Donald Trump

Trump Takes Credit for Hillary Clinton Using 'Radical Islam,' Calls on Her to Return Saudi Donations

Says he wants a safe society that's tolerant and open and also railed against Muslim immigration.

|

Donald Trump Campaign/Facebook

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump says that in the wake of the Orlando shooting, America "cannot afford to talk around the issue" of radical Islamist terrorism, re-iterating his call for a "temporary ban" on Muslim immigration, which he first proposed in December, and saying political correctness over the issue was crippling the country.

"I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger but now, many are saying I was right to do so, and although the pause is temporary, we must find out what is going on," Trump said in a speech in New Hampshire, according to his prepared remarks. "The ban will be lifted when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country."

While his official campaign website does not list the ban under any of his policy pages yet, and Trump has previously insisted the ban was "just a suggestion," today he appeared to lay out a proposal. He said that if elected he would "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we understand how to end these threats," pointing to U.S. immigration law, which grants the president that power.

Trump said he wanted a "full, impartial" security assessment of the immigration process, after which, he said, his putative administration would "develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America."

"With fifty people dead, and dozens more wounded, we cannot afford to talk around the issue anymore," Trump said. "We have to address it head on."

Trump noted that while the Orlando shooter was a U.S.-born citizen, his family emigrated from Afghanistan to the U.S. (in the 1980s). "The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here," Trump said. "That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about."

Trump said radical Islamist terrorism wasn't "just a national security issue" but also a "quality of life issue."

"If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans—women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people—then we need to tell the truth about Radical Islam," Trump said, saying "Radical Islam" was also "coming to our shores." The FBI has not uncovered direct contacts between the Orlando shooter and operatives of the Islamic State (ISIS) abroad.

Trump noted previous terrorist attacks, pointing out that the 9/11 hijackers came in on visas and, wrongly, claiming the Boston marathon bombers came in through political asylum. Instead the family came in on a tourist visa, which has less stringent requirements, and then applied for political asylum once here. He also mentioned the status of the San Bernardino shooter as the child of Pakistani immigrants, and that his wife, who also participated in the attack, came from Saudi Arabia on a visa.

He noted a Pew Research poll that found 99 percent of Afghans support sharia law, or law based on the Koran, as the official law of their country. "We admit many more from other countries in the region who share these same oppressive views," he insisted. "If we want to remain a free and open society, then we have to control our borders."

Trump then took credit for Hillary Clinton using the term "radical Islamism." Clinton said in an interview she would use the term instead of "radical jihad," which she said was the same. "Trump, as usual, is obsessed with name calling," she said.

Trump characterized Clinton's "solution" to terrorism as banning guns. "They tried that in France, which has among the toughest gun laws in the world, and 130 were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in cold blood," he pointed out. "Her plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans, abolishing the 2nd amendment, and leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. She wants to take away Americans' guns, then admit the very people who want to slaughter us."

Much like Trump's manipulation of language, Clinton has not explicitly said she wants to overturn the Second Amendment but has signaled that she will pursue the kind of anti-gun measures that might not pass constitutional muster unless the amendment was repealed.

Trump insisted as president he would give the intelligence community, law enforcement, and the military "the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks," including an intelligence-gathering system second to none" in which there would be increased cooperation among officials from different levels of government.

After retreading his rhetoric on immigration, he returned to the domestic war on terror. "I want us all to work together, including in partnership with our Muslim communities," Trump said, bringing up Muslims as Americans for the first time in the speech. "But Muslim communities must cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad—and they do know where they are."

This "idea," such as it is, has been tried before. In New York City, Trump's hometown, police ran a massive surveillance operation targeting the Muslim communities in that city and in neighboring regions. That initially secret program did not yield a single lead before it was closed in 2014.

Trump also linked the Orlando shooting and radical Islamist terrorism to U.S. foreign policy. "America must do more, much more, to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations," Trump said. "It also means we must change our foreign policy."

Trump rightly pointed out that the intervention in Libya, which Clinton proudly supported, and the decision to help overthrow the regime (U.S. air support helped Libyan rebels capture Col. Qaddafi, Libya's leader, who they then killed and over whose death Clinton gloated), as well as the U.S. push to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria, "created space for ISIS to expand and grow." While Trump criticized the Iraq war partially during the primary, he did not note its role in helping create ISIS in the first place. Trump also offered that the Iran nuclear deal, which he called "disastrous," was making it harder for the U.S. to work "in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region."

"That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism, not nation-building," Trump said. He also took credit for NATO announcing a new counter-terrorism initiative in recent weeks. Trump launched a critique of NATO in March centered on its ineffectiveness and its cost to the U.S. "The last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya," Trump said. "That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent."

Claiming that the Iran deal jeopardized partnerships with regional Muslim allies, however, did not stop Trump from mocking Clinton for suggesting the U.S. call on Saudi Arabia, the largest Muslim "ally" in the region, to stop funding hate. Trump said he was calling on Clinton to return $25 million in donations the Clinton Foundation received from the Saudi government, which is on course to break its record for number of beheadings this year. Prosecutors in Saudi Arabia are also reportedly pushing for the use of the death penalty for homosexuality, which is illegal in the kingdom, because social media was turning people gay.

Given his (unsurprisingly) contradictory statements on Saudi Arabia (which is the Muslim ally most worried about the Iran deal), it's unclear what, if anything, Trump envisions his war on terror in the Middle East to look like.

NEXT: Another Johnson/Weld SuperPAC Announced, Run By Weld Associates and GOP Operatives

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. Whatever Trump says, my guess is that Hillary would never have used the term except of the massacre that occurred

    1. It’s not clear to me she’s ever actually used-used the term. Didn’t she say something like “X and Y are the same, and I’d be happy to use either.”? That’s Clinton-speak.

      1. Wouldn’t surprise me. It took her 8 days to form an opinion on Dylann Roof and the death penalty.

        Polls take time.

      2. Seems also like she was going to say, what difference does it make, but caught herself.

  2. “The ban will be lifted when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country.”

    So, never. I see what you’re doing there.

  3. Trump noted that while the Orlando shooter was a U.S.-born citizen, his family emigrated from Afghanistan to the U.S. (in the 1980s).

    Back when the USSR was invading Afghanistan?

    You’d think the shooter would have been pissed off at Russia for driving his parents out of their homeland.

    1. In August 2001 I had a long ride with an Afghani cab driver in Northern Virginia. The Afghani didn’t have any problem with the fact that I’m Russian, he actually mentioned a Russian gf he had when he lived in Sweden before he moved to the US. But he looked rather disappointed when I said that Russia should focus on its internal affairs instead of playing geopolitical games around the world, i.e. opposing America. Somehow he seemed to be more pissed at the US.

      1. 2001??? How old are you????

        1. ? 2001 was practically yesterday, sonny.

      2. I had a long cab drive with an Arab Somali in Atlanta about 10 years ago.

        He fucking ranted about how happy he was that they killed americans in 1993, and he kept saying that the jihadis would kills all the americans in iraq, and how this was awesome that islam was getting revenge for the decades of messing w/ them.

        I basically said nothing and nodded, wondering if he still expected to get a tip.

        1. You misspelled ‘get paid’.

          1. the client paid for the limo. but i did pass the drivers name along.

    2. I wonder how many ME refugees & whatnot Russia is accepting this year.

      1. I would guess the same number of refugees from Ukraine that we’ve taken.

        1. Well, the US has never meddled in Ukraine that I am aware of.

          1. What I mean is that Russia already has a refugee situation to deal with. The real question to ask is how many of their Muslim brothers-in-faith are the pious defenders of the Two Mosques, the House of Saud, going to take this year?

            1. Yeah, that is an interesting question.

          2. I wouldn’t mind some female Ukranian refugees. I’d take a lot of them.

        2. I don’t have an exact number, but it isn’t zero. I remember a story a few months back about some ME refugees trying to harass some Russian women in a nightclub a few months back. Their boyfriends weren’t exactly amused, and drunken Russian guys tend to be a tad more pro-active about such behavior than their French counterparts.

  4. Donald Trump: the adult in the room.

  5. Trump characterized Clinton’s “solution” to terrorism as banning guns. “They tried that in France, which has among the toughest gun laws in the world, and 130 were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in cold blood,” he pointed out. “Her plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans, abolishing the 2nd amendment, and leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. She wants to take away Americans’ guns, then admit the very people who want to slaughter us.”

    He might actually get somewhere if sticks with this message. But I doubt he has the discipline to do so.

    1. They didn’t learn from San Bernardino.

    2. Holy Shit. That is pretty awesome.

    3. I was just about to post that. Trump has actually sounded pretty consistent and strong on the 2nd. Who knows when he goes off message, but he’s been pretty good so far, and I agree that this is probably one of his best weapons (no pun intended) against Hillary.

      As compared to the #NeverTrump wing of the GOP party who are already sounding perfectly willing, even anxious to let the lefttards ban ‘certain’ weapons. Sure, shitheads, the terrorists will have A5-15s and AK-47s and we’ll have what, muzzle loaders? Fuck.off.traitors.

      1. National Review has been pretty consistent via Cooke and I think Williamson. No AWB.

        1. Cooke’s piece on Couric’s propaganda film was hysterical.

      2. I’ve disliked Trump since long before he starting running for president but I gotta say that gave me little bit of a woody.

        1. I never really had an opinion of him. I knew who he was, but didn’t really care. I don’t even watch TV much at all. I turn it on to hear the news when I’m at my computer. My wife mostly watches it, or we watch movies together occasionally. But for the last 15 years, I’ve barely watched TV at all. So I’ve never even seen his reality TV thing.

    4. Obama’s first reaction to mass shootings is to try to make it harder for law abiding citizens to arm themselves.

  6. Given his (unsurprisingly) contradictory statements on Saudi Arabia (which is the Muslim ally most worried about the Iran deal), it’s unclear what, if anything, Trump envisions his war on terror in the Middle East to look like.

    Teaming up with Iran?

    1. I think that would be more sensible than the present arrangement America has, at the very least.

      1. Definitely. And as a bonus, the Republicans in Congress would collectively lose their shit. John McCain might even have a stroke over it.

        1. I’ve always preferred the Shias. We picked the wrong side.

          1. And the women are hotter too.

            1. Some Iranian women are hot, but they aren’t Arabs, they’re Persian.

              1. Baha’i chicks, man. If they weren’t so goddamn devoted I’d have a bushel.

              2. Hot is hot. Doesn’t matter where

          2. Well the Iranians fucked that up in the 70’s

            1. They let the mullahs take over. This is what happens when you get rid of one despot and let in a worse one.

              1. Back in my day, when we didn’t the leaders of the government, we dug up a Roosevelt and had him orchestrate a coup.

        2. He needs to retire anyway.

        3. You know he’s on death’s door when trump said no more nation building.

          1. Just give the guy a nice drool bib and put his ass out to pasture already. Should have happened years ago.

    2. it’s unclear what, if anything, Trump envisions his war on terror in the Middle East to look like.

      Great. It’s going to look great. Are you stupid or what?

    3. You know who else teamed up with Iran?

        1. IIRC they both got busted driving somewhere with a bunch of cocaine. I was a kid at the time and was heartbroken that Sgt. Slaughter would stoop to hanging out with the Iron Sheik who was a bad guy.

          1. More of an Attitude Era guy myself:

            IF YA SMELL!!!!!!!!!

    1. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. THIS IS NOT A CO
      CONSOIRATOR.

      1. CONSPIRATOR. EDIT BUTTON

    2. Abasin Mustafa blamed the shooting at the Pulse gay bar on America’s access to guns on his Facebook

      Fuck off, bitch.

      1. He has access to guns on Facebook? why is Facebook selling guns?

        1. Bad grammatical structuring. Not from me, I cut and pasted it.

    3. There were no signs at all! We’re completely shocked!

    4. Bought Killer’s Home For $100

      is it me, or does that sound like an attempt at a tax-exempt transfer when a guy is planning to kill himself?

      that’s fishy as fuck.

      1. No kidding. I would not be surprised if they knew.

        Also, there are reports that the shooter had assistance at the scene: someone holding a door closed to help trap people. Hasn’t the lack of eyewitness accounts been rather odd? Are they keeping people quiet while they investigate?

        1. You mean like the parents of the San Bernardino shooter? “Hey mom, here’s little ahkmed, tashfeen and me are going out and we won’t be back, ok, bye bye, love ya.”

  7. Trump insisted as president he would give the intelligence community, law enforcement, and the military “the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks,” including an intelligence-gathering system second to none” in which there would be increased cooperation among officials from different branches of government.

    Cool! Legislative and judicial intelligence-gathering officials!

    1. You do know that one reason 9/11 happened was that the CIA and FBI were forbidden from sharing information, right?

      1. You do know that DHS solved thHAHAHAHAHAA!! Damn, couldn’t quite get it out!

      2. The FBI interviewed this asshole three times.

        1. I heard they were restricted in what they could do. Can’t recall the particulars.

          1. It was a terror investigation, if they wanted to, they could have done whatever they like.

            They weren’t restricted on shit except because they chose to be.

      3. You do know that one reason 9/11 happened was that the CIA and FBI were forbidden from sharing information, right?

        Yes, and another reason 9/11 happened is because I forgot to wear my lucky red hat that day. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find there was an FBI informant close to the center of the 9/11 plot. Those jackasses seem to mostly be capable of only uncovering plots they’ve secretly fomented and the CIA has a list of “persons of interest” of about 12 million, but, sure, if only the CIA and the FBI could have shared information the 9/11 plot would have maybe been uncovered. There’s a reason the domestic FBI and the foreign intelligence CIA are not supposed to be working together and it’s related to the fact that the FBI is supposed to be constrained by due process and Constitutional rights and the CIA can kidnap people in the middle of the night, drag them off to dungeons and clamp car batteries to their testicles – you know, what the CIA refers to as “the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks”.

          1. Yes, I know, the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Lawyers can always find some way of getting around those pesky requirements of needing warrants and probable cause and the argument that if it weren’t for those pesky requirements their jobs would be so much easier and they’d do ever so much better at protecting us from the bad guys and they’d never dream of using their unrestrained power against non-bad guys.

            After the fact, it was easy enough to find key pieces of the puzzle that “everybody knew” were key pieces of the puzzle but it’s just the usual Monday-morning quarterbacking to think there were only a few dozen people and a few handfuls of evidence to sift through beforehand. Look at what they’re finding out right now about this guy – “OMG! How could anybody not know this guy was going to do somethig like this!”. Same thing in San Bernardino, the Boston Marathon, Timothy McVeigh, the 2015 Superbowl – they all knew afterwards exactly what should have been so obvious beforehand but somehow wasn’t. Hindsight is 20/20 even to a blind pig.

      4. You do know that one reason 9/11 happened was that the CIA and FBI were forbidden from sharing information, right?

        And you realize the reason for that was to keep intelligence agencies from spying on Americans, right?

        1. Sure, but 3,000 dead seems a high price for that, though, don’t you think?

          1. Not really, no.

  8. I don’t know why John hates Trump so much, given Trump’s views on these things.

  9. The NBA fucked over the Warriors by suspending Green. Total pussy move by Silver and co.

    1. The NBA is that bitch LeBron’s bitch.

    2. Iggy is incredible defensively.

    3. Yeah, how dare they follow their established rules? Don’t they know stars and ordained teams deserve special treatment? Screw any semblance of integrity.

      1. Would have appreciated that suspension when Dramond was kicking Thunder players in the nuts multiple times per game…

  10. Looks like the Orlando killer was REALLY into gay dudes. He visited the nightclub A LOT and had a bunch of gay dating apps for his phone.

      1. MAKE AMERICA STRAIGHT AGAIN

        1. Thread winner. Everyone out of the pool and go home.

        2. ATTEMPT NO ‘LANDINGS’ HERE, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN AND I THINK YOU DO

    1. That was all part of his research!

      1. He was cruisin’.

    2. Why are we already assuming he was gay? I doubt it, I bet he was just casing the joint.

      1. An anti-gay attack perpetrated by a self-loathing homosexual is the twist that’s impossible to ignore.

        1. Except the guy is an Islamic fundy. We can speculate, but I bet he is not gay at all, he was just scoping the joint and getting a sick woody fantasizing about killing people. Sick motherfucker.

          1. Except the guy is an Islamic fundy.

            That’s the thing.

            Nowhere in any of his bio-information do they actually ever suggest he was very religious.

            Yes, some people said he was ‘active online’ and perused the website of some local mosque.

            But no beard, no prayer, no real testimony from anyone that he was Super-Moozie so far?

            1. His co-workers said he prayed daily. He also went to Saudi Arabia for a pilgrimage to Mecca. Or was that false info I got?

              1. Keeping up appearances?

              2. really? then i missed that.

                WaPo suggests it was more of a recent phenomena (post divorce)

                Acquaintances gave conflicting views about Mateen’s religiosity. Yusifiy said her former husband wasn’t very devout and preferred spending his free time working out at the gym. She said in the few months they were married he gave no signs of having fallen under the sway of radical Islam.

                “He was a very private person,” she said.

                Mateen later had a son with another woman who also appears to have left him and declined to comment when reached at her current home.

                But one friend said Mateen became steadily more religious after his divorce and went on a religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.

                1. preferred spending his free time working out at the gym.

                  Definitely gay.

            2. Seems to be a common thread with these guys.

            3. Nowhere in any of his bio-information do they actually ever suggest he was very religious.

              That can change overnight: people often suddenly get religious, or get more religious, or lose their religion. See: “sudden jihad syndrome.”

              1. Not sure if I read this here or elsewhere, but aren’t a lot of the ISIS-sympathizing fucksticks people who come from a decidedly-libertine background, who are recruited by ISIS-friendly religious leaders by encouraging them to think that their sins will be washed away with a little jihad? I thought that was the case for a lot of the Belgian/Paris crew?

                If so, then it’s not at all surprising that a homo/bi guy of Central Asian ancestry would be very conflicted by his lifestyle, and view acts in furtherance of radical Islam as a way to unfuck himself.

                120 miles seems a really long way to commute to a gay bar though. Did he used to live in Orlando or something?

            4. Probably just knew that going Islamoid is a good way to kill a bunch of people and have people make excuses for him.

      2. An anti-gay attack perpetrated by a self-loathing homosexual is the twist that’s impossible to ignore.

        1. Well after he started going to the club he did make his wife cut her hair really short and would only do her doggy style.

      3. “”I bet he was just casing the joint.””

        Smith told the Orlando Sentinel that he saw Mateen inside at least a dozen times.

        “We didn’t really talk to him a lot, but I remember him saying things about his dad at times,” Smith said. “He told us he had a wife and child.”

        Another Pulse regular, Kevin West, told the Los Angeles Times that Mateen messaged him on and off for a year using a gay chat app.
        ….
        Cord Cedeno and Chris Callen are other Pulse customers who told the Sentinel they had seen Mateen in the nightclub.

        Callen said he had witnessed violent outbursts by Mateen.

        “It was definitely him. He’d come in for years, and people knew him,” Cedeno said.

        How long does it take to “Case a joint”? And does one normally tell targets about their family and pester them on gay-apps when planning an assault?

        1. sorry – link (someone else posted it in previous thread)

        2. Maybe, like I said, he was also working his way up to this, getting his rage built up and fantasizing about all of these people he was going to kill. Mass murderers are sick motherfuckers, he was probably getting a thrill out of it. It may have gave him a real thrill to just watch them and think, I’m gonna kill this guy, this is how I’ll do it.

          1. You guys are really ruining my Columbo fantasy

          1. a menu featuring homorelevant emoticons?

      4. Why are we already assuming he was gay?

        You’ve seen the dude’s picture, right?

        1. That isn’t gay, that’s Jerz Poo.

          1. I was walking down the hallway to my office one day and I saw a dude with a man-bun. My rage was slowly building at the mere sight of it, until he turned around and I recognized him as one of our Chinese students.

            1. Unless he was packing katanas, he probably deserved a kick in the nuts.

              1. Or, you know, whatever the Chinese equivalent to that might be.

                1. An Oxtail Dao. Oh, you meant the Chinese equivalent to nuts. No idea, Carry on.

  11. Vaginal Ghost Busters looks horrible.

    1. It is going to be a surprise hit.

    2. I know, wtf is up with that. Is anyone other than Crusty going to watch that?

      1. Feminists and men who are not afraid of strong women.

        1. Really? You mean lesbians and their gay friends right?

          http://cdn-primary-37606020.eu…..6b4/empire ghostbusters subs cover.jpg

          1. No, because lesbians don’t have gay (male) friends.

        2. There’s an inside joke for you here. Or, there would be if you didn’t tuck your tail and run like Brave Sir Robin.

          1. Did Brave Sir Robin blow off his buds too?

            1. Yes. Without reasonable explanation.

            2. Well, according to his minstrel, he *was* “buggering off”

          2. I’m sure there probably is.

    1. I think we can trust Hillary to not allow that to influence her decisions.

      1. It’s not like it’s $750 from the NRA.

        1. True, that’s waaaay worse!

          /prog

    2. How much has China illegally funded through the Clinton Foundation?

      1. More importantly, how Bill and Hillary both not in jail? They make Nixon look like a boy scout.

        1. Hillary Clinton makes Richard Nixon look like Bryant Gumbel.

          -Negrodamus

        2. Some of us have been asking for 25 years why the Clintons aren’t both in jail. They’ve skated on everything else, what makes anybody think they aren’t going to continue skating?

          1. ‘what makes anybody think they aren’t going to continue skating?’

            Global warming? Wait… no, hitler? Fuck, I give up.

    3. While I don’t doubt she’s taking money from him (see Clinton Foundation). This seems like a bit to obvious a breaking of the law. Too many people need to keep quiet. Course, the same could be said about using the personal emails. Clintons are kings of breaking the law in front of everyone and then convincing the press they didn’t technically do so.

  12. “develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America.”

    “suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we understand how to end these threats,”

    “Her plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans”

    “That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism, not nation-building,”

    I’m in love.

  13. “He said that if elected he would “suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we understand how to end these threats,” pointing to U.S. immigration law, which grants the president that power.”

    I’m slow, the link is pretty much to a long section of the federal statutes, could someone explain to me which part allows the President to suspend immigration from particular countries? It could be in there, it’s just that the link doesn’t give the poor reader much help.

    1. I think the state department may be in charge of setting how many immigrants are allowed from each country in the world. It may be withing their power to say no more from states full of terrorists.

      1. That could be so, I didn’t read very closely.

    2. It’s in there. The President has the power to suspend immigration from countries if he wants to. It’s all one the immigration act.

      1. OK, it’s just that the link wasn’t helpful, it just showed a wall of text.

  14. Says he wants a safe society that’s tolerant and open and also railed against Muslim immigration

    Yeah, Ed. Islam is illiberal. If you want the type of society libertarians are always saying they want, Muslims are dueling with communists for the #1 spot on the “Do Not Invite” list, when it comes to people who could really put a damper on classical liberal politics.

    Really fucking amazing that this is so hard for some people to get.

  15. it’s unclear what, if anything, Trump envisions his war on terror in the Middle East to look like.

    Pretty sure I heard him say today that he will end the stupid nation building policies that have created enemies and cost us $5T over the past 15 years. And that he would end idiotic policies like Clinton and Obama put in place to destabilize Libya and run guns into Syria.

    If I was a betting man, I’d say a big part of his policy for the “war on terror” would be to remove ourselves from the hotbed ps it’s all starting in.

    1. Gary Johnson is on record as opposing US withdrawal for the Middle East and favoring “humanitarian” military interventions not in our interest. It’s gonna be easy to punish the Republicans this time. They’re running as Libertarians.

    2. I’d say a big part of his policy for the “war on terror” would be to remove ourselves from the hotbed ps it’s all starting in.

      Would that be the “kicking the shit out of ISIS” or the “taking all their oil” part of his “simple plan” to defeat ISIS? (Which, by the way, I blame Trump for this latest terrorist attack since he’s said repeatedly he knows a simple way to defeat ISIS but the evil fucker won’t tell anyody what it is because he wants to get all the credit for it. If he doesn’t get elected President, he’s going to take his secret to the grave with him and he doesn’t give a shit how many innocent American lives are lost due to him not revealing the secret. How the hell can this bastard just sit there and watch people die knowing he can make one phone call to the White House and put an end to it all?)

      1. We live in a content-free age and Trump is the diet soda of candidates.

      2. Maybe my Sarc-O-Meter ™ is off a bit, but exactly how would Donald put his plan into action right now? He doesn’t even hold any public office, and is a wee bit busy right now with other things.

    3. He also wants to “seize the oil” in the Middle East.

      1. Yeah, I get that he’s said that. But he’s still head and shoulders better than Clinton on foreign policy seeing as he’s not directly responsible for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of deaths and the destabilization of multiple countries.

        1. Trump is an unknown. We know what he says, but that probably is not going to match exactly what he would do.

          Hillary on the other hand, we already know exactly what she will do. She did it as SOS, and she will be complete and total fucking disaster on foreign policy and at the same time, will kill the 2nd amendment dead, once and for all.

          1. It’s probably something as simple as hiring Peggy Noonan out of retirement, or similar, but he’s sounding a lot more Presidential lately.

            I still don’t trust him, and I think the question of Trump vs. whoever the Democrats nominate after indicting Hillary is an interesting one, but credit where credit is due.

  16. Here’s the dilemma for libertarians: do you cut off the flow of immigrants from certain areas (freedom of movement) or do you allow it unmitigated even if people from those areas refuse to accept freedom of conscience on anything from who you sleep with to what you put into your body as well as having laws that treat half of the population like property of the other half.

    1. I take the hot single young women approach to Immigration. They are all welcome. We have enough dudes already.

      1. NO MUSLIM SAUSAGE!

        1. The first thing that comes up if you google MUSLIM SAUSAGE.

          SCHOOLS and canteens in Germany have removed pork from their menus over fears of offending Muslim migrants, a top politician has claimed.

          An increasing number of public canteens, child daycare centres and schools have stopped serving sausages, bacon and ham over religious considerations.

          1. The pussification of Europe continues unabated.

          2. It’s not like Germany is known for its schnitzel, anyway.

          3. Germans have removed pork from their school menus?! Holy fuck.

            This is a country that has a toilet with a shelf so you can check your shit for parasites—they eat so much pork. When I visited Germany, I was dazzled with the variety of bland luncheon meat-esque cold cuts they consider normal for a breakfast or lunch, all coming from the pig.

            Wow, we really neutered them over the last 70 years, didn’t we?

      2. This is a good plan, JB, when I’m elected Supreme Overlord in 2020, you’re my immigration Czar.

    2. They may “refuse to accept freedom of conscience,” but that’s pissing against the tide. Assimilation is a black-hole-strength force here, which is what makes us a VERY different place to land than Europe. Ditto the force of American law.

      1. “Assimilation is a black-hole-strength force here”

        Lol, no. Maybe in the past, but that’s over.

        Smoke less crack.

    3. State or stateless?

      If we’re talking about a state then I would chose to restrict free movement in the interest of preserving the liberal society. If it’s stateless I’m pretty sure that restricting freedom of movement would be impossible, and theoretically, at least, unnecessary .

      1. If it’s state, it’s an inherently illiberal society. Checkmate!

    4. That’s always been a dilemma – does the right to free speech include the right to argue against the right to free speech? It’s easy enough to defend the right to speak against the right to free speech as long as it’s a fringe element in no danger of actually restricting anybody’s free speech rights but what do you do when a majority start supporting the idea of a right to take away the free speech rights of others? Arguing that we shouldn’t accept the idea that there’s a hate speech exception to free speech is all well and good, but what happens when they start passing hate speech laws and the courts start agreeing with them? Like say, using public accomodation laws to require cake decorators to put messages on their cakes they find abhorent or require cake decorators to refrain from putting messages others find abhorent on their cakes?

    5. There is no dilemma: American rights and freedoms only extend to those people who are already American citizens or are in the process of becoming so. I see no logical reason to extend American legal privileges to non-citizens. If they want said privilege they should renounce the barbarism of a civilization which is founded upon principles which say its ok to murder in cold blood people who display “undesirable” sexual preferences.

  17. Have a friend who believes Trump is the next Hitler, in part because he wants to ban Muslim immigration. I pointed out that the UK has debated banning him from the entering their country. His response? “Well, that’s different because Trump is hateful and divisive and will cause violence!”

    Face, meet palm. Palm, face.

    1. and will cause violence

      He already causes violence by victimized leftists who can’t control themselves because of his hateful existence.

    2. Your friend has a point. Everywhere Trump how, violence follows

    3. The guy sure is good for the lulz. It cracks me up that he said he’s going to tone it down. He’s cranked it up a notch or two. It sure is fun to watch the PC media shit their pants 24/7, and then sit there and squirm helplessly in it.

    4. Face, meet palm. Palm, face.

      You slapped him? Probably for the best.

  18. Well, this is embarrassing – the Catholic bishop of St. Petersburg ventures to interpret the Constitution, where unfortunately his expertise is less than that of an informed layperson:

    “Our founding parents had no knowledge of assault rifles which are intended to be weapons of mass destruction. In crafting the second amendment to the Constitution which I affirm, they thought only of the most awkward of pistols and heavy shotguns. I suspect they are turning in their graves if they can but glimpse at what their words now protect. It is long past time to ban the sale of all assault weapons whose use should be available only to the armed forces. If one is truly pro-life, then embrace this issue also and work for the elimination of sales to those who would turn them on innocents.”

    I’m sorry to disagree, Your Grace, but what if they took a similar approach to the First Amendment? Most “founding parents” were Protestant, many (like Jefferson and Adams) were opposed to Catholicism, so by what you are pleased to call your “logic,” most founders, when they wrote the First Amendment, thought only of Protestant religious services. And at the time of the Founding, there wasn’t even a Catholic hierarchy in the U.S., and Church property was held by laypeople. So your funhouse-mirror approach to original intent would not allow bishops to have control of Church property, or otherwise to run the Catholic Church as it is supposed to be run.

    1. Reposted from an earlier thread:

      That’s my favorite way to counter the only muskets crowd. I first go with the first amendment route getting them to admit that the principle of free speech applies to media forms that the founders never dreamed of, and then pointing out that the spirit of the second amendment allows for private ownership of tanks and aircraft carriers.

      They fucking hate it.

      1. My only nitpick is that you can’t “bear” a tank or aircraft carrier. Keep, maybe, but not bear.

        1. You can’t bear a cannon or a frigate either but there were privately owned cannons and warships at the time of the founding so I’m pretty sure that nitpick is a non-starter.

          1. I wouldn’t suggest that the feds could be able to take away someone’s tank, but if, say, they were just driving it around everywhere it might be considered a public nuisance by the local govt.

            1. tank, but if, say, they were just driving it around everywhere it might be considered a public nuisance by the local govt

              They are kind of hell on the roadz and the paint jobs of tailgaters..

            2. Actually, you might want to read up on the battle of Gonzales. One of the battles of the Texas Revolution. Basically, the Mexican army was upset that people had a cannon that they used to defend against indian attacks. When The Mexican army showed up, the defenders put up a flag with a drawing of a cannon, and “Come and Take It” underneath.

          2. Basically the point is that the most advanced military equipment of the time was all available to private persons. If one applies that spirit to today then my right to park an M1A2 in my driveway should be protected.

            1. Actually, you can occasionally buy tanks at auction. Usually the guns have been disabled, and they cost an arm and a leg to maintain, but if you just want a status symbol to waste money on, you can buy a tank.

              1. You want a tank? I can get you a tank, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don’t wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a tank by 3 o’clock this afternoon… with nail polish. These fucking amateurs…

        2. “My only nitpick is that you can’t “bear” a tank or aircraft carrier. Keep, maybe, but not bear.”

          “have or display as a visible mark or feature.
          “a small boat bearing a white flag”
          synonyms: display, exhibit, be marked with, show, carry, have
          “the bag bore my name””

          By that definition, having a tank is bearing it. So, yes, you can bear a tank.

      2. It’s even more fun to point out that Thomas Jefferson owned the 18th century equivalent of a machine gun:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

        1. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs.

          Some of us last longer, okay

        2. Jefferson had some really cool shit. He was quite the intellectual. Have you been to Monticello?

          1. Sadly, no. But I did read his collected papers. My grandfather had a wonderful library.

            1. The entire estate is incredible. I definitely recommend going there to see it.

        3. I saw a documentary that featured these guns, the first automatic rifles.

        4. Thought that Lewis and Clark took one of them on their trip too?

          But yeah, airguns used to be very powerful. They still make ones that are roughly equivalent to a .22. And stupidly accurate too. My late granddads Feinwerkbaus were wayyyy more accurate than I am.

      3. I like the “2A is for muskets” cliche because you can easily spin it to your advantage by pointing out that yes, the colonists had muskets – which were the standard weapon for most infantry units at the time. Therefore, citizens should be allowed to carry fully-automatic rifles, just like the military has!

    2. How the heck did you find this?

      1. It was reprinted as a Washington Post op-ed

    3. I saw a video that show the first few seconds of the shooting. You can’t see the shooter, but you can hear the shots. He was firing about 1 round a second, which is about as fast as you can shoot a semi-auto rifle while still being accurate.

      If he kept up that rate of fire for 2 minutes, that’s 120 rounds. And 5.56 mm ammo is meant to penetrate glass and other light barriers. In a crowded place, one bullet could easily wound 2 or 3 people.

      It’s likely he did all the killing that happened in the first 2 minutes, which I expect is about how long it took for the place to empty.

      1. I thought he was using .223? Might have been a false report, I’m not sure.

        1. .223 and 5.56 are essentially the same round. The differences between the two would not have mattered much in the confines of the club.

          1. One is like 25 times the other!

            /guywhohasnoideawhathe’stalkingabout

            1. BAN FULLY AUTOMATIC BULLETS.

            2. Most people apparently do not even know that an AR-15 is not a fully automatic weapon. Even the talking heads on Fox News were going on with that yesterday, it was making me furious.

          2. I thought that you can’t use a 5.56 with a .223 chambered rifle, or it’s not recommended or something…

            1. You’re correct, but pretty much any AR-15 you buy is gonna be chambered for 5.56, which means it’ll feed .223 just fine. Similar to the relationship between .357 Magnum and .38 Special. Not that it matters, because at those ranges (the close-quarters nightclub range) the terminal ballistics are essentially the same. I guess the guy was just a cheapskate.

              1. That makes sense. I mean, I knew the rounds were very similar, I just heard a report saying that they guy was using .223, so I wasn’t sure what they were getting at, or if they were implying anything by it. And then when you said 5.56, that’s why I asked.

            2. 5.56 has slightly higher pressures than .223 and slightly different dimensions (IIRC, 5.56 has a thicker case wall to deal with the higher pressures). Generally speaking, most .223 rifles should be capable of handling 5.56, with exceptions being very early .223 rifles, and some .223 target rifles that have high-tolerance bores.

              1. Quite right. Thank you, WW.

  19. White Bernie supporter vs. Mexican Trump supporter

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOxWs-zIPV8

    Oh man, this is gonna be *great*!

    1. Donald Trump is… pretty much anything and everything you’d need him to be, and within an hour everything and anything else.

    2. Did he just say it’s Trump’s fault that people spit on Trump supporters? My head hurts.

      1. “My head hurts.”

        That’s a common symptom among amateur derpetologists. You have to build up your tolerance.

        1. I am not worthy.

  20. Thinking of going to the People’s Republic of San Fran for the 4th. Anyone have an empty couch and/or interested in meeting up?

    1. A meetup at least, sure. You might be able to meet C. Anacreon and Suell if you’re lucky. The fearsome Sevo will probably decline, though.

      Email me at my handle @ gmail.

  21. “Trump Takes Credit for Hillary Clinton Using ‘Radical Islam,’ Calls on Her to Return Saudi Donations”

    The Saudis had given Hillary more than $10 million before she became Secretary of State. Since then, they’ve given her millions more.

    I can’t believe she won the nomination despite being on the Saudi payroll.

    We’re living in Bizarro World.

    1. Recent conversation with anti-Trump friend, paraphrased:

      Him: Hillary is more qualified! She was Secretary of State!

      Me: She resigned after the Benghazi attack that killed 4 Americans including the ambassador to Libya.

      Him: [very upset] Well, uh, that’s just not true! She left because she was getting ready for her presidential run- yeah that’s the ticket.

      Me: In 2012?

      Him: Yes! Shut up! Trump is a racist!

      1. technically she “resigned” (was given the boot) because no one wanted her having to deal with the press anymore.

        i think it was actually planned to get rid of her at the end of Obama’s first term anyway but your point is still legit.

      2. Send your friend this link:

        “Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors”

        http://tinyurl.com/o6x639e

        Everyone should read that article before they vote.

        Donald Trump calling on Hillary Clinton to return the millions the Saudis have given her is the smartest thing he’s done since he started running for President.

        Donald Trump should make like Cato the Elder, ending every speech with “Carthago delenda est”, only Trump should end every single speech with, “And Hillary Clinton should return the millions she accepted from the Saudis”.

    2. It’s because the left do not give one big shit at all how corrupt their leaders are. They care about their agenda, and if they think someone can achieve it, that’s all that matters. Most of them have no morals or principles themselves. I mean how principled can a person be who believes that it’s ok to steal from me what I’ve earned and give to them, who have done nothing to earn it? But this is what they believe.

      1. We’ve got to get to that critical mass of swing voters–the ones who don’t really start paying attention until after the conventions.

        They don’t know yet.

        I was talking to another person today who told me that she likes Hillary because Hillary is a woman.

        That’s really just about all she knows about Hillary–that she’s a woman.

        1. That person is too dumb to be allowed to vote.

      2. I tried explaining to a Hill supporter just how corrupt she was and her response was it’s ok, because they all are. You see, she watches a lot of House of Cards, so she knows.

  22. OT: My old friend Dominic and his wife were featured in a blogger’s article which was picked up by the Huffington Post. So that was nice.

    http://beyondclassicallybeauti…..l-couples/

    1. I am so glad we met when we did rather than in a time where our relationship would have been questioned, disparaged or forbidden. For that I am eternally grateful.

      As I understand it, black people are very censorious of other blacks dating outside the race.

      1. As I understand it, black people are very censorious of other blacks dating outside the race.

        While, like many stereotypes, there is a grain of truth, at this point it’s more of the punchline to an ethnic joke. Like frigid Jewish wives or the like. As of 2010, Blacks were 7.5% more likely to marry outside their race than Whites; however, Black men are a lot more likely to marry outside their race than Black women, which is the source of the stereotype of the Black woman angry over interracial dating. (cf. the same stereotype for Asian men). This is changing though, and the ratio of Black men to women who marry across race is approaching equity.

          1. I thought you were a strong independent woman who don’t need no man.

            1. Wait, commodious is female?

            2. Man, I miss my ex. I hated her bullshit and I don’t regret having had it end, but she was a sexy bitch. All tits and rump, narrow waist, knew how to doll up for a steak dinner. Turned me off white women. So much bullshit, but sexy as hell.

              1. It’s not white women, it’s American women. They’re beeotches, man. I stopped dating them long time ago. I’m married now, 5 years, to a fine lady from South America, so my dating days is over.

                1. Nah, man. White girls are just a pimply wreck. Black chicks are where it’s at.

        1. As usual, the seventies had it going on.

        2. i5 years ago I rarely saw a couple with a black woman and white guy. Now I’m pretty sure I think I see it more than I do black man / white woman couples. So yeah, I think you’re right about that.

          Indians seem to be the only exception to the mixed marriage trend, who I don’t know any who are married outside of their own race / culture, and never have, despite being around Indians for more than 20 years.

          The other trend I see is that every guy I work with or currently know is either married to an Asian or Latin woman. I don’t even personally know one guy today married to an American woman. Some single Asian guys that I know have expressed their opinion to me that they think American women are hot and they want to date them. I tell them, go ahead and take all you want, no one here wants them. Goodbye American woman…

          1. Some of the work recently has been building a salon for a Bangladeshi couple. They’re serial entrepreneurs and have a couple stores in town, and hire primarily middle-eastern/Persian women to run their threading stalls. Drop. Dead. Gorgeous, many of them. I’m in there running wire and I’m on fire.

            1. A lot of Persian women are very attractive, for sure. I’ve not had any experience with ME women, but I did meet one lady from Afghanistan online, once, and talked to her for a while. Very pretty, but weird. I mean like psychopath stalker weird. That didn’t last long.

              1. Funny story. While I was running A/V cables for one store, a woman walked in with her teenage daughter and proceeded to tell everyone that if her daughter isn’t threaded twice a week, she’d grow a unibrow and wouldn’t go out in public. And the kid just kinda took it.

          2. Indians seem extremely conservative to me, even more so than east Asians who are already quite conservative. I have a good Chinese male friend who wound up marrying a Spanish women; there’s a vibrant gay community for Asians here in NYC; etc etc, but I can’t picture any of that with Indians. And I work closely with like a million of ’em.

            1. I married an Indian woman (Brahmin caste) without her getting her family’s consent. Did not go over well. For example her brother-in-law forbid her own sister from speaking to her while we remained married. Lovely stuff.

              Eventually her parents softened a bit, but the extended family never got over the fact that she married a non-Indian, non-Brahmin man.

              1. A friend of mine, Indian guy married his Indian wife without consent from her parents and brought her here to the USA without their consent. They wouldn’t speak to either of them for years. Eventually the guy acquired enough wealth that apparently he was able to buy their approval.

            2. I’ve been around Indians for a long time, worked with them pretty much my entire career. They’re typically very nice folks, but they are quite conservative and keep to their own for he most part. They also do not seem to care at all for politics and their religion is very important to them.

              1. worked with them pretty much my entire career

                Yep. And every once in a while one of them disappears for a couple months and comes back with a wife.

              2. I know everything about Indian relationships because I’ve seen Mississippi Masala twice.

                1. I guess that’s why I don’t know much about their relationships, I haven’t watched that.

          3. The rate of interracial marriage in 1980 was only around 7%, now it’s over 15%, so it’s a little less than doubled in the time you’re describing. (i5 = 15, yeah?)

            Indians seem to be the only exception to the mixed marriage trend, who I don’t know any who are married outside of their own race / culture, and never have, despite being around Indians for more than 20 years.

            Funny how context determines things. Indian/African intermarriage is the history of my 2nd passport of Trinidad and Tobago.

        3. From What I understand, most of the complaints about African-American women back in the day was that white women were stealing all the good black men, and that black women were held to a beauty standard that black women couldn’t hope to meet. If some theoretical successful land-developer wanted some small-waisted blonde bimbo trophy wife, then he wasn’t dating a black woman.

          After all, if you’re a guy with six pack abs, and a six figure salary, then plenty of women will be happy to give you their digits, regardless of melanin content.

          1. Note, I’m not arguing black isn’t beautiful, just that it wasn’t considered beautiful back in the day.

  23. The more I think about it, the more this bit from Jacob Sullum’s piece earlier today strikes me as one of the most bizarre and weasel-y excuses I’ve ever read:

    Last December, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a leading Trump supporter, released a list of about three dozen immigrants, refugees, and legal visitors who were “recently implicated in terrorist activities,” only one-third of whom were accused of planning or carrying out attacks against targets in the United States.

    “Miss, don’t worry about the rapists who’ve moved into your neighborhood. The problem is quite exaggerated, because a full two-thirds of them do their raping elsewhere! Not in your neighborhood at all! So you see, there’s no reason to listen to those alarmists and become overly concerned.”

    1. Only 1/3 of the M in this bowl are poisonous. Why aren’t you eating any?

  24. https://twitter.com/CrimeADay

    31 USC ?5111(d)(2), 31 CFR ?82.1(b) & 82.2(a)(2) make it a federal crime to leave the US with more than $25 worth of pennies in your pocket.

    50 USC ?3515 & 32 CFR ?1903.13 make it a federal crime to get drunk, go to CIA headquarters, and interfere with government employees there.

    18 USC ?1657 makes it a federal crime to write a letter to a pirate.

    7 USC ?7734(a)(1)(B) & 7 CFR ?319.56?66(e) make it a federal crime to import dirty Mexican potatoes.

    1. 18 U.S. Code ? 1657 – Corruption of seamen and confederating with pirates

      Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

      Whoever attempts to corrupt any commander, master, officer, or mariner to yield up or to run away with any vessel, or any goods, wares, or merchandise, or to turn pirate or to go over to or confederate with pirates, or in any wise to trade with any pirate, knowing him to be such; or

      Whoever furnishes such pirate with any ammunition, stores, or provisions of any kind; or

      Whoever fits out any vessel knowingly and, with a design to trade with, supply, or correspond with any pirate or robber upon the seas; or

      Whoever consults, combines, confederates, or corresponds with any pirate or robber upon the seas, knowing him to be guilty of any piracy or robbery; or

      Whoever, being a seaman, confines the master of any vessel?

      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
      (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 775; Pub. L. 101?647, title XXV, ??2527(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4877; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, ??330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

      At least combating piracy is in the Constitution.

      1. Whoever, being a seaman, confines the master of any vessel

        *blushes*

      2. While it seems like a silly law, making it illegal to pay ransom to pirates is actually kind of a decent idea, in a, “We don’t negotiate with pirates kind of way,” since prates still hijack ships and ransom the crews.

        Yeah, the getting drunk and breaking into CIA headquarters is a bit of headscratcher. What event happened that caused that to be a federal law?

        Was CIA security and the Langely PD unable to stop Steve the wino from waltzing in, and start ranting about mind control?

        1. Yeah, the getting drunk and breaking into CIA headquarters is a bit of headscratcher. What event happened that caused that to be a federal law?

          Was CIA security and the Langely PD unable to stop Steve the wino from waltzing in, and start ranting about mind control?

          Think about this. George H. W. Bush was CIA director 1976 to 1977, which is exactly when young W.’s alcoholism was at it’s peak.

          Do the math.

      1. There are NO Mexican potatoes. That’s what makes the law so stupid. Everyone knows that potatoes are from Peru. Peru and Idaho, that’s it. It’s like people who think chicken tacos are a thing, not even knowing there are no chickens in Mexico. Dummies.

        1. There are people who claim fish tacos are a thing. SMDH.

          1. Fish tacos are the best thing to happen to white fish since tartar sauce.

  25. Check it out:

    Looks like the shooter sold his house to his sister for $10 in April. And his second wife (not the first one, who’s been getting all the attention) scrubbed her social media history. Consider the source, but if it’s true it does look a tad suspicious.

      1. I’d kill for that face.

        Not other people, but… squirrels, maybe.

      2. Uzbekistan? Does she have plow experience?

      3. She has a cosmetology license, so she’s obviously a genius.

    1. Looks like the shooter sold his house to his sister for $10 in April.

      The iffy-sourced link above suggested he sold it to his brother for $100 ….which on inspection looks like it has no better basis than “someone tweeted it”. and there’s a screenshot which could mean anything.

      And your link doesn’t seem to have any source at all. the linked wapo story has no mention of home-sale.

      The only references online are to this same article.

      Sounds like people are rumour-recycling.

      1. Yeah, that’s why I said, “consider the source,” since there’s not a whole lot of meat to substantiate the claim (especially coming from a site named Fire Andrea Mitchell). Point of minor correction – it was his brother-in-law, but not that it makes much of a difference if true, anyway. I thought it was interesting but you’re probably right; rumor-recycling and speculation.

  26. So Trump heaves a wet one to HRC, and her advisors (and therefore, she) are stuck trying to handle the pitch. No great surprise; she (and crew) are well equipped to deal with Bern Boys and the obvious (and true) attacks on her sleaze and felonies, but when someone like Trump hits her in the contributions, she’s left swinging and missing.
    They deserve each other.

    1. I think that the real takeaway from this is that Sir Edmund Hillary demands such a cult of loyalty that her staff aren’t willing or able to tell her that she’s swinging and missing. It’s downright medieval.

    2. To use a sports metaphor, sometimes some coach comes out with some new strategy that other teams just can’t handle. Hillary, and her team are used to just calling Rebublicans racist, misogynists whatever, and Republicans would waste their time trying to refute those charges.

      Trump has figured out that he just ignore all those accusations, and say, “So what?” and people will vote for him anyway.

      1. As the old saying goes, If you’re explaining, you’re losing. Or, more pungently, there’s the (possibly true!) story about LBJ spreading a rumor that his opponent was a pig-fucker. Aide: “Lyndon, you know he doesn’t do that!” Johnson: “I know. I just want to make him deny it.” If you’re denying, you’re losing.

        1. That’s the thing about Trump. He’s incoherent on policy, but I don’t see him walking away like a dog between his tail if Candy Crowley calls him on it.

          1. Err. I meant Trump’s not going to walk away, like a dog with his tail between his legs.

          2. “Who’s Candy Crowley? I work with the biggest people, i’ve never heard of her. Unprofessional!”

      2. I mean, you KNOW that this is their strategy, they’ve been doing it for so long. Watching one GOP candidate after another just turn into a quivering glob of jello every time they run that play, even though they know it’s coming, I guess that’s why we started calling them the stupid party. If they were an NFL team, the’d be 0-16 every season. ‘They’re running the race card play again! Just stand there, don’t tackle them!’.

  27. Eleanor Rigby works surprisingly well as a heavy metal song:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9XNoU3tHqU

    1. Derpy! Quality fucking find! Reminds me of another metal cover I heard a while back.

      1. In my search for derp, I occassionally find other things. Like the punk rock version of Somewhere Over the Rainbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM_F83qdB4U

        1. I’m sure good covers stand out as bright little islands in the Sea of Derp.

        2. of the genres of music which challenge me to find any redeeming aspects of….

          …the offshoot of (self-described) “Punk” which seemed to be born around the mid 1990s with Green Day/Blink 182… and culminated in a frothy mix of cookie-cutter bands in the early 2000s…which seems conceptually rooted in SoCal and which maintains a healthy-friendliness/sibling-relationship with “Ska-punk”?….. and for whatever reason became the preferred soundtrack for snowboarding videogames?

          That stuff?

          Makes me metaphysically ill

          there’s like a million things wrong about it which i feel would bother me deeply even if i weren’t an overly analytical snob. The disney-level of cleanliness in the engineering, the ‘cuteness’ of the singer voices, the metronomic-precision of the rhythm guitars that say, “we feel guilty when we screw up even a little”….

          it not only bears absolutely no family resemblance…. at all to their claimed parentage… its like they went out of their way to say, “yes, the fashion is nice, but does the music really need to be so *messy*? and we should really get more corporate-marketing tie-ins before we finish the record”

          in short = i don’t have a word for what that stuff is called, but its not what i think of when i think “punk”

          1. * this was not a reaction or comment upon anything above… just a thought which popped into my head

            1. Green Day is to actual punk as Pat Boone is to “Tutti Frutti”

              1. as Pat Boone is to “Tutti Frutti”

                I feel like this is actually a subtle dig at Pat Boones heterosexual-manliness

                1. Let me add = I think Pat Boone’s Heavy Metal Record was pretty awesome

            2. Fair enough, pop punk is a somewhat divisive subject. I would recommend some Dead Kennedys, their music is strangely prophetic.

              Holidays in Cambodia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTsXHXMkJA It’s a 30 year old song bitching about SJWs.

              California Uber Alles is another good one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoA_zY6tqQw

              1. I had the DK’s records when they first came out (usually stolen from someone who stole them from someone)

                as with the above mentions, i don’t think there is even a remote genetic connection between the DK’s and the…. above described stuff.

                if there is some more-ancient (read: the 80s) great-grandparent of the stuff i am referring to, its probably the Dead Milkmen, or some other “punkish” cute-music from so-cal.

                but i honestly feel like charting any further back than Green Day is enormously unfair and probably wrong anyway. something happened between the late 80s and the early 1990s (grunge?) where whatever was still “punk” in actual Ethos decided to completely change its actual medium, clothes, instruments, etc

                i think Kid606 (or any of the Tigerbeat glitch-stuff), for example, is like 100,000,000x more “Punk” than anything that was done by teenage people with tattoos and guitars around the same time period (late 1990s/early 2000s)

                but whatever. i’m not really making an argument or a point or anything at all other than to note that i think that…. stuff…. mentioned? is like the musical-antichrist and it makes my skin crawl

          2. “Pop-punk” is probably the closest possible descriptor, but even then it’s probably closer to just plain old “Pop.” Remember Good Charlotte?

            You’re welcome.

            1. yeah, the problem is it Keeps Using That Word

              i can’t bring myself to draw any connection between the “P” term and …that

              it owes far more to ABBA than Iggy

  28. Since 1971 OPEC is bullied to sell Oil exclusively in US dollars resulting in friction between 1.8 billion Muslims Worldwide and The West;
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ebt-secret
    http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a…..eneration/

  29. “his family emigrated from Afghanistan to the U.S. (in the 1980s).”

    Ah yes. Back when radical Muslim terrorists were our allies. Unless you have a time machine and want to go back and tell Reagan that al-Qaeda is NOT comparable to our founding fathers, or unless you are proposing that we try to figure out who WILL be our enemy thirty years from NOW, and propose we block them from immigrating to our country, pointing out this family was let in in the 80’s will not solve anything.

    “He noted a Pew Research poll that found 99 percent of Afghans support sharia law, or law based on the Koran, as the official law of their country.”

    Sharia is not a monolithic thing. Sharia is not “law based on the Quran” so much as it is “law based on the Quran and Hadiths”, and with many, many people disagreeing on which Hadiths are valid and which are not, wanting “sharia law” could mean next to anything. An example might be apostasy, which is a sin in the Quran but list no punishment apart from hell. Whether these things have any corporeal punishments, and what those punishments are, widely varies from person to person depending on which Hadiths they accept or reject.

    Still, though, it’s sad that this speech has more sanity in it than any major-party presidential candidate (not county primary candidates) has ever offered up on the subject of foreign policy…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.