Donald Trump

Why Trump Will Wreck the Constitution Worse Than Even Hillary

He has not a constitutional bone in his body

|

Libertarian law professor Ilya Somin has an excellent piece arguing why libertarians and conservatives should worry more about Trump appointing the next generation of Supreme Court

Trump Taj
Donkey Hoter Foter

justices than Hillary. (And it's not because Trump thinks that judges sign bills and there are XII articles in the Constitution.)

He notes:

Trump is not just a conventional Republican candidate. He wants to remake the GOP into a "workers party"(as he himself calls it), similar to the big-government right-wing nationalist parties of Western Europe, such as France's National Front. Like Trump, these parties combine xenophobia and protectionism with a strong authoritarian streak, and support for an expansive welfare and regulatory state (so long as the beneficiaries are primarily people of the "right" racial and ethnic background).

If Trump wins the presidency and his agenda is seen as a political success, he will have the opportunity to move the GOP further in a National Front-like direction. And a Trumpist/National Front party will have little use for limited government-originalist judicial philosophy. To the contrary, federalism, the separation of powers, and many individual rights limitations on government power would be an impediment to its agenda. A Trumpist GOP would, over time, seek to appoint judges in line with its priorities.

And if you want some proof positive that Trump is less wedded to the US Constitution than his first two wives, check out my piece in The Week today where I list six of Trump's many constitution-busting proposals. Indeed, no amendment will be safe under Trump.

"All of them betray Trump's contempt for federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and basic American political norms," I note. "They also show just how ruthless he will be in discrediting anyone or anything that comes in the way of his political ambitions."

Go here to read the whole thing.

Advertisement

NEXT: No President Should Be 'Shaping' the Lives of Children for Four or Eight Years

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. [pops popcorn, sits back]

    1. Make some for me!

    2. Actually, you don’t need to pop any. Just put a bowl by your computer and wait for John and Cytotoxic to make their appearances.

      1. I haven’t seen Cytotoxic around very much lately. I think his mom is making him do summer school.

        1. He was around last night, doing his thing.

          1. Corpsefucking dead threads is kind of Toxic thing, isn’t it?

            1. Pretty much. And sounding an awful lot like a Clinton cheerleader.

        2. He’s been busy writing Justin Trudeau erotic fan fiction in his dream journal.

          1. Ew.

            No, seriously. Ew.

          2. Is there anything worse than sticky Canadian ejaculatory material poutine?

            1. Why cross out a word only to replace it with an exact synonym?

          3. One more argument for voting for Trump. Can you imagine him meeting with a Sensitive Man like Trudeau?

            Is it considered an act of war if the US president gives the Canadian PM a wedgie?

            1. The joke is on you. Trudeau does not wear underwear.

              1. And Trump just stinkpalmed himself with another dude’s buttfunk.

              2. I wouldn’t wear any either, if it got yanked up to my ears every time I put it on.

        3. He shows up after midnight, after his mom goes to sleep and he can fire up the laptop under his blankie.

        4. He is probably off at a voluntary diversity and inclusion camp for the next couple weeks.

    3. Your thoughts and prayers are with you.

    4. Yep, I’m sort of in that boat. My GJ vote won’t prevent either of the major parties from winning – not yet. But Trump is *something completely different* in several ways. This, in and of itself, is likely more good than bad. But, in any case, we will get the government we deserve (or, as others have said, a person is reasonable, people are not.)

    5. Shika’s 6 reasons:

      1. He wants to give cop killers the death penalty

      2. He wants to strip some Latino Americans of their citizenship

      3. He wants to seize the assets of foreign nationals

      4. He wants to force Muslims to register in a database

      5. He wants to silence his media critics

      6. He wants to crack down on judges who disagree with him

      *sticks hand in Citizen’s popcorn bowl*

      1. [Pours sriracha and butter over Citizen X’s popcorn and stirs vigorously, then takes a handful and scrolls.]

      2. *kicks over popcorn bowl, storms out of room*

      3. Sounds a lot like Lincoln or FDR. History will call Trump a great President. Especially if he wins a war.

        1. If only we could elect a a formerly licensed attorney who was a constitutional law professor and educated at Harvard.

  2. Dipshit finally finished stirring the soup after the latest atrocity from one of her Islamonazi heroes.

    1. Dipshit doesn’t rhyme with Shikha. You’re not even trying anymore Mike.

      1. It’s beginning to look like “Block Yomomma” was the Mike M. equivalent of a lucky fluke, which calls into question the idea that the universe ISN’T both conscious and actively malevolent.

        1. So maybe it’s conscious but, like, retarded?

          1. Maybe retardation is really an indicator of a consciousness that surpasses human…

            Naahhhhh

            1. Mike M. — Proof that the universe wants cake.

  3. Like Trump, these parties combine xenophobia and protectionism with a strong authoritarian streak, and support for an expansive welfare and regulatory state (so long as the beneficiaries are primarily people of the “right” racial and ethnic background).

    Under our current understanding of the Constitution, none of these are unconstitutional.

    To the contrary, federalism, the separation of powers, and many individual rights limitations on government power would be an impediment to its agenda.

    And this is a change from the status quo, how?

    1. And for fucks sake, Hillary and the Dems have flat out said they want to “overturn” the first amendment and second amendment.

      1. Hillary’s got the gun-grabbing executive orders penned already and is just awaiting coronation. Stuff a gun grabber into the vacant seat on the supreme court and she’s all set.

    2. He’s open and unashamed about it, something other Democrats have wished they could be for decades.

    3. xenophobia

      LOL, anything less than welcoming with open arms and showering with gifts is now worse than Hitler.

  4. During GOP week, the coverage was, understandably, centered on nominee Donald Trump. On the other hand, during Dem week, the coverage is, understandably, centered on GOP nominee Donald Trump.

    1. Trump Derangement Syndrome infects all parts of the brain.

    2. Yeah, I guess the rationale that we were constantly getting TRUMP bashing stories last week because it was GOP convention week was obviously bullshit.

      1. GOP week – Trump’s an idiot.

        Dem week – Trump’s a bigger idiot than Hillary.

        Fair. And. Balanced!

        1. Matt Welch: “Shikha, it’s DNC convention week, and we desperately need you to write something negative about Hillary to make it seem like we’re still a libertarian magazine.”

          Dipshit (pounding fists on table): “I don’t wanna. I DON’T WANNA!!!”

          Matt: “Come on now Shikha, please, we need this from you!”

          Dipshit: “Can I at least write that while Hillary is kind of bad, Drumpf is a million times worse?”

          Matt (sighing): “Oh geez… OK, I guess so. It’s what we’ve been saying for months now anyway.”

          1. Welch isn’t in charge anymore. Lodge your complaint with KMW.

            1. KM-W is in charge of the magazine. She’s just a contributor to the website.

        2. Trump represents an actual insurgency in the normal proceedings, an electoral overturn of the reliably shrugworthy GOP in favor of honest-to-god nationalism. Hillary represents the same plodding, methodical, statist drive she always has. The Democrat primary is worth discussing only inasmuch as it’s influenced by Bernie, another insurgent, and his supporters there. Otherwise, what’s new here? Racial politicking, gun banning, socialism, welfarism, an assiduous avoidance of anything related to foreign policy… who’s surprised?

          1. No, that’s not possible. The only possible reason is that every Reason writer is a secret Democrat determined to get Hillary elected.

          2. You say that like it’s a bad thing.

        3. It’s like you guys block out all the anti-Hillary articles so you can bitch about a lack of anti-Hillary articles.

          1. I’m actually keeping score today.

            So far, the Dem Conventions articles that slam Trump outnumber the ones that don’t 4 – 2.

            Doesn’t that strike you as a little odd?

        4. We disparage Trump. You decide.

    3. To be fair, some of them are trying really, really, really hard to appear fair and balanced this week, but it’s asking way too much for The Dipshit to even make a token effort at that.

      Needless to say, you certainly don’t have to strain your brain too hard to guess who most of the coverage will be centered on from the end of the convention through to election day!

    4. That seems to be the case with all of the media. Hilldog can kiss her post- convention bounce goodbye. Once again, Trump sucks all the oxygen out of the room.

      1. Can you imagine the uproar if Trump were to visit Philly this week?

        Maybe ask for a joint presser with Hillary so they can issue a combined plea for civility or somesuch?

        C’mon, Trump, get on it. You could easily turn the DNC into a complete horror show and be the first Republican to ever get a polling bounce from the Dem convention.

        1. That would be hilarious. He should do that.

          1. Yes! Actually Gary Johnson should too, but it’s not his style.

            1. Actually, IIANM, Robert, GayJay and The Gelded One made a visit to Cleveland to sniff Troomp Cheetoh Dust with the RNC masses, no?

              Why can’t they visit with Ole Hilldawg in Filthy, and maybe bask in The Glory of Herselfness, with The Gelded One and Herself trading war stories about that schmuck Nixon (who could only dream, if even fathom, of the shit with which she has gotten away).

        2. If I would ever – god forbid – run for office, RC Dean would be hired as the campaign manager

    5. This seems to be the only article centered on Trump on the main H&R page at the moment. I think Dalmia’s job is just to annoy H&R regulars as much as possible.

      May be a little confirmation bias going on here.

    6. I have to revise my earlier comments that this week’s dem con would be the same coverage as last week’s rep con. I was wrong. Shikha is a derp. Reason needs to put a jackass logo on it’s home page.

      1. Shikha represents all of Reason now?

        I don’t know that I’d call the coverage the same as that of the RNC, but I don’t see anything positive about Democrats being posted here.

        1. The Rep week convention coverage was probably 90% anti-Trump, and maybe 20% anti-Hillary.

          The Dem week convention coverage is, by my count, 60% anti-Trump and probably 50% anti-Hillary.

          1. Probably pretty accurate.

            I just don’t see how one makes the leap to “they must all want Hillary to win”.

  5. Jeez, don’t make me defend Trump here.

    I think Trump is more flagrant in his overall disregard for the Constitution in favor of strong-man governance. But Clinton is actively campaigning against the plain text of both the first and second amendments.

    Can we just agree they’re both too shitty to vote for?

    1. I don’t think Shikha or the law professor care about the second amendment

      1. I though Shika did an article about a gun company in India making .32’s so girls would be harder to rape.

        1. Then I’m not sure why she thinks Hillary would be better especially since the law professor doesn’t address it

      2. The VC is a pro-second blog, but I don’t recall Somin writing about it

    2. Trump and Hillary are equally shitty. If you think one is better than the other in some way, I don’t know what to tell you.

      1. One shouldn’t be content to ask how shitty the candidates are. Shittiness has multiple dimensions and, while I agree that scalar values of Clinton’s and Trump’s shittiness vectors are approximately equal, they are quite different. So the appropriate question should be with respect to how bad the candidates would serve as president of the US. That, of course, is not deterministic but rather probabilistic.

        On a presidential horribleness scale running from 0 (say, the best features of the George Washington, Grover Cleveland, and William Henry Harrison presidencies) to 100 (say, the worst features of the Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Clinton and Bush/Obama presidencies), I estimate mean values of around 90 for both candidates. The big difference between the two is in the standard deviation in the predicted presidential horribleness. With Clinton, the standard deviation is close to zero: she’s guaranteed to be horrible. With Trump, the standard deviation is much larger: his actualized horribleness may be much better than the mean or much worse.

        The reason why Trump is much better than Hillary is that, if his actualized horribleness were to approach the expected value of his horribleness, he could be impeached and removed from office. There is no chance that Clinton could be impeached.

  6. Trump’s attacks on the Constitution tend to be blunt and direct.

    Hillary’s attacks on the Constitution tend to be subtle and couched in a veneer of policy ideas, but they are attacks nonetheless.

    When Trump says he wants to make it easier to sue newspapers for libel, it is obvious to most people that this is an attack directly on the First Amendment. When Hillary says she wants to “get money out of politics”, it is less obvious that this too is an attack on the First Amendment, and harder for constitutional defenders to make an argument about why this is a bad idea.

    So from this point of view, I would find Hillary’s constitutional attacks to be more troubling.

    And this is coming from a guy who is not at all a Trump fan.

    1. Trump’s attacks on the Constitution tend to be blunt and direct.

      Hard to get more blunt and direct that supporting a new amendment to eviscerate free speech. And that’s Hillary’s position.

      Honestly, though, she knows the actual amendment process is a dead letter. SCOTUS has been doing a fine job of rewriting the Constitution since FDR. She’s one or two Justices away from getting the Constitution she wants.

    2. Hillary is only less obvious to people who have completely deluded themselves. Particularly on the 2nd amendment. But convincing yourself that the government being allowed to ban books is great because corporations aren’t people is some pretty severe detachment from reality too.

    3. The bottom line is Hillary’s dream is of a Soviet style state where she is Premier for life. Trump is nothing like that, for all his failings.

      1. You’re confusing the style of governance of the USSR’s founders?the ruthless Lenin & his gangster hireling Stalin?w a “Soviet style state”. Notice that starting w Kruschev, they used their real names, not adopted revolutionary ones like “Lenin” & “Stalin”, & acted as regular politicians. Did they still struggle for power? Sure, as when Brezhnev slowly squeezed out Kosygin. But they did it by normal political means, not bloody purges.

        BTW, I think we’d’ve had perestroika & glasnost earlier had Kosygin beat out Brezhnev in their struggle.

  7. Why Trump Will Wreck the Constitution Worse Than Even Hillary

    This ought to be good.

    If Trump wins the presidency and his agenda is seen as a political success, he will have the opportunity to move the GOP further in a National Front-like direction.

    No, he wont. He will constantly receive criticism/backlash from the national news media and both major parties. He will be able to do very little of anything. I’m, personally, more concerned with a certain other candidate that is running that has a long history of scandal and corruption that will receive very little scrutiny by the national news media and her own party if elected. This one took money from foreign govt’s while sitting as secstate and continues to do so, and this one essentially committed treason by intentionally jeopardizing state secrets. Let’s have some perspective here.

    1. My point too. See below.

    2. Other than Johnson/Weld winning, this alternative might well be the best outcome we could possibly hope for.

      Elect a President that everyone hates. Then pack Congress with politicians who hate him so as to effectively castrate the executive. The judiciary is going to have its hands full with whatever stupid shit actually does manage to slip through the cracks. While nothing is getting done, we can all sit back and laugh for four years at the fiasco and maybe both parties learn their lesson and put someone forth that isn’t evil.

      Oh, tender fantasy, why couldn’t you be precisely so?

      1. So that’s what “Love Trump’s Hate” means!

      2. You think the best we could hope for is for everything to stay the same as it is now, for as long as possible? Or do you just mean that about 2017-20?

        1. Let’s be honest. At this point it’s just damage control. Having four years of nothing getting done is preferable to four years of what either of the two jackasses most likely to be elected want to do. After four years of that horseshit, the country ought to have had enough and hopefully vow never to repeat it. The proggie press screaming bloody murder during the entirety of a Trump administration would see to that.

          As it stands now, the judiciary is the only branch of government doing anything vaguely libertarian. Everything would keep going on autopilot, sucking like it does, but not sucking any more or less anyway.

          Even were your suggestion the outcome, I think that a creative constituency could find ways to innovate around a shitty, stagnant bureaucracy if the red tape remained a constant, known factor, for an extended period of time. Our economy does reasonably well on its own despite having been saddled and ridden around by the inmates that run our asylum.

    3. I’m voting for the under-prepared small state governor who will actually try to cut spending and defend some of our constitutional rights.

      1. I think Johnson could actually achieve some cuts, but only small ones, and then maybe only as against projected growth rather than vs. current layouts. SocSec is an enormously hard-shelled nut to crack, so good luck there. Otherwise he’ll have to make various tactical deals to get the lower of what the Dems & Reps want to spend on various programs. That could slice off a few percent. But that would still be great.

    4. She would receive scrutiny, but in a way that’s dismissive of any thought that she could be corrupt or tyrannical.

  8. Why Trump Will Wreck the Constitution Worse Than Even Hillary

    This post doesn’t really compare Trump to Hillary. It just bashes Trump.

    1. From the gal that defended parenting licenses.

      SHIIIKHAAAA.

      1. If these had been required, your house would be much quieter.

        1. If I were shot for the glory of our homeland, my house would also be much quieter. It wouldn’t be terribly constitutional, though. What a damned good thing it’s just a goddamned piece of paper which people only periodically care about and doesn’t stop all these wonderful-for-us agendas going around.

          1. The constitution is not a suicide pact.

  9. Worse than “if it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations”?

  10. check out my piece in The Week today

    I only take orders from my dominatrix, and she would never subject me to anything that bad.

    1. Yeah. I clicked the Ilya Somin link thinking it was probably the more rational of the two stories cited here and it was just 100% unadulterated pants shitting speculation.

  11. At this point I’d rather replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Hitler than Stalin. The former’s nomination for appointment would, at least, be controversial.

  12. Didn’t Trump give a list of judges he would appoint? Were they all Far-Right/Fascist/New-Right/Boogeymen too?

    1. With a big fat caveat about other judges he might consider.

      He’s clung to nothing in his candidacy other than anti-trade hysterics. Why would you trust him on some list her cribbed from those Heritage cucks?

      1. “Why would you trust him on some list her cribbed from those Heritage cucks?”

        I didn’t say I trusted him, I’m just charitable. I really don’t know why I should think the authors really know him any better though. Him not having a life in politics makes it difficult to judge him for better or for worse.

        1. I don’t think there’s any “there” there, anyway. The projection onto this guy from right-wingers is nearly as bad as the left’s messianic visions of Obama the Healer. He’s hedged and flipped and discredited himself on every single policy point (excepting his inflexible hostility to trade–libertarian winner here, guys!), and acknowledges, even if his backers don’t, that everything he says is an opening bid for negotiation. And that’s what concerns me most: not his political schizophrenia, but what he’s willing to trade to get concessions from Congress.

          1. “The projection onto this guy from right-wingers is nearly as bad as the left’s messianic visions of Obama the Healer.”

            Agreed, with the caveat that the counter-parts painting him as the Final Destroyer are just as obnoxious and ridiculous. Him being open to negotiation *could* be an improvement depending on what he’s negotiating on. (easy example, lower taxes)

            Being wary of him is completely sensible though.

          2. OK, what do you think he’d be willing to trade away, & what do you think Congress would concede in return? What if they’re both good things?

      2. Trump has been complaining about the US trade policy for 30 years. Consistently.

        1. Not to mention that trade policy falls pretty squarely in the Executive’s lap. SCOTUS has fuck all to do with trade.

      3. He’s clung to nothing in his candidacy other than anti-trade hysterics.

        WTH? Haven’t we already had a decidedly pro-kingsmen court for the last couple of decades? He’s running on that too. He also happens to be a greedy real estate developer. Kelo v. New London and possibly asset forfeiture are the Court issues that separate Trump from Hillary.

        Barring some unexpected deaths/retirements, it’s not like they’re going to reverse the undoing of the Dredd Scott decision or undo Brown v. BOE or anything.

  13. So far today, we have two articles on the Dem convention not slamming Trump, two that do, and one free-standing anti-Trump screed.

    Just in case you’re keeping score.

    1. Yeah but during RNC week they were also all over Trump. It’s called consistency.

    2. That’s the way, uh hum, that’s the way I like it.

      Libertarians naturally hate Hillary. However, there is a retard contingent that is into Trump. That’s why more focus needs to be placed there. Capisce?

  14. Well,there’s Wilson ,FDR,Truman,LBJ and Obama on the dem side that look awful on the constitution. And Nxion and GW Bush were bad,but,still not in FDR’s class. Hillary hates the first,second and fourth. Will attack the oil and coal companies and force a large increase in wages down the throats of businesses large and small..Then there’s the war boner she carry’s around. Trump very bad and Hillary is maybe worse.

  15. Absolutely true. They are both terrible but Trump is terrible-squared. He has shown nothing but contempt for judges that rule properly on laws that thwart his latest schemes and frauds. The only amendment he will protect is gun rights – but then there will be extensive lists of ‘sickos’ and other opponents of his regime as diagnosed by his army of online trolls. At least Hillary might pick Obama, who knows how to vigorously defend free speech and I suspect has seen the light.

    1. At least Hillary might pick Obama, who knows how to vigorously defend free speech

      -1 jailed YouTube filmmaker.

      1. Great minds respond to derp alike.

      2. You keep defending Obama so that shows how much you contempt you have for the constitution and free speech.

    2. At least Hillary might pick Obama, who knows how to vigorously defend free speech and I suspect has seen the light.

      ?1 Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

      1. True but I blame Loretta and Comey for that. And technically it was for violating the terms of his probation. And Trump is way worse on videos – he would jail you for merely clicking a link. Even derps like you can see the difference.

        1. True

          … yet you don’t retract what you said

          I blame Loretta and Comey

          The ADA for New York (Nakoula lived in Los Angeles) and an investment manager for Bridgewater Associates are responsible for this how, exactly?

          technically it was for violating the terms of his probation

          WHEW! Glad the President is only technically against free speech.

          he would jail you for merely clicking a link

          The best facts are those made up on the spot.

          Even derps like you can see the difference.

          Clinton has been vehement in her opposition to Citizens United, it is true.

          1. Every time you feed the troll, Lena Dunham films another nude scene, kb.

            1. The most sickening thought you have ever entered on a website.

            2. If that keeps her mouth full so she can’t talk, I in favor.

            3. Hmm, Lena Dunman is a Hillary supporter. Where is my shocked face…

    3. The Clintons steal billions from starving people in developing countries and Hillary is guilty of espionage, and other national security crimes. There is no comparison. Get some perspective.

  16. Using the DOJ to prosecute climate deniers and eventually any form of dissent or deviation from prog goodthink is far less dangerous than a failed attempt at making it easier to sue journalists.

    Sounds legit Shikha. Really solid.

    I wonder if any of these TDS propagandists worry that in the future they may get called out for being mendacious and have all their lying bullshit thrown in their faces.

    Hint: Your personal credibility if far more valuable than having your team win or the other team lose.

    1. Your personal credibility if far more valuable than having your team win or the other team lose.

      Not if you’re trying to keep your resume palatable to legacy media.

    2. I read Hustler ad once about team players. It’s a chick that handle the front five on a basketball team using the usual holes and both hands.

      I don’t know if the author is that dedicated (or talented) but she seems to be coming up to speed for team blue.

      1. +1 prehensile lizard tail

  17. Trump Derangement Syndrome or Trump Defending Syndrome: which is worse?

    1. Uh, I didn’t get that memo…

    2. TDS is good, it has electrolytes.

      1. TDS has what the commentariat craves.

    3. Trump.

    4. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing. Trump Defending Syndrome is a misnomer for Calling Bullshit on TDS’ers Syndrome.

      1. Yeah, no.

        You can hate on and defend a politician without any sort of syndrome at all. Both are just a shortcut to actually making an argument.

      2. [slaps Trump’s cock out of Suthenboy’s mouth]

        1. [slaps Hillary cock out of Chipper’s mouth]

  18. “Binary Choices” Like Trump or Clinton Are So 20th Century
    Nick Gillespie|July 24, 2016

    It Doesn’t Matter Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump Is Worse
    Ed Krayewski|July 25, 2016

    But Seriously Lets Stop Kidding Ourselves, Of Course One is So So Worse
    Does it Matter? July 26, 2016

  19. Articles like this miss the point. The question is not which of the two would do the worst things if given free rein. The real question is which of the two will be more likely to get away doing with the bad things they want to do.

    A President Trump would have almost all of the political, media, intellectual and academic establishment opposed to him and watching him like a hawk from day one, looking for the first misstep. Even his “own” party establishment, regardless of what they say publicly, would be looking for the first opportunity to be rid of him.

    President Hillary, on the other hand, can count on the unwavering support of her party establishment, the mainstream media, and much of the intellectual and academic establishment. Thus, even if Trump’s ideas are worse than hers, her still really-bad-ideas stand a much better chance of becoming reality. That is why, if forced to choose the “least bad” of two bad options, I would say that Trump is less bad.

    1. But I also agree with the comment directly below.

      1. Boo Berry is the greatest cereal ever invented.

        1. I’m with #2 on this one, Boo Berry really was the best.

          1. Cracklin’ Oat Bran would like to have a word.

            1. I take it back, that stuff is weirdly delicious.

            2. So would Cracklin’ Trump Brand.

          1. Reese Puffs filled the hole in my life left by Oreo-Os. I seriously take them almost everywhere I go.

        2. Fruity Pebbles. Yabba Dabba do, mother fucker.

        3. Cornflakes. They cured my masturbation.

          1. Working as intended.

          2. Did you soak them in milk first at least?

    2. President Hillary, on the other hand, can count on the unwavering support of her party establishment, the mainstream media, and much of the intellectual and academic establishment.

      And that’s why she’ll win.

  20. Here’s what I don’t get: why do people continue to play the “other guy is worse” game? If they both absolutely fucking suck, then why not say so and leave it at that?

    Of course, I know the answer is blind partisanship and a way of rationalizing a shitty decision. People really ought to own up and acknowledge that they know they’re making a shitty decision because they can’t help themselves and feel compelled to make any decision at all.

    1. “If they both absolutely fucking suck, then why not say so and leave it at that?”

      Those clicks aren’t gonna generate themselves!

    2. Gee, I don’t know, isn’t it like any choice in life? People make comparisons. They talk about them too.

  21. And Reason was doing so well so far today…..

    No, the person who wants to modify the constitution to take away our rights is always ALWAYS worse than the person who will ignore the constitution for eight years.

  22. Shikha stands alone at Reason for her unmatched ability to connect illogical arguments with terrible writing.

    1. Robby would remind you that technically this is not true, though he of course would never deny your right to hold whatever opinion you deem appropriate, no matter how outlandish it might be.

      1. I occasionally like something the Robby has written. I have never liked anything the Shikha has written, ever.

        1. Who is this “Robby”? Do you mean Fruit Sushi?

      2. Disagreeing with Robby doesn’t make him a bad writer.

        1. True, Sparky, but he doesn’t help his case when he is (usually) the editorial SJW equivalent of Ke$ha. The only thing missing is fotos of him using one of the DC Reason office’s potted plants as a loo for a doo.

          Shiksa Dalmation, OTOH, is the editorial equivalent of Dave Matthews Band.

          1. I’m still not sure why being a libertarianish SJW is bad when being a libertarianish Conservative is “the best we can hope for right now”. If a person can pull others towards a libertarianish view, does it really matter which side they start at?

            It just seems like there are a lot of moral relativists who complain about moral relativism around here.

          2. Ouch.

        2. He’s an awful and tedious writer.

          1. No he isn’t. He’s a youngster that doesn’t say things old folks like to hear.

            1. Yes he is. He’s pandering, he equivocates, and worst of all, he’s lazy. He phones in virtually every piece and either lacks the courage of his convictions or simply lacks conviction altogether.

              And if disliking his tedious concern trolling of every right-libertarian issue under the sun constitutes old-fartery, there are plenty of 20-year-old old farts running around in Libertarian Land.

              1. Again, the fact that you don’t like him doesn’t make him a bad writer.

              2. Fuck off, Robby is great.

              3. Fuck off, Robby is great.

                1. Mmmm. The squirrels agree with you.

              4. Yes he is. He’s pandering, he equivocates, and worst of all, he’s lazy. He phones in virtually every piece and either lacks the courage of his convictions or simply lacks conviction altogether.

                And if disliking his tedious concern trolling of every right-libertarian issue under the sun constitutes old-fartery, there are plenty of 20-year-old old farts running around in Libertarian Land.

                nailed it.

                he’s an atrocious writer.

                $parky doesn’t realize that its not his opinions people object to so much as his attempts to have things both ways. his approach is to avoid any strong opinion or clearly-articulated view that can be criticized at all. he routinely wanders into self-contradictions and even-handedness to the point of self-delusion.

                he stated it almost perfectly not so long ago in his railing about how he ‘passionately defends people’s rights to have opinions which they should have no right to actually express’

                (*”because some speech is behavior, and behavior can be bullying, and bullying is wrong, and….” – exactly that sort of idiotic kind of rationale where you can start a sentence describing one principle, and end up advocating its opposite by the end of the sentence.)

                if you’re going to bother having a point of view, make a strong case for it, and willingly defend it. that’s not what types like him do – they make weak cases, equivocate, and when criticized will defend themselves by saying, “that’s not what i meant”.

    2. I understand why Chapman and Sheldon are in this magazine; they’re libertarians

      i don’t understand shikha. she doesn’t strike me as somone who has a single libertarian bone in her body;

      her few policy-areas of focus generally overlap somewhat w/ libertarian ideas, but they don’t seem to originate from them. and even when the conclusions overlap, her arguments for them are unbelievably awful and seem to just serve to make libertarians *look bad*, if anything.

      1. Chapman is a libertarian? Maybe he calls himself that.

        1. Libertarians are more contentious than Scotsmen. It is well known it is impossible for anyone who disagrees with me to be a True Libertarian, and I disagree with everyone on fine but critical policy points.

          1. Obama apologist and centrist Democrat seems more apropos.

        2. Chapman’s a lib-symp, I think. He was the type the people behind Cato were looking for 40 yrs. ago for Inquiry magazine & “Byline” radio commentary. Chapman, Nicholas von Hoffman, Nat Hentoff, “liberal” types like that. Once in a while they’d fish in waters more to the “right” & get a Howard Jarvis. They wanted to appear non-ideologic, like mainstream America, non-aligned yet acceptable in the cocktail parties.

          1. Occasionally even a Kirkpatrick Sale. They really wanted to fuzz the libertarianism.

      2. Weigel wrote here. Nuff said.

        1. As did Will Wilkinson and Kerry Howley. To say nothing of Terry “Cloaca of Anonymity” Micheals….

          Shiksa *still* makes them appear sane, robc. Even Ratfuck was better than this…

          1. Terry Michaels is the funniest. He basically holds stock Dem positions up and down the line and simply dubs himself a libertarian.

          2. I liked kerry and ww.

            they were libertarianish. they were also good writers, which goes a long way to making up for weakness on actual principles (*looks sadly at Robby)

            Weegs and shikha aren’t at all the same; they are passionately dumb

            1. they were libertarianish. they were also good writers

              I don’t disagree, per se, since they did turn out well written (read: internally consistent) articles and posts, GILMOUR(tm). [I “met” you as GILMOUR(tm) imma call ya GILMOUR(tm)]

              Will’s surname should be “Weaksauce” due to his many milquetoast proscriptions and Howley was rarely more than a +2 Axe of Perpetual Dullness forever in search of (many) a grindstone, and something of a proto-SJW – meaning that they both were primarily concerned with Social/Civil v. Economic/Fiscal. It was a about that time circa 2010 or so, that Reason, forever bitching about SoCons and other various and sundry centre-righters, placed their own Social SJW non-issue pet causes (that overlap primarily with TEAM BLUE) ahead of the fiscal, economic, and legal articles that drew me here circa 2008.

              1. I “met” you as GILMOUR(tm) imma call ya GILMOUR(tm)]

                I have nothing do with that french cousin of mine

                I agree with your points re: WW, maybe less so about kerry (soooo hot). I think their squishiness was less notable because the were balanced by a central stable of fire-spitters like Balko, Moynihan, et al. Now, the squish is more the ‘center’, backed up by nick’s drift towards total incoherence. Welch seems to be the most reliable of the old-guard still keeping it real. I am also partial to Scott, mainly because he handles a lot of ‘culturewar’ topics that one would expect to be handled… well, the way robby does …. but he manages to often take the ‘principled’ stand on issues when it would be far easier not to.

            2. I also very much appreciated Ms. Howley’s stuff. Also that communitarian guy whose name I can’t remember; Ask.com is usually good on that kind of search, but came up dry.

              I really miss D. McCloskey’s stuff from before hir sex change. Now it seems all they publish here by her is stuff on sex identity, or maybe it’s all she wants to write about for popular audiences. Bummer.

      3. “I understand why Chapman and Sheldon are in this magazine; they’re libertarians”

        Bill Maher describes himself as such also. 9 out of 10 people that describe themselves that way are not fans of self-ownership.

      4. There are many writers Reason regularly publish that aren’t libertarians. It seems like easily half or more. I don’t get it. These people have plenty of other non-libertarian outlets. I guess there just aren’t enough libertarian writers that Reason is interested in?

  23. Just in case you’re keeping score.

    Nope.

    1. Nihilist

  24. I have to point out the irony that foreigners like Somin, Dalmia, Melania (Michelle quotes), and Cruz (‘vote your conscience’) are the ones who see most clearly the existential threat of Trump.

    1. irony

      You have managed to outdo Alanis Morisette in not having any idea what this word means. Congratulations?

      1. Oh yay, the irony Nazis. Who prove my point even as they are certain they have debunked it. Ironic.

        1. Wouldn’t you have to have a point in order for it to be proven?

          1. Like I said, ironic how much the natives hate that the foreigners are the ones fighting for our country.

            1. Stupidity + self-righteousness = winning combination

        2. It’s like Christmas in July. I don’t even have to ask you to prove how stupid you are, yet you gladly do it.

        3. Tell us again how the Dem convention will be a model of efficiency and planning with everyone on the same page

  25. I guess I missed the part of the article that actually presented some evidence/rationale why Trump is worse than Hillary regarding the Constitution.

  26. Latest Leak — Read it all.

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..rns-226191

    Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.
    . . .

    Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which ? 44 percent ? has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee ? or only 0.56 percent.

    Officials from the DNC and the Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about why so little of the cash raised by the fund has gone to ? and remained with ? the participating state parties. But they have previously argued that, even when state parties aren’t receiving cash transfers, they are benefiting from the political infrastructure paid for by money raised by the fund.

    1. even when state parties aren’t receiving cash transfers, they are benefiting from the political infrastructure paid for by money raised by the fund.

      “They shall be remembered when She comes into Her glory, and when She opens the twelfth gate their suffering shall be over the soonest.”

    2. It seems like people were aware of things like this many months ago

      In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.

      The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.

      Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s Super Delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.

      1. But Trump is evil . . . . . .

  27. The Orange Monkey God will raise King Tut’s Space Knife in a pillar of fire and you’re gonna be in deep shit, Shikha.

  28. I’m confused. Is this just reason signaling to us to vote for Gary Johnson? They know we won’t vote for Hillary so they are trying really hard to make sure we don’t vote for Trump either? I’m going to vote for GJ, can I get a cosmo cocktail party invite?

    1. That seems to be what the tentacle of the Kochtopus is writing. (Still friends, OK, David?)

  29. Gun grabber Maura Healey unilaterally rewrites Massachusetts law to address assault weapon ban “loophole,” e.g. guns sold without previously banned cosmetic modifications. See, it’s a loophole because buyers can accessorize their (legal) purchases outside the gun shop with meaningless additions on the level of affixing My Little Pony decals to the stocks. Her brainless reasoning? If “a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal.” Got that? A centuries-old ballistics technology is an “operating system,” and its similarity to banned “assault weapons” (e.g. every semiautomatic weapon in existence) puts any such weapon on the same list. And, if that’s not enough to criminalize possession of every conceivable firearm outside flintlock blunderbusses, any weapon capable of carrying stylistic options is similarly banned.

    Holy shit, what pap. Maura Healey: you make Trump look reasonable.

    1. Should that be i.e. instead of e.g.?

      1. Why yes, since there is no specific example given, i.e. (“that is”) would be correct.
        That’s some good pedanting, pardner!

        1. But that’s the problem, isn’t it? Her language is so broadly construed as to leave no semiautomatic weapon exempted, which to my mind is entirely intentional.

    2. By that reasoning a 10-22 could be banned. Any semi-automatic that uses gas reloading could be banned. Here’s hoping some enterprising troll creates a 50-shot revolving rifle solely for the Masshole market.

      A sobering reminder that gun grabbers always lie.

      1. Hell, by that reasoning 1911s could be banned. Only wheel guns and bolt or pump actions will be legal.

    3. If “a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal.”

      Doesn’t that make every semi-auto a banned weapon?

  30. Shocked I tell you

  31. This is horseshit. Trump’s not primarily a politician. He’s like most people in that he doesn’t read the instruction manual (constitution). Still, the machine will do only what it can. People will hand him forms, he’ll fill them out. He’ll tell people what he wants. Lawyers meanwhile will argue?endlessly, because that’s their job. The prez of a biz doesn’t have to know their corporate bylaws or articles of incorporation, he just has to do his job.

    1. Someone who swears to “preserve, protect, and defend” something should probably know what it is first. That being said, Trump is not unique in this regard, either in this election cycle or previous ones.

      1. “I swear to do that, because lots of other people have sworn it, and none of them have lost their 1st-born as a result. Lawyers will tell me if I’m getting out of line.” It’s like a software license; who reads those?

        1. Yeah, I get your point. Still, it doesn’t speak well to a person’s character to take an oath that they have no intention of adhering to.

          But then again, we are talking about politicians. Upright character is not a prerequisite.

          1. For a politician, upright character is disqualifying.

          2. I’m sure he does intend to adhere to it, he just doesn’t know what it is…yet.

    2. Politics is dominated, not only in this country, but worldwide AFAICT, by lawyers. It’s refreshing to have a major candidate for prez who’s never been a lawyer or a gov’t official. So he doesn’t know lawyer stuff, like constitutions. He probably has a pretty good idea about real estate law by now, maybe a little about family law (from the divorces), but for the most part he’s had lawyers working for him. You think POTUS doesn’t have lawyers? The lawyers have lawyers! He’ll tell them what he wants, they’ll tell him what can be accomplished legally, & how to do it. He can’t trash the constitution any more than a party to any court case can trash the law.

  32. I get it – Trump’s likely to nominate terrible judges. Point taken. Still not seeing how this is somehow “worse than Hillary”

  33. There’s no need to bring up the National Front. If you want to see what a xenophobic nationalist workers’ party looks like, just look to the current left wing governments of Europe.

    Being an illegal immigrant in any country in the EU (or the UK) is much harder than it is in the United States. I suppose it’s because the EU has been accommodating to refugees and asylum seekers over the past couple of years–but those refugees and asylum seekers are the exception that proves the rule.

    There is no way the left wing governments of Europe would ever be as easy on illegal immigrants as we are here in the United States. What Trump is proposing would simply take the United States into alignment on illegal immigration with the rest of the developed world.

    There isn’t a nation anywhere in the world that is more accommodating to illegal aliens than we are–not Canada, not Australia, not New Zealand, not the UK, not France, not Germany, not Sweden, not Norway–not anywhere in the lefty developed world is any country more accommodating to illegal immigrants than the United States.

    So, why smear Trump as some kind of right wing National Front style nationalist? Why not compare him to the left wing governments of Europe now? They’re already doing the same thing Trump wants to do–and they’ve been doing it for decades!

    If we were like the left wing governments of Europe, we’d have a concerted effort to throw all illegal residents out of our country.

    1. What Trump is proposing would simply take the United States into alignment on illegal immigration with the rest of the developed world.

      This argument only works when it supports left-wing causes in the US. Similarly, pointing out how “the rest of the developed world” has tighter laws on abortion gets no traction.

      1. In the left’s imagination, Europe is like “Merrie Olde England”, an idyllic place where everything is as it should be–but has never existed in reality.

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

        I see this sometimes happen in reference to Swedish socialism, as well. Next time somebody references Sweden as a socialist paradise, as them if they know how Sweden runs budget surpluses for decades at a time.

        They basically have a modified balanced budget amendment, but, you know, suggesting we do that here in the United States is irresponsible right wing extremism.

  34. Remember last week during the Trumpfest whenever anyone mentioned Hillary what the response was? It was “this is the Republican’s week, we will talk about Hillary next week”. Well here we are at next week and we are still talking about Trump.

    The act is the same as it ever was. Reason criticizes Republicans without mentioning Democrats. But reason never criticizes Democrats without mentioning that Republicans are just as bad or worse and a pox on both houses.

    It is so obvious that it has become comical. They really can’t seem to help themselves.

    1. Shut up yokel! (how’s my cosmo impression? I’m starting to like the identity blame game)

      1. You cocktail sipping bastard.

        1. Don’t forget the quinoa cups.

          1. I would totally eat fruit sushi, but quinoa cups sound like a cruel and unusual form of punishment

            1. I fucking love quinoa.

            2. ‘I would totally eat fruit sushi,…’
              Don’t do that while ENB is around, she’ll snitch.

        2. You gun-clinging, kkkorporation-loving, kochsucking twat!

    2. In all fairness, this is a Dalmia article.

      If it were the same people who were blasting Trump last week, you’d have a better point.

      The coverage of Hillary’s emails was pretty good yesterday.

  35. So are we still standing by our “libertarian moment” when the best we can do is argue of how badly the constitution will be trashed within the next 4 years?

  36. Dalmia really is a loon.
    1) Based on his quote to the New England police union, his intent is not to force the death penalty (the president can’t, and I suspect he knows that). His intent (besides obviously sucking up to the police unions) is to issue a statement saying that cop killers should get the death penalty. Like a bully pulpit thing. She didn’t even bother to quote him.
    2) Trump opposes the concept of “anchor babies”. Obviously not a libertarian position, but there are still plenty of debates going on about the original intent of the 14th Amendment. And he didn’t say “Mexicans are rapists and criminals.” That is just intellectually lazy.
    3) “This would be de facto nationalization of foreign assets of a magnitude not even attempted by Hugo Chavez-style Latin American potentates.” Talk about hyperbole, FFS! It would bar illegal immigrants from transferring money OUTSIDE THE US. The idea that this leads to nationalization of foreign assets is a joke.

    1. 4) Obviously Trump has had some issues here. But, the President can’t force American citizens to register in a database. (However, Congress does have that authority apparently, can you say Penaltax?) And tracking individuals based on membership is hardly a violation of the 5th Amendment. I am sure Sheikha wouldn’t have a problem if the person was a member of the Aryan brotherhood.
      5)Trump is pretty bad regarding the press. But certainly no worse than Hillary.
      6) Sheikha’s entire argument about judges rests solely on Judge Gonzalo Curiel. Which was more of a personal issue than anything to do with appointing SCOTUS Justices or anything. And for the record, Trump didn’t attack the judge for his Mexican heritage. Trump said because he was perceived as being anti-Mexican, the judge had a personal grudge against Trump. Maybe stupid, but not racist.

      Just her usual terrible lack of logic.

      1. Nice takedown, Bear.

        I would add this refinement:

        Trump said because he was perceived as being anti-Mexican, the judge who was a member of La Razahad a personal grudge against Trump.

  37. So Jerry Springer’s endorsement of Hillary is “Wow, Trump is really bad…”

  38. They really went for the clickbait on this one.

  39. Nothing left to wreck.

  40. Another “Trump is Hitler” article from Reason.

    At least she bothers to make shit up, instead of just hysterically shrieking “Nazi!” a hundred times. So let’s look at the claims.

    1. He wants to give cop killers the death penalty

    There are many constitutional problems with this suggestion, starting with the fact that capital punishment is a state function.

    Any federal death penalty would eviscerate federalism and dilute the role of courts.

    There are multiple federal crimes subject to the death penalty, which I checked in 10 seconds. When will Reason get tired of having incompetent writers on their staff?

    2. He wants to strip some Latino Americans of their citizenship

    He’s arguing that 14th amendment does not grant birthright citizenship, and I think there’s a good argument for that.

    3. He wants to seize the assets of foreign nationals

    He wants to charge for money transfers out of the country. You know, people get charged bank fees for money transfers all the time.

    1. 4. He wants to force Muslims to register in a database

      Trump has not fleshed out whether he would require only Muslim immigrants to register or also Muslim citizens. Either way, it would violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause because it targets individuals based on their religion.

      Sorry. Foreigners don’t have a right to be here in the first place. So if it’s only foreigners, it’s just not an issue.

      If not, the first amendment does not mandate mental retardation in the pursuit of criminals. I’m sorry for you if you’re a very nice person who happens to have some coreligionists who like to kill Americans. We still need to look for those guys.

      5. He wants to silence his media critics

      Even as a businessman, Trump has sought to make it as costly as possible for his critics to exercise their free speech rights.

      Reason is against libel and slander laws? I hadn’t heard.

      6. He wants to crack down on judges who disagree with him

      [1] He attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage

      [2] Worse, he gleefully contemplated going after the judge if he were elected president in November.

      [1] Never happened. He said the judge is biased against him, partially based on his Mexican heritage, which by any reasonable inference is likely true. How popular is Mr. Build a Wall with those off Mexican heritage?

      [2] Evidence?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.