 months but last month her pay was $16168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here……es……..

    Clik this link in Your Browser…….. http://www.alpha-careers.com

    1. That works out to… uh, a 73-hour work work. No thank you.

  15. “Back in the day, people like Trump thought the man in Rome was the grand chessmaster, not a mere pawn of a Mexican cabal. Along with all the other ways he’s shaking up politics, Trump is now turning the old nativist conspiracy stories on their head.”

    People like Trump believed the opposite of Trump?

  16. Donald Trump treats objects like women!
    Man.

  17. This is the Pope’s fault, not Trump’s. Back in the day, the Pope stuck to religion and stayed out of politics except to address truly glaring examples of evil such as communism. This Pope seems to do the opposite. His world view was shaped by the scumbag Peronists and he has incorporated those failed ideas into his religion.

  18. They are using the Pope as a pawn

    WHO IS ‘THEY’?

    1. The Mexican rapists who happen to be 50% (plus one) of the total population of Mexico, by extrapolation. The rest, Trump assumed, are ‘good people’.

      1. Ok, but where do the shape-shifting Monsanto lizard people fit into this?

        1. I mentioned the lizard people in confidence.

          Are you going to go blurting out every conspiracy you learn about?

        2. They’re the ones putting Plan 9 in place.

          Don’t you know anything?

        3. This article is about Trump, not Hillary.

  19. People who build fences around their backyards aren’t Christians. People who lock their front doors aren’t Christians. People who roll up their car windows and lock the doors aren’t Christians. People who think their country should enforce their immigration laws, even if that means building physical barriers to prevent people from sneaking in without permission, aren’t Christians. Any Pope who calls people he disagrees with a non-Christian might want to take a good look in the mirror.

    I think Trump’s an obnoxious goof, but not because he’s calling for border enforcement (although, I think his “marvelous” big border fence, paid for by Mexico is a ton of BS, as is most of what comes out of his mouth.)

    If you think the current immigration law is wrong, then convince people to change the law, but don’t bitch and moan when people suggest that, whatever the law is, we should be enforcing it.

    1. If you think the current immigration law is wrong, then convince people to change the law, but don’t bitch and moan when people suggest that, whatever the law is, we should be enforcing it.

      I have every right to “bitch and moan” when people suggest that immoral laws should be enforced. That’s the first step in convincing people to change the law. You know, pointing out the consequences of enforcing laws that are immoral, and the immorality of those who do enforce them.

      1. 1. I didn’t say you don’t have the right to bitch and moan.
        2. “Immoral” as defined by whom? Morality is a pretty subjective thing, and when all that “immoral” means is anything you disagree with, well… you’re not going to find too many buyers. Isn’t it immoral to open the borders wide, thereby allowing in a ton of low-skilled workers who push down wages for the poorest, least skilled (legal) workers in the country. Hey, it doesn’t hurt me – I just get to pay less to have my lawn mowed and my house cleaned.

        1. Morality is a pretty subjective thing, and when all that “immoral” means is anything you disagree with, well… you’re not going to find too many buyers.

          You obviously have a poor understanding of right and wrong.

          Isn’t it immoral to open the borders wide, thereby allowing in a ton of low-skilled workers who push down wages for the poorest, least skilled (legal) workers in the country.

          You obviously have a poor understanding of economics.

          I would elaborate, but it would obviously be a waste of time. Toodles!

          1. Are you saying that the law of supply and demand somehow doesn’t apply to labor…?

            1. It would if the supply of jobs was static, but it is not. Immigrants create demand because they are consumers too. That demand creates more jobs. Maybe even more jobs than they “steal” from natives.

              1. Immigrants might “create demand,” but that doesn’t change the fact that more low-end labor will reduce wages for low-end jobs, which is Econ 101 AFAIK.

                1. Immigrants also consume goods and services produced by those same low-end jobs. That increased demand creates more of those jobs.

                  1. This is as much as a perpetual motion economic system as any socialist has ever proposed. So if 100 million Latin Americans suddenly moved to the US and were willing to work for $1/hour, that would be great for the country because of all the jobs it would create? I don’t think so….

                    1. Um. Yeah. People are going to be able to live in this country off $1/hr. Sure. You win. Totally.

          2. No. What is immoral is punishing employers for hiring people willing to do the job for the lowest price. I don’t see why an American is any more entitled to my money than a Mexican.

    2. How about this? Anyone who believes that Jesus was the son of God and the Messiah is a Christian. I’m pretty sure your views on walls is not pertinent.

      but don’t bitch and moan when people suggest that, whatever the law is, we should be enforcing it.

      Hell no. Enforcing immoral laws is immoral.

      1. Anyone who believes that Jesus was the son of God and the Messiah is a Christian.

        You must not have heard of Arianism and the controversy between Arius and Athanasius.

  20. Thanks to the coverage on this website I’m starting to like this Trump fellow.

  21. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.