Donald Trump

Staying Classy, Trump Impugns Parents of Dead Muslim Soldier

The Republican presidential nominee says he has read the Constitution, but Khizr Khan "has no right" to ask.

|

ABC News

In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos that airs today, Donald Trump takes a swipe at Khizr Khan, the father of Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq. Standing next to his wife, Ghazala, at the Democratic National Convention last week, Khan criticized Trump for "smear[ing] the character of Muslims," said the blowhard billionaire had "sacrificed nothing" for his country, and asked, "Have you even read the United States Constitution?" Asked about Khan's comments, Trump takes the high road for about a second, saying, Khan was "very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me." But then he adds, "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably—maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."

Ghazala Khan told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell she did not speak because she was overwhelmed by grief. Yesterday her husband told The New York Times Trump "is devoid of feeling the pain of a mother who has sacrificed her son."

Instead of insinuating that Ghazala Khan had been muzzled by an overbearing Muslim husband, Trump could have taken this opportunity to point out that her son died in a disastrous war that never should have been fought—a war that his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, supported and did not describe as a mistake until more than a decade after it was launched. Since the folly of that war has been a recurring theme of Trump's campaign, a response along those lines would have made sense. Mocking a dead soldier's grieving parents, not so much.

Trump did respond more substantively to Khan's speech. "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices," he told Stephanopoulos. "I've worked very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs." Lurking below that statement, obscured by Trump's enormous ego, is the kernel of a valid point: that going to war is not the only way to do good for your country, that entrepreneurs who produce value are at least as important as soldiers who destroy it, especially if they do so in a war that has little or nothing to do with national defense.

But instead of a meditation on the meaning of Captain Khan's sacrifice, we got yet another cheap shot from the thin-skinned bully whom Republicans have chosen as their presidential nominee. In a press release issued yesterday, Trump responds to bipartisan criticism of his comment. He calls the late soldier "a hero to our country" and says "the real problem here are [sic] the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him." He belatedly argues that "Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for her central role in destabilizing the Middle East," noting that she "voted to send the United States to war against Iraq" and that she has "never met a regime change she didn't like." But he also faults Clinton for "lead[ing] the disastrous withdrawal of American troops years later that created the vacuum allowing the rise of ISIS," which makes it seem like he's trying to have it both ways: The U.S. never should have invaded Iraq, and it never should have left (not that it actually did).

Trump also answers Khizr Khan's question. "While I feel deeply for the loss of his son," he says, "Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things." For the record, Khan did not claim Trump has never read the Constitution; he merely asked whether he had, just as Trump merely asked whether Khan had prevented his wife from speaking. It is hard to believe Trump's answer in light of his assertion that Khan "has no right" to say mean things about Donald Trump. If Trump did read the Constitution, he must have skipped the First Amendment.

NEXT: How Trump strengthens the forces of political correctness

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. Has everyone lost their grasp of the meaning of words? The idiom ‘has no right’ does not have to mean a constitutional right, and working hard* and creating jobs is not a sacrifice. Trump and his detractors are either stupid or purposefully acting obtuse.

    *I doubt that Trump has ever worked “very,very hard” in his life.

    1. working hard* and creating jobs is not a sacrifice

      According to Mark Cuban it is.
      http://blogmaverick.com/2011/0…..-can-do-2/

      1. Here is a juicy big government quote by Cuban –

        “A recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you.”

        Cuban has always been asshole when it comes to issues such as these.

        1. The people who see little diffference between charity and welfare are some of the least charitable people you’ll ever know.

          1. Being charitable has some importance, but surely it is small on the scale when compared with the serious problems confronting this great nation, such as doing whatever we can to stamp out the scourge of Internet trolls destroying the fabric of our society. And you know what? There’s nothing wrong with a little healthy arrogance. This little Khizr Khan affair is just politics as usual ? when people like Trump are appointed to high-ranking academic posts, it’s rightly considered good for university ratings and educational marketing. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

            https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        2. The people who see little difference between charity and welfare are some of the least charitable people you’ll ever know.

      2. Why Ayn Rand thought that leaders who urged people to sacrifice were immoral.

    2. Didn’t his father make him do some manual labor jobs when he was in school?

    3. Ok, I’ll bite. In what sense of the phrase ‘has no right’ does an American citizen have no right to criticize someone running for president?

  2. ” is hard to believe Trump’s claim that he has in light of his assertion that Khan “has no right” to say mean things about Donald Trump. If Trump did read the Constitution, he must have skipped the First Amendment.”

    I would think Trump is saying that Khan had no moral right to slander Trump (reserving judgement on what Khan said being a slander). It is not necessarily a claim that what Khan did is or should be illegal on its face.

    There are plenty of things to criticize Trump on without making this kind of silly, pants soiling reach.

    1. I agree, I’d prefer to focus on criticizing his cronyism and especially that case of eminent domain with his casino in Atlantic City.

    2. Trump seems to think any speech critical of him is libel/slander.

      1. Put him in a pantsuit and I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

    3. I would think Trump is saying that Khan had no moral right to slander Trump (reserving judgement on what Khan said being a slander)

      LOL you’re doing the Obama supporter thing and editing what your favored candidate says to make it less problematic. That’s not what Trump was saying.

      Your “reservation of judgement” is also pretty convenient for your support of Trump as well, since Khan’s statement did not come remotely close to slander. Trump’s statement about Khan’s relationship with his wife is borderline slander.

      1. “LOL you’re doing the Obama supporter thing and editing what your favored candidate says to make it less problematic. That’s not what Trump was saying.”

        Nope.

        Trump is a clown, but Mickey had it right about what Trump was saying.

        1. The only audiences that’d take it otherwise are libertarian discussion groups (where “right to” is a trigger word, for good reason but still…context) & places where those w TDS congregate.

      2. Trump’s statement about Khan’s relationship with his wife is borderline slander.

        Well he applied a stereotype perhaps unfairly, but the stereotype itself is not an unfair characterization of Muslim culture.

        1. That’s why his remark is troubling & encouraging at the same time. This is a problem to be faced w.r.t. Muslim & some other cultures such as LDS fundamentalist: How to tell where voluntary submission ends & forced submission begins. Within a family, it is sometimes possible to keep someone enslaved even when the surrounding culture has that as illegal. However, at least the LDS have never AFAIK tried to forcibly export their practices; instead, they’ve been only on the receiving end of oppression. Meanwhile we see that even today & even in countries where they’re a minority, Moslems are trying to forcibly export their practices. More countries may soon grapple with the situation similarly to France & Turkey, which either maintain a tension or alternate between religious oppression & suppression of religion.

          1. Let’s see them try to smear Trump as anti-female the way they did w Romney.

            1. Look at the way he treats his ex-wives. (I’m not saying I’m agreeing; I’m saying I can see TEAM BLUE try to smear Trump that way.)

              1. The Team whose candidate knows all about smearing women. Then again, it’s the left and self-awareness is not part of their DNA.

              2. As much as I don’t like Donald Trump, my understanding is that both Ivana Trump and Marla Maples support his run.

              3. Team Blue can’t do much smearing of Trump and his treatment of women because it’ll open up lots of hypocritical poses regarding Bill Clinton’s cheating on/treatment of his past and still current wife.

                Not that Trump won’t go there anyway, but it’ll prove a minefield for Team Blue to try that tack.

        2. That’s 90% of Trump’s appeal.

          Traditionalists have been dying for a politician to go on the offensive like Trump has; Paul was as close as we got for a long time, but he was wonky (libertarian wonky, which is probably the worst variety) and not nearly as good at humiliating his opponents as Trump, Giuliani aside.

          Remember all the precious chatter about how BHO wanted to go Bulworth in his final year in office? Trump is a right-wing Bulworth, and people love him for that. Telling a muslim bully to go fuck himself is something American men have wanted to do for 15 years.

          1. It’s encouraging the “traditionalist” now encompasses women’s lib.

            1. I meant it’s encouraging that “traditionalist” now encompasses women’s lib.

            2. Has women’s lib been waiting for Trumpian character for so long? Is “women’s lib” still a thing among third-wave intersectionality-obsessed feminists?

              1. Women’s lib is so 60s. And back then, they’d just show you their tits. And occasionally, there was actually some tits that you WANTED to see. Now? Feminists are just shrill annoying harpies, they have no redeemable value.

                1. Almost funny, but the point is the 1960s are now what trads will defend.

        3. And yet when Trump is speaking, I’ve never seen Melania put in her two cents.

          1. She’s still spoken in public as part of the campaign, and not at Trump’s elbow either.

            http://tvline.com/2016/07/18/m…..ech-video/

            Mrs. Khan has spoken in public by now, but in response to reporters and not as a speaker listed on a schedule (which allows people to choose whether it is worth their time to listen to her, vs. press-conference-type speeches, which the mainstream media can shove in people’s faces or censor as they choose).

      3. I don’t support Trump. I do not see a candidate currently running who is not on the spectrum from distasteful to hideous.

        I just do not think you have to take something Trump said, take the meanest reading of it to criticize him while treating one of his critics as sacrosanct because of his status.

    4. It’s not a question of whether Trump has actually read the Constitution. Why read it when you could give a fuck what it says?

  3. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!

    1. Volare, oh oh

  4. Trump and the Khan’s deserve each other.

    1. Trump surely deserves the Khans, but why do they deserve him? What have they done wrong?

      1. Once you speak at a political convention, you become a valid political target. I don’t see the “Journolist calls Benghazi Mother Horrible Person” articles. I’d rather have the principal doing it than some arms-length bullshit.

        1. Yea, I didn’t see the Khan’s saying shit about the Muslim children being blown to bits by drone strikes carried out by those same Democrats that also never sacrificed anything. The hypocrisy of both sides is nauseating.

        2. Yea, I didn’t see the Khan’s saying shit about the Muslim children being blown to bits by drone strikes carried out by those same Democrats that also never sacrificed anything. The hypocrisy of both sides is nauseating.

          1. Maybe because you don’t see those Democrats saying that Khan should be barred from the country his son ostensibly give his life for? The tone-deafness of Republicans is amazing.

        3. Once you speak at a political convention, you become a valid political target.

          Perhaps, but it doesn’t make it OK for the other side to lie about you, which Trump is clearly doing.

          1. Damn dude, did Trump steal your girl?

          2. Politics is all about lying. It may not be morally okay, but within politics, it is routine, and I daresay, necessary. (That still doesn’t make it morally right–I am by no means saying it is morally right to lie, even if politics requires lying. I am saying that politics often requires immoral acts.)

            I’m no fan of Trump, being a NeverTrumper myself, but I support his counter-attack against the Khans. They insinuated that Trump had not read the US Constitution without actually knowing or being able to know whether he had read it or not. That is a useful lie that went viral.

            As such, Trump is morally allowed to counter-attack to the same degree, insinuating that Mrs. Khan was being suppressed by her husband without actually knowing or being able to know whether this is true or not.

            Look at it this way: if a person strikes out at you with a fist (non-lethal force), you are morally and legally allowed to strike back with a fist. It is self-defense. You are not allowed, morally or legally, to respond with an escalation to lethal force unless the attacker escalates to lethal force.

            Khan attacked first, and Trump responded in kind. Trump’s in the clear.

      2. Used the death of their son to promote a criminal.

        Humayun Khan was very brave, and the world could use more people willing to sacrifice for things that are right. But his sacrifice wasn’t for anything right. It was for a pointless war that started and hasn’t ended because people like his parents and Hillary Clinton are too stupid, or too selfish, or too afraid to respond to terrorism rationally.

        1. How long does a war have to go on before the educated officers take moral ownership for having volunteered?

      3. “Trump surely deserves the Khans, but why do they deserve him? What have they done wrong?”

        Speaking at a democratic convention and having the balls to ask anyone at all whether they have read the constitution? There is rank hypocrisy involved if you are a full throated supporter of the democratic party and imply other people don’t read or respect the constitution. I am not sure that alone is horrible enough to deserve Trump.

      4. We’ll, they’re using their dead son as propaganda for the candidate who supported the war that killed him at a party convention. I think they’ve made themselves in some measure valid targets of criticism.

  5. “I’ve worked very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs.” – He left out the part where he tried to kick an old lady to the curb.

      1. There are probably plenty more

      2. Binders full of em

    1. “an old lady”

      Oh we’re doing that now?

  6. What’s the over/under on the number of Reason staffers endorsing Hillary?

    1. THEM IS BETA CUCKS

      1. Sad that you have been reduced to this. You used to occasionally have some insight or even humor. Your “everyone in the world is stupid but me act” is disappointing, pathetic, actually. I am certain that the dudes over at Vox agree with you 100%, however.

        1. Of all the people on here that I’m needlessly mean to, Longtorso is the one you choose to stick up for? Well. All right then.

        2. Warty is defending the Reason staff against accusations of being soft libertarians by accusing the majority of libertarians here of being secret Republicans.

          Trump is bad and if you don’t accept any and all attacks against him, which drastically outweigh those aimed at Hillary, then it must be because you hate brown or black people, and are secretly a Trump supporter even if you deny it.

          I mean, I disagreed with Heroic Mulatto on an issue related to Howard Stern’s ratings/compensation. I don’t know what I’d do if it wasn’t for Warty being there to call me racist so I could check my privilege. And he’s a doctor, so don’t you dare suggest that he’s irrational or pompous, bitter clinger!

          1. The most baffling part about you illiterates is your enormous self-pity. I don’t get it.

            1. Yes, Warty, it’s all self-pity. Not mockery of someone who by far demonstrates the qualities he is accused of than the other way around.

              1. Give Warty a break, if it wasn’t for projection all he’d have is his head firmly up his ass.

          2. On the Internet, everyone’s a doctor.

      2. Warty, you need a new act. It is not funny. It is not that I am offended. There is nothing wrong with poking Trump people, you just need to do it better. You need to up your game. You are a funnier and smarter guy than this.

        1. The guy who impugns everybody’s intelligence is saying somebody else needs to get a new shtick?

        2. No he is not.

          The Wart is an insecure little fellow who thinks that lifting weights in front of a mirror (trying to get big in his words) and insulting all of those here who don’t go along with his meme will correct his insecurities.

          He is a failure on both counts.

    2. It all depends on how close the polls are. If it is a close race then yes, Gary will be abandoned for Hilldog.

      1. If ? I saw “Trump is a poo poo head”, “Trump is Mean” etc, etc article after article during the Hillary Coronation with little reflection on the Dem positions by the reason staff. I guess the Kochs sent their marching orders and the staff is obeying !

        1. You’re not paying much attention then, are you? The Kochs can’t stand Trump, and have specifically said they’re not spending money to support him. Multiple unsuccessful attempts have been made to get them on Team Trump, including Pence as a VP pick, and it hasn’t worked.

          1. Why aren’t the Koch’s donating to GJ? Is it because they think their money will be bad publicity for the Dem votes Johnson is trying to get?

            I can’t understand how an intelligent person can read the articles on Cato.org and still think the things these left wing lunatics do about those guys.

            1. Johnson is definitely working that angle, but so far nothing has come of it.

          2. So what you’re saying is that it IS the Koch’s fault we have all these Trump articles?

    3. I can only think of two I’d suspect of doing so: Peter Suderman and Paul Detrick. Everyone else is going to go with Johnson or nothing. But I’m pretty certain no one here will vote for Trump.

    4. What difference at this point does it make?

  7. Reason’s in the bag for Hillary, etc etc, Trump isn’t any worse than any politician, blah blah blah, all the writers here are SJWs, you get the idea. There. Look how much trouble I’ve saved the Team Red crowd.

    1. You were here in 2008. They are exaggerating, but not lying. There were 3 or 4 “why this libertarian is voting for Obama” pieces. Maybe if they would run a couple of articles about what the DNC/Hillary/EPA email scandals say about the death of the FOIA in practice… Actual journalism libertarian/smaller/better government fans might use to spread the message.

      1. It would be nice if there was more about Hillary’s loathsomeness, but it’s impossible to overstate Trump’s loathsomeness, so I’m not complaining.

        1. Ah-HA! You just admitted a Trump/Hillary story differential. A weakness. You have been defeated.

          Sure, we could all stipulate that the writing staff at Reason give the appearance of a group that on average view Clinton as the lesser of two evils, and then move on. (I may even lean that way myself.) And Reason contributors could enter into the official record that Trump is one thin-skinned bloviation machine that puts the current president to shame, and then move on. But where’s the fun in any of that?

          Not everyone catches all of the comments or posts, so while it might get old for the regulars keeping each other in check is a journey we must take not a destination we can ever reach. I say never let up.

          1. The commenters all know what an evil POS Slickette is, so why should the H&R writers preach to the choir?

            (I don’t fully agree with that argument, but there is something to be said for it.)

            1. Take choir preaching out of their repertoire and what’s left?

              1. Ron Bailey.

                That having been said, the nut punches serve a valuable function, which is to give us more (and more recent) examples of how the cops are thugs that we can cite elsewhere.

        2. They write lots about Hillary’s loathsomeness. Every single time they do, however, there is a “yeah but Trump..”. When they write about Trump, they never mention Hillary. They never mentioned Hillary during the RNC. But last week they talked more about Trump than they did about Hillary.

          You choosing the wrong hill to die on here. The bias is so bad you have to laugh. Also, the bias only ever goes one way. People like Dalmai and Chapman go full leftist but no one ever goes even slightly off the Libertarian reservation to the right. The problem is not that people are biased. That happens. It is that they are only biased one way, ever.

          1. As far as I’m concerned the only two writers here that I have 100 percent respect for are Napolitano and Stossel. Welch would be in that group if he weren’t such a pussy every time he goes on Maher. Most of them I still like, with Richman, Chapman and Dalmia being the only writers I despise. Suderman and Gillespie have really been irritating me this election, though, and I’ve been losing more and more respect for them.

            I don’t think we should expect our writers here to be unbiased. We should expect them to be biased towards libertarianism. The problem is a bunch of these clowns think a woman who blatantly takes bribes, has blundered almost everything she has touched, who breaks the law while harming our national security so that people can’t find out all of the other laws she has broken, who wants universal healthcare, who is a war-monger at a level with John McCain, is the lesser of two evils compared to a guy who says mean things to people and is a cut-throat businessman.

            1. Oh, ENB is up there with Stossel and Napolitano.

              1. The lady who gave us ‘Fruit Sushi’ is in a class of her own.

              2. She has the best profile picture of the three.

            2. +1 for your second paragraph.

            3. Notice you haven’t seen much from Richman lately? I suspect that’s because they’re afraid Sheldon, with his emphasis that I find weird, will come out for Trump as being similar to the paleoconservatives on foreign affairs.

              1. As powerful as TDS is, Sheldon has for some years now been in the apparent grip of some foreign policy virus that produces similar special pleading for…who knows whom? My enemy’s enemy, something like that.

          2. People like Dalmai and Chapman go full leftist but no one ever goes even slightly off the Libertarian reservation to the right.

            Harsanyi, whose column they dropped.

    2. I wonder how carefully the DNC vetted the Khans? Wouldn’t it be delicious if they were found to be tied, even in some insignificant way, to the Muslim Brotherhood or something like that.

      This shitshow continues to deliver as promised–I wish it could be election season all the time.

      1. Wouldn’t it be delicious if they were found to be tied, even in some insignificant way, to the Muslim Brotherhood or something like that.

        No, not really.

      2. Yes, it would. Of course, Huma has personal ties with the Brotherhood.

    3. People who don’t have college degrees are stupid and people like me and Ezra Klein are soooooo much smarter because we spent $100,000 on an indoctrination into socialism. Hillary isn’t nearly as bad a Trump because yahoos and hicks don’t like her. If the hicks don’t like her, I DO!

      There Warty, saved you from ever having to post again.

      1. WHY COME YOU NO WORSHIP WART LIKE HIM WORSHIP HIMSELF ?

        WART SMART HIM NOT LIKE HILLBILLYS JUST ASK HIM

        YOU STUPID YOU IGNORANT YOU STUPID IGNORANT HILLBILLY

        WART SAY SO HIM SELF SO HE BELIEVE IT TRUE

    4. The thing you need to understand about Trump supporters is that its all about the feelz for them. They love him not because of any of his actual positions (which are 100% oppoosed to whatever they claim to believe in), but because he says mean things about the other side. They’re loving the two minute hate he offers them every other day. They are basically mirror images of the SJWs – totally emotionally driven people with poorly formed opinions that are easily swayed. The only difference is that instead of sappy “for the children” emotional appeals, it’s emotional appeals to hatred and bigotry again out-groups.

      1. What gets me about the Trump-sympathizers here is the hypocrisy and double-standard they apply.

        Reason writers criticizing both Clinton and Trump on a regular basis, but Trump more than Clinton, is proof that they are 100% in the tank for Hillary, and are SJWs who secretly love her and don’t care about libertarianism.

        But them being far, far more kind and defensive (and far less critical) of Trump than Reason writers have ever been of Clinton is not an indication that they love Trump, support everything he says, and don’t care about libertarianism. It’s the same as how they generally bitch and moan about other people applying purity tests, while simultaneously attacking anyone to their left as a being a fake cosmotarian secret Democrat.

        1. They may criticize both on what you might call a regular basis, but the slant is so overwhelmingly against Trump by writers who you know can’t be serious about it?come on, just compare to most other material by, say, Jacob Sullum?that it’s ridiculous. It must be orders from the Kochtopus that would produce such a deviation from their usual standards. The past 5 years, for instance, The Jacket has listed leftward, but at least you could see it coming consistently and understand that’s just the way he is now. Trump Derangement Syndrome, by contrast, comes out of the blue.

      2. That’s largely true of why I’ve gone for Trump: feelz, rather than positions. He makes it hard to decide on positions, as most politicians do; it’s just that he’s better at making you guess than most politicians. But after Rand & Ted, the Donald was the best choice I saw running who had a serious chance.

        It’s not about bigotry, though. But you take what support you can get. Bigots gotta vote for someone; if all else is equal, be glad to get their vote, just like everyone else’s vote. They didn’t hurt Ron Paul. You don’t have to deliberately try for bigots’ votes to get them. All you need is for them to perceive advantages to them that may be side effects of whatever you say you’ll deliver. The way things are in the USA today, liberty would be the best thing going for bigots, as it would for other disliked outgroups.

        1. I am voting Johnson. He won’t win. So only the feelz matter and I hate Hillary. Trump amuses me. Most of his shit show is self limiting like building a wall and banning Muslims.

          Nothing about Hillary is self limiting.

          1. Notice, though, that I’m not just voting anti-Hillary. I’m glad Trump got the nomination over every other Republican who had a shot besides Paul & Cruz. I not only want to see him as POTUS, I want him to run up the score against her in the general election, not so much about how bad she is, but as a fork in the eye of the Establishment. At this point I think it’d be a better fork in the eye of the Establishment than another President Johnson would be. I think he’d be an encouragement to anti-elitism not only in this country but many others.

            I also have a hunch Trump would govern more pro-liberty in most respects than Johnson would. Johnson was pretty good w the veto pen as governor, but in a small state where a much greater fraction of spending is what they’d call “discretionary” than federal law authorizes. Meanwhile Trump has a reput’n of penny pinching in biz. Johnson I don’t think they’ll allow to get away w much in drug reform beyond pot, while I think Trump would do more. I even think Trump might be better than Johnson on foreign affairs. The only policy area I see where Trump would probably be worse than Johnson would be imports; until recently I thought that’d affect only the squeaky domestic wheels, but now I’ve heard Trump would favor a 45% gen’l tariff?anybody got confirmation or disconfirmation of that one?

      3. “They are basically mirror images of the SJWs”

        This is too far. SJW’s aren’t just controlled by feelings, they also are drama whores with emotional disorders that get themselves worked up emotionally when there’s nothing even there.

        Typical voters support a candidate because they feel he or she shares their values. Or they just hate the other side more.

        1. SJW’s aren’t just controlled by feelings, they also are drama whores with emotional disorders that get themselves worked up emotionally when there’s nothing even there.

          See also: HazelMeade playing Warty’s id.

      4. To be fair to Trump supporters, they’re mostly in agreement with his actual positions once they change their own positions to conform to his.

  8. It’s quite telling when someone utters the truth about a “muslim/islamic” male: All the right people lose their minds.

    That Khan character was pointing and waving his finger about like every freak’n “imam” bellowing about “islamic” nitwittery. His wife, bedecked in the usual slave clothing, standing there in obedient silence, knowing if she uttered one peep, her husband would probably, if he hasn’t already, have her circumcised. His waving that constitution around was a nice try, but his love resides in that steaming pile of feces called the “quran”.

    You will trust the “islamic/muslim” male at your peril.

    1. I like to live dangerously.

      1. So did Linda Hunt.

      2. You are going to increasingly get that chance.

    2. ^This

      Islam is a problem, it’s ideology is simply incompatible with western civilization. The borders of Islam are in constant turmoil and these latest conflicts are just new battles in old war with Islam, From Charles Martel and the battle of Tours to the Barbary Pirates and to the gates of Vienna and the conquest of Byzantium by the Ottomans. Don’t forget the Muslim slave trade either, they preferred blonde haired blue eyed Byzantium women, they fetched the highest price on the market. The west is extremely naive in thinking that 1300 years of hostilities have suddenly changed and Islam is now religion of peace.

      1. It’s a feature of a religious state where apostasy is treason. The 30 Years War and post Reconquista Spain, for example.

        1. You’re correct, Christianity is not immune from criticism and all religions share certain common characteristics that enables fanaticism. Islam is not built on classical western foundation, Islam didn’t have a renaissance like the west, nor did it have an enlightment period either which promoted the modern thought process, these periods were built on the foundation of western ideals stemming from Ancient Greece and Rome. Of course it didn’t help that Muhammad wasn’t a peaceful prophet either, rather a more accurate description is of a scourge and harbinger of future plagues wrought by his twisted warlord philosophy.

          1. these periods were built on the foundation of western ideals stemming from Ancient Greece and Rome.

            The medieval Christendom didn’t know jack shit about ancient Greece or most of the Roman Empire until they were introduced to it by Islamic scholars.

            1. I agree with you, Islam had scholars and look at how mathematics were developed in the Islamic world. But you are saying that without Islam the western world wouldn’t exist? That’s absurd – I also include Italy and Greece as part of the western world btw, I’m sure the learned folks in those areas in medieval times were quite aware of Ancient Greece and Rome.

            2. Um, no, there was obviously cultural exchange (most obvious being our modern numeral system, which is actually Hindi in origin), but medieval Europe was not in some kind of historical vacuum where they had no Greek or Latin works until they received them from the Islamic world. The Byzantines were just as aware of most of those texts, and the majority of dissemination of those texts comes from them, not the Islamic world. That’s not to say there isn’t worthwhile work that came out of the Islamic world, far from it. Ibn Khaldun’s work was brilliant, for example, but this ‘Europe knew nothing of the Romans and Greeks until Islamic scholarship’ myth is just as bad as ‘the Dark Ages were a thing’.

              And this completely ignores actual innovations that occurred in Europe at the time that had little to do with previous Roman and Greek works. Massive improvements in labour saving technologies like windmills, engineering large scale furnaces that allowed mass steel production in the early modern period, advanced irrigation and agricultural methods, etc.

              In fact, there’s arguments that the Late Medieval period laid the groundwork for modern scientific thought specifically because people stopped taking Aristotle as a non-literal word of God on the natural world.

              1. You see ?

                This right here is why I love Reason.

                We all have our opinions and stuff but then , right here, BAM! we get the facts as laid out by an educated Reasonette.

                That’s why I love Reason comment section.

            3. Sure, Islam had scholars… a millennia ago. But it’s long been in intellectual stagnation and decline. The total number of books translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years is fewer than those translated into Spanish in one year.

            4. “The medieval Christendom didn’t know jack shit about ancient Greece or most of the Roman Empire until they were introduced to it by Islamic scholars.”

              Absolute, unfettered ahistorical propaganda bullshit.

              What Islamic scholars brought – at best – is direct translations, from the ancient Greek, of texts that were already known in the west.

              They filled in many gaps, but the notion that ancient western thought was not known, and very well known to Medieval Europe – particularly given that many early church fathers were neo-platonists – is absurd on it’s face.

              1. I agree with all that, the Arab influence was much less than some claim. They’re remembered favorably because they favored bathing (not that other Europeans didn’t, just that at times Xtians tried to suppress it among the common people), & at certain times & places were less oppressive of Jews than Xtians were. They were worse for pagans, though, all things considered.

                Some people probably got a favorable impression of the Moslem world on the basis of the contrast across the Danube. A lot of the more backward areas were just north of the Ottoman Empire. Also the reconquest of Spain was pretty evil for a century or so.

      2. Are you saying a religion whose followers conquer other civilizations and enslaving people is inherently problematic?

      3. Islam is a problem, it’s ideology is simply incompatible with western civilization.

        As is evident by the 3,000,000ish Muslim-Americans living peacefully in the US right now.

        1. Great point, but would you trust your wife or daughter to walk down a Muslim majority area of Marseille France or Molenbeek Belgium? Have you not read the statistics? The Swedes report –

          The total Muslim population in Sweden is estimated at 4.4% (2013 figures). Out of that 4.4% and in deducting the women and children, we can roughly guesstimate that around 2% are male. The foreign rape figures at 77.6% Muslim has been anonymously confirmed by a Swedish politician in a phone conversation. The actual figure could be higher. These percentages do not include Muslims with Swedish citizenship contained within rapes in the figures categorized under “Swedish nationals”.

          “20-year-old asylum seeker from Iraq confessed to raping a 10-year-old boy at a public swimming pool in Vienna. The Iraqi said the rape was a “sexual emergency” resulting from “excess sexual energy.”
          Those who dare to link spiraling crime to Muslim mass migration are being silenced by the guardians of Austrian multiculturalism.”

          And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

          1. Oooow! A phone conversation. That’s certainly convincing. You’re right. I’ve been wrong all this time. I certainly do need to be afraid. We need to all get right to work rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps.

            For the children, of course…

            1. “foreign rape figures” is a term with more wriggle room than a hula dancer’s skirt.

              1. Also, a terrible band name.

            2. You didn’t answer my question, would you trust your wife or daughter in a Muslim majority area of the world? From Saudi Arabia to Indonesia and to the Muslim slums of Europe, would you trust your female relatives? Btw, Muslims are a significant minority in America not so much in Europe.

              1. You didn’t answer my question, would you trust your wife or daughter in a Muslim majority area of the world?

                I have.

                Twice.

                Albeit, she was well armed.

                1. I admire you for that, and her as well. No sarcasm, I’m being serious. – She deserves a medal.

                  1. She deserves a medal.

                    She got paid, IAW her contract, instead.

                    1. That’s awesome, someone who travels like that deserves it, I can only imagine the stress involved.

                    2. I can only imagine the stress involved.

                      She is able to distinguish between rational and irrational fear. Once you do that there’s a lot less stress.

                    3. You are right about that, some people can’t distinguish that and just aren’t capable of getting out there and doing it.

        2. 1.5 million of whom want Islamic sharia law to supersede the US Constitution…

          1. I want “libertarian law” to supersede the US Constitution…

            I ALSO want a solid gold toilet seat.

            1. You’re willing to pursue your goal through a peaceful, democratic process. Are they? There is global evidence that says their approach does not mirror yours.

              1. Hell, I’m willing to pursue F d’A’s goal (except the toilet seat) by any effective means. But it’s his goal I like, not Sharia?even though the difference between Sharia & other law systems would probably make little difference in 95% of cases.

              2. Are they?

                When a Muslim aggresses upon you, then you get to punish HIM/HER. Same with me.

        3. Like the wife of the Orlando shooter?

          The problem is the “radical” Muslims swim in a sea of “moderate” Muslims who in the main share the goals of the radicals and won’t warn the infidels when one of those “living peacefully” in the US decides to return to the roots of Islam with a vengeance.

          That’s why they let her go and the media dropped the story so quickly.

          Because to prosecute her would show that your narrative is at best dangerously na?ve.

      4. The problem with this historical analysis is that there’s always a hypocrisy and double-standard applied towards Muslim and Christian nations. Muslim-initiated aggression is always completely mindless religiously-motivated fanaticism, but Christian-initiated aggression has nuanced and complex reasons that aren’t always religious. Yes, Muslim countries invaded or otherwise attacked a lot of Christian countries in the last 1400 years or so. If you didn’t notice, Christian countries in that time also conquered the entirety of the Americas, almost all of Africa (including many Muslim areas), and large parts of Asia (again, including many Muslim areas). If you want to make the argument that Islam today hasn’t reformed to the extent Christianity has, and there’s bigger problems with fanaticism, etc. then make that argument. It’s an easy one to make. But trying to fit today’s conflicts into a narrative that fits it in with Charles Martel and a bunch of other unrelated or loosely-related things from hundreds or thousands of years ago as part of a story of mindless, evil, fanatic Muslims attacking the poor, innocent, peaceful West for thousands of years is just stupid.

        1. “unrelated or loosely-related things from hundreds or thousands of years ago as part of a story of mindless, evil, fanatic Muslims attacking the poor, innocent, peaceful West for thousands of years is just stupid.”

          I’m not saying Christianity or the western world is innocent, far from it. It’s suffice to say that the terrorists of the Middle Ages were comprised of Christians too, look at the reformation, the brutality of that era and the methods of torture utilized was horrible. The Catholics and Protestants were like the Shia and Sunnis today in many ways.
          And I agree that western countries/empires conquered and mistreated many other cultures and peoples. But your assertion that this is all loosely related is absurd, a lot of repercussions felt today were the result of cumulative events over hundreds and thousands of years. Ideas and beliefs that were forged back then have endured the centuries. I’m just asking if perhaps Muhammad was as peaceful as Peter or Paul or Buddha if we would have these issues today?

        2. A big reason for this disparity in perception, besides of course people always being more biased towards those who are closest to their own side, is that so much of the Muslim conquests were conducted not by secular leaders but by religious leaders (Caliphs). The early Muslim conquests and much of the wars fought by the Ottoman Empire were conducted by Caliphs, people who claimed to be owed the religious and political loyalty of all Muslims (basically, a Muslim version of a Pope). Now of course these Caliphs had other reasons than simply religious fervor for what they did, and a lot of people claimed the title of Caliph simply to increase their worldly power and not through any sense of piety, but it still leaves a different impression when someone claiming to be the head of a religion (like a Caliph) goes on a conquering spree as opposed to when a conqueror is a layman of the faith (like most of the European monarchs – excepting the British).

          1. You bring up an excellent point, it definitely brings clarity to a lot of these questions.

        3. Muslim-initiated aggression is always completely mindless religiously-motivated fanaticism, but Christian-initiated aggression has nuanced and complex reasons that aren’t always religious.

          Yeah, Muslims just can’t catch a break in academia these days with all of the right-wing Christian apologists crowding out any rational historical analysis.

          They portray us in the media, when they see a black family they’re looting; when they see a white family, it says, they’re looking for food.

          PRESIDENT BUSH DOESN’T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE MUSLIMS!

          QQ

    3. His wife was standing behind him, off the podium at the DNC.
      Genius.

  9. One thing that Trump advocates I think is awesome is his stance on NATO being obsolete, he created a shitstorm when he came out and said that he believes that Europe needs to do more to fund their own defense. All of these establishment politicians, both democrat and republican howled in protest, from Mitch McConnell to John Kerry. The Europeans are pissed but it’s high time to question this shit, after all where did the last 20 years of foreign policy get us? How did that help our national defense? Looks to me like Trump might have some refreshing ideas on it although he is still an authoritarian so proceed with caution.

    1. I’m also bugged by the neo-con knee jerk that seems to have taken hold far beyond neo-con circles: Russia is our enemy. Sure, if you make them one, like Boston Blackie.

  10. Patriotic altruism for the win.

    Rand would be proud.

  11. “Ghazala Khan told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell she did not speak because she was overwhelmed by grief”

    Not so overwhelmed it stopped her from going into a big crowd and climbing onto a stage for the millions of viewers at home.

    And apparently the one thing that does overcome the overwhelming grief is MSNBC.

    These people are props.

    1. Ding ding ding

    2. Well, to be fair it’s a lot easier to speak to the 5 or 6 people that watch MSNBC, rather than speaking on all the networks in front of millions at the DNC.

  12. I see Reason doesn’t know what a “turn of phrase” is. Trump derangement syndrome seems to have taken over. I really wish guys would criticize actual issues about The Don. And there should be no lack of articles about Hitlery’s treason. Alas, there are, however.

    1. Perhaps it’s because the left wing libertarian ideology predominates?

    2. The Cosmos are trying to,prove that they can pile in a narrative just as good as the proggie friends.
      Gotta maintain career viability,

    3. Yup. It’s sad, there are plenty of things to criticize Trump for from a libertarian perspective, yet a lot of the Reason writers choose to trash him in the exact same manner as you’d see from any of the statists at any number of left wing sites. It feels like they’re trying their hardest to get me to like Trump.

      1. It feels like they’re trying their hardest to get me to like Trump

        Hm. Perhaps this is their angle to save us from the wrath of Queen Vagina. Perhaps they are playing 3d chess while we are playing checkers. Then again, I doubt they are that clever.

      2. Reason hews more to the GOPe #NeverTrump talking points, slightly modified for foreign/military policy.

      3. So the Trumpistas seem to have three basic arguments:

        1. Trump didn’t do anything wrong.
        2. Reason should be criticizing Trump for some other reason which we totally promise not to complain about despite always doing so.
        3. Why are you siding with a sand-nigger!

        1. One is true. The second and third points have to relation to the discussion that is actually occurring. I assume they came from the voices inside your head.

          1. The comment I’m responding to is arguing #2.

            You essentially are arguing #3 in our discussion below, where you say the upshot of this is that the Democrats support Muslims and Americans don’t like Muslims.

        2. Pretty much, yup.

          They have a deep emotional need to confabulate reasons to support Trump, despite his actual positions being diametrically opposed to what they pretend to believe in.

          because they primary identity is not based on any set of actual libertarian principles, but just based on what they are against. They just hate them some Democrats, Muslims, Mexicans and whatever else, and since Trump is regularly sticking it to their favorite hate-groups they just can’t help loving him, principles be damned.

          Principals not principles.

          1. Cognitive dissonance is a Rosie O’Donnell.

          2. I believe in liberty. Mass illegal immigration, and Muslim immigration, reduce my liberty in a number of ways: more welfare, more power for SJWs, more terror, more government surveillance, more anti-libertarian voters. Trump is wrong on a number of points, but he’s aligned with libertarianism on those, whether you or anyone else here understands that or not.

            1. I understand it, many don’t get it though.

            2. Then make that argument. That as bad as Trump is, the alternative is worse.

              What we’re seeing on this thread are not arguments that Trump is bad but HRC is worse, but that what Trump said was justified.

              1. I will make that argument. Trump was a bit off-base here, as he often is.

          3. Regal Entertainment Group projects less than you do.

            Also, couldn’t you just stick with your Warty handle?

        3. Trumpistas? I’m sorry, because I want to see real arguments made against Trump instead of this kind of trivial bullshit, I must be a Trump supporter? I know I’m not some extremely active member for my posts to be memorable, but I recall posting in the not-so-distant past that I’ll likely be voting for Johnson, reluctantly.

    4. Journolist not Journalist

    5. How do you turn a phrase?

  13. Reason prints a guy who would compare their son to Adam Lanza.

    1. That is a great point. For reason to go all “how dare someone criticize the troops” is pretty fucking rich.

    2. Nice catch!

  14. Kaiser Khan, seriously?

  15. Obviously Kaiser’s never read the constitution since he confuses it with Shari’a. Fuck him.

    1. I agree, shariah law is disgusting.

  16. Part of the appeal of Trump is his willingness to say whatever he’s thinking at the moment without having a team of advisors and lawyers focus group-testing his words the way most politicians do. The bad thing about this is that you can’t trust him to hold to any particular position statement because you know whatever he says was said without thinking. He just opens his mouth and whatever shit’s in his head falls out – if he listens to enough criticism he may change what he said or change the meaning but his first instinct is to defend whatever nonsense he came up with no matter how indefensible. He’s a fucking troll and you people can’t get it through your fat heads that you DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.

    1. Thing is, he trolls all the right people.

      1. Exactly. They love him because he trolls people they hate. It’s all about the feelings. The feelings of hate.

        1. Hazel had come to love Big Sister.

          1. She’s under the sway of Big Snatch..

    2. Thing is, he trolls all the right people.

      1. Too bad he doesn’t troll the server squirrels.

        1. Even Cthulhu doesn’t mess with the server squirrels.

    3. Yes, and the fact that the stuff that randomly falls out of his head is invariably some kind of bigotry and hate makes these people like him even more.
      That says a lot about them.

      1. It’s not “bigotry and hate” to not want the country swamped with illegal aliens who are often welfare cases and criminals, and are future voters for a more powerful state. (Which, unless you are totally naive, you will understand is part of the Democratic Party plan.)

        It’s not “bigotry and hate” to not want the country to import believers in an archaic religion which regularly proves itself to be incompatible with Western civilization (not to mention libertarianism), and is a group which inevitably contains terrorists and their supporters, who are simply impossible to “vet.”

        1. But it is bigotry to describe Mexicans as rapists and suggest they can’t be good judges because they’re Mexicans.

          And to bar Muslims from the country because of their religious affiliation. Frankly the idea that anywhere near enough of them are violent to justify such a ban is beyond preposterous.

          1. 1. Trump didn’t say all Mexicans are rapists, just that some who come here are, which is undeniable. (There’s also the fact that Mexico has a lower age of consent, so there’s a cultural/statutory rape aspect.)

            2. The left is constantly telling us that race matters in the justice system. They regularly accuse white judges of having racial bias. So it’s illegitimate to suggest that a Mexican-American judge connected to racial pride organizations (e.g. La Raza) might have a bias against someone who doesn’t like illegal immigration?

            3. Islam is more than a religion. It has a political component. And how many violent ones would be enough for you to not want to take a chance? 100%? 50%? What if 19% of American Muslims believe violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States? What if 25% say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the “global Jihad”? They do. And that’s just what our “peaceful, assimilated” Muslims are willing to tell pollsters. Check the results for other countries if you dare.

            And you want to add to that problem cuz “religious freedom”? Screw that. Let them have their version of “religious freedom” in a Muslim country, where, ironically, non-Muslims don’t have any.

          2. But it is bigotry to describe Mexicans as rapists and suggest they can’t be good judges because they’re Mexicans.

            Isn’t this exactly what Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor said? Was she wrong?

            NYT: A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record

            Quote:
            In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
            “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

            1. Exactly, KevinP. Trump is playing by the identity politics rules of the left. Good for him. He should make that explicit. The left can’t be allowed double standards here.

  17. Someone at the Democrat convention waving the constitution? That’s rich. Maybe Khan should have passed out copies for these idiots to read. Now I need to pick tomatoes and peppers.

  18. Sigh…of all the things to criticize Trump for, to denounce him for defending himself against the Democrats’ strategy of weaponized grief?

    With people like Khan, the Dems think they’ve devised the perfect attack strategy – take someone who has suffered greatly, have him use his suffering as the occasion to launch bitter attacks at the Dems’ opponents, then when the opponents defend themselves, come back with “how dare you criticize this sympathetic, telegenic victim, have you no sense of decency?”

    Apparently, the idea is to be in a position where you can attack Republicans and they have no moral right to defend themselves.

    And we’re supposed to be outraged that Trump doesn’t play into that?

    1. Exactly. Holy shit, Trump says stuff that’s not 100% PC!?

      Just criticize him for not being libertarian/small govt, please.

        1. Yep, I laughed my ass off when I heard he made that comment.

          So unbelievably true. Women are treated like shit in the Muslim world. Anyone who claims to be a liberal or libertarian should have a beef with Islam to the degree that it won’t stop until women are treated equally in the Islamic world.

          Sadly, our Reason writers are willing to overlook that to think themselves worldly. Islam isn’t the little guy that needs defending. It holds the last vestiges of slavery in the modern world. It should be scorned unequivocally by any classically liberal minded person.

    2. + 1 Alligator tears

    3. ^This

      Trump isn’t going to play into that and why should he? He has had great momentum up to this point by being the anti establishment politician. His unorthodox campaign thrives on controversy.

    4. Sigh…of all the things to criticize Trump for, to denounce him for defending himself against the Democrats’ strategy of weaponized grief?

      Except he didn’t criticize the use of a dead soldier’s family as a prop, he just attacked the dead soldier’s family.

      The Democrats doing something slimy does not give Trump the right to do anything he pleases in response.

      1. “he just attacked the dead soldier’s family.”

        For allowing themselves to be used.

        God, Trump is dumb and transparent, why are you having such a hard time with this?

        1. He didn’t say anything about them being used. If he’s so transparent, why do you and your fellow Trump supporters have to constantly “reinterpret” what he says to not be terrible?

    5. The republicans finally stumbled on someone who is immune to weaponized grief and might actually destroy the house of Clinton.

      Huzzah

    6. Sigh…of all the things to criticize Trump for, to denounce him for defending himself against the Democrats’ strategy of weaponized grief?

      Did I just imagine that the Republicans had the mother of one of the Benghazi victims speak at their convention the week before Khan spoke? Oh, wait, no, I didn’t imagine that: http://time.com/4412042/republ…..cia-smith/

      1. Did you imagine that Democrats, to include Clinton while she was still SoS, have been attacking the Benghazi victims’ families with impunity for 5 years?

  19. I am making 88 bucks hourly for working from home. I never thought that it was legit but my best friend is earning 10 thousand dollars a month by working online and she recommended me to try it. Try it out on following website.

    Try To this site———–> http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

  20. Instead of insinuating that Ghazala Khan had been muzzled by an overbearing Muslim husband, Trump could have taken this opportunity to point out that her son died in a disastrous war that never should have been fought?a war that his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, supported and did not describe as a mistake until more than a decade after it was launched. Since the folly of that war has been a recurring theme of Trump’s campaign, a response along those lines would have made sense. Mocking a dead soldier’s grieving parents, not so much.

    Edited down to this, Sullum is absolutely right.

    1. You beat me to it. It would be sooooooooo easy for Trump and/or the GOP is tear HRC apart. Soooooooo easy. And yet Trump chooses to discuss a grieving mother? I wouldn’t care if he were 100% correct in this situation, it is just stupid optics. Stupid at best. At worst, I’m becoming conspiracy minded and thinking that Trump can’t believe he could win in November and lose his privacy and freedom and therefore is doing his damndest to sabotage his chances.

      1. I think he’s been trying to lose for the last 3 months, but the rubes keep taking him higher and higher despite his attempts to throw the match.

        1. Does that tinfoil hat come in standard sizes or does it have to be tailored for the wearer?

      2. “it is just stupid optics”

        People who spread the use of the word “optics” deserve Trump as their president.

        1. YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

      3. No other GOP candidate would have said a word.

    2. There’s no reason he couldn’t have done both. Khan’s waving around of the Constitution as if it supported his emoting in any way was absolutely laughable. Trump hasn’t made any sacrifices, but Hillary has (well, besides her dignity over the last 25 years)? Hell, if I’m Trump I’d be pointing out that if Hillary hadn’t thrown her support behind Iraq, their son would still be alive, then tweet 8 US 1182:

      “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

      Trump needs to realize (if he doesn’t already) that the media are going to be running a full-court press on him now 24/7. It was cute when he was just wrecking the Republicans, but as long as he’s a threat to Her Highness they’ll be hitting him from all angles now. His only real advantage is that his opponents are so unhinged now they can’t help but set him up for juicy comebacks. He’s shown in some instances that he can exploit this (such as baiting the Democrats into admitting that Clinton passed classified information over her server and their desire to start up the Cold War again), but I don’t think he’s focused enough to deflect all of the attacks back on them.

    3. Instead of In addition to

  21. “smear[ing] the character of Muslims,”

    What the heck does this mean?

    Muslims have one character they all share? What character specifically?

    I hate generalized vapid phrases and terms that amount to jack shit.

    1. You might like this.

      http://www.smalldeadanimals.co…..at-34.html

      1. Yeh, heard about that. Notice how full of shit Liberal politicians are. Always running to judgment. This is not the exception but the norm with people like Ralph Goodale. They can’t go a yard without yelling ‘hate crime’ or ‘hate speech’ before any investigation. Bunch of jerks.

        1. Too bad they couldn’t post a synospsis of what the video is about.

      2. Ha, thanks for posting that.

  22. I blame the promoted comments for all of the commenter consternation.

    1. On my viewing apparatus I can never see the entire promoted comment, so I ignore them even harder than everyone else.

  23. Good lord: If Sullum expects Trump to be “classy” at this point, he hasn’t been paying attention.

    1. Haha yeah, I think it’s obvious the Trump brand wouldn’t be successful if he were just a typical politician.

    2. Sullum’s articles are for those political readers that have never heard of Trump yet.

  24. The Democratic wet dream would be for a terminal cancer patient to record a video where he says that “no decent person could vote for Trump and I beg whoever is watching to vote for Hillary in memory of me…” and then dies on camera.

    They’d show it over and over.

    1. Dying parent’s last wish is “don’t vote for ” are all over Derpbook

    2. Masters of emotional manipulators.

      I love listening to left-wing morons talk as though they’re the most rational people since sliced bread while accusing conservatives and libertarians of being ignorant and/or emotional.

      Like this guy did as a guess on a radio show the other day:

      https://www.amazon.com/Jackson-Katz/e/B001JS4JEU

      1. manipulation

    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fLtA-VDx4A

      Obama already used this. The whole thing was shown false, but damage was done.

    4. They need to tie it to Trump depriving them of health insurance, the way they blamed Romney for the same thing.

  25. I saw my problems and I’ll see the light
    We got a lovin’ thing, we gotta feed it right
    There ain’t no danger we can go too far
    We start believin’ now that we can be who we are, Trump is the word.
    They think our love is just a growin’ pain
    Why don’t they understand? It’s just a cryin’ shame
    Their lips are lyin’, only real is real
    We stop the fight right now, we got to be what we feel, Trump is the word.
    It’s got a groove, it’s got a meaning
    Trump is the time, is the place, is the motion
    Trump is the way we are feeling

  26. Not fair. Suddenly I’m a troll. How the F*** did that happen?

    1. Hey, goat meat isn’t so bad, and the bridge shelters you from the rain.

      1. What’s your favorite color?

      2. Goat meat? You mean we’re not supposed to eat the children?

        1. They really need to print up a new handbook. “Kid” has multiple meanings.

  27. There is a facebook meme floating around pointing out their support for the woman who voted to send their son to die.

  28. How much are the Trumptards getting paid to troll here every day? I mean, I could use a little extra coin too.

    1. I get to stay for free at his hotels, and when he’s President, he’ll make me the American consul in Tahiti.

      1. What ?

        He promised ME Tahiti .

        1. Fine, you “consul” the ugly chicks, I’ll let the hot chicks try out my “consul.”

    2. What the Trump morons who post on the site don’t seem to understand is that the complaining and whining and bitching about the same topic over and over and over and over and over again – even one that has some merit – not only weakens their complaint, it makes them come off like a bunch of pathetic, whiny, bitchy little babies.

      1. Shit, the Democrats have been complaining and whining about racism and sexism for 40 years and look where it’s got them. No reason to abandon a winning formula.

      2. What the Reason writers who post on the site don’t seem to understand is that the complaining and whining and bitching about the same candidate over and over and over and over and over again – even one who definitely deserves much of it – not only weakens their complaint, it makes them come off like de facto supporters of the other terrible major party candidate.

    3. John’s been promised a cabinet seat.

      1. 12 Courics per post over here

  29. GQ Writer Said He Wanted to ‘Beat’ Benghazi Mom ‘To Death’ — Then Apologizes
    …Last night, when Pat Smith was speaking onstage at the Republication National Convention, I tweeted that “no matter how many children she’s lost, I’d like to beat her to death.”…

    1. I can’t believe Reason didn’t cover this. What are they trying to hide?

      1. They’re clearly in the bag for Trump.

    2. Somebody somewhere said something bad, therefore nobody can criticize Trump until they’ve criticized everybody else who said bad things.

      That this is the reed Trumpistas are hanging on to is pathetic.

    3. I was unaware that “GQ Writer” was the presidential candidate of a major American political party….

    1. I bet theae are the same people that go around wearing the hats and shirts of the rivals of the home team. They can’t just offer a secular alternative as they claim is all they want to do, they have to antagonize everyone else.

      1. Try that in Cleveland during a Browns games. Seen it,not pretty.

        1. Was at a Redskibs-Giants game in DC. Redskins fans were yelling stuff at the guys in Giants jerseys, but then the guy wearing an Eagles jersey came into the stands. Peace was made, a common enemy was found.

          That is more like what these guys are doing.

    2. “But the group’s plan for public schoolchildren isn’t actually about promoting worship of the devil.”

      So, frauds.

  30. Can’t we all just after that Trump and Clinton are both moronic lying sacks of shit who should treated the way one would treat large chunks of a hard fibrous material if one wanted it to be the size of chips.

    1. *not a threat. I’m as harmless as a person who practices a religion of peace.

    2. Can’t we all agree. Haven’t had caffeine yet

    3. Now that would be a great thing. Count me in.

    4. I agree, they both suck immensely. Johnson it is.

    5. You don’t want to have a pissing contest?

      1. They are so pointless and droll.

  31. The senseless tragedy of another life sacrificed on the altar of man’s inhumanity to man and leave to the left to trot out the victims for political gain.

  32. ” Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
    — Reason Magazine’s candidate for President, HRC

  33. He calls the late soldier “a hero to our country” and says “the real problem here are [sic] the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him.”

    Clue me in, what’s this all about?

  34. Anyone who would use his dead son to make political hay is a piece of shit. Fuck Kahn.

    1. So if some Asian father in WW2 had come out and condemned FDR following his son dying in a concentration camp because of some government negligence, would that father be a piece of shit for condemning the policy that put his family there? Or, hell, would Japanese Americans who lost children in WW2 be pieces of shit if they had condemned FDR’s policies after?

      Trump has quite outwardly attacked Islam in general at times to the point of saying screw the first amendment, we are going to ban Islam itself. If I were a Muslim and my son died fighting this country’s wars, I’d be pretty pissed about that.

      Trump made these attacks legitimate because he has grossly collectivized Muslims at various points.

      1. So why, exactly, wasn’t Khan condemning Hillary as a piece of shit for voting for the war that got his son killed?

        1. You assume Khan opposes the war and that his primary goal should be holding HIllary accountable for starting it. I don’t know his opinion there, but it doesn’t really have much to do with attacking Trump for basically spitting in his dead son’s face. That is a very understandable position to me regardless of his thoughts on the Iraq War.

          1. it doesn’t really have much to do with attacking Trump for basically spitting in his dead son’s face.

            Sounds more like Khan projecting his own emotional insecurities.

            1. I’m not a mind reader and I can’t make qualitative preferences for Khan. I don’t have to agree with him on every political point to understand where he is coming from in his anger towards a candidate who attacks his faith when his son sacrificed his life for the country. Nor is Khan obligated to attack the war his son died in or prioritize that. The point I’m making has nothing to do with the entire consistency of Khan’s worldview.

              Calling him a piece of shit for ‘politicizing’ his sons death is dumb to me. There’s all kinds of different priorities and arguments he could present, but his overall attack on Trump is entirely legitimate.

              1. There’s all kinds of different priorities and arguments he could present, but his overall attack on Trump is entirely legitimate.

                What attack? That if Trump had his way, they wouldn’t have been allowed in this country? They came over in 1980, before Trump was even in the national spotlight. That he doesn’t want to let in Muslims after terrorist incidents? Presidents are allowed to limit immigration in any way they see fit. Waving his pocket Constitution around like a bloody shirt? Where exactly does it say in the Constitution that open borders is the law of the land? That Trump hasn’t sacrificed anything? Who gives a damn?

                The Dems pulled this same shit with Cindy Sheehan 10 years ago–using her grief as a weapon to gain the moral high ground, instead this time they’re doing it with parents who might still have their son had Clinton not given the Iraq vote political cover. Now Sheehan’s a pariah with the same people that used her and the same thing will happen to the Khans once they’re no longer useful as a cat’s paw.

                1. Trump has made other statements besides the ban all Muslim immigration. So as I said to another poster below, this comes off as disingenuous if not entirely dishonest. The guy said he’d close Mosques – tell me how Constitutional that is.

                  Then you conflate what is Constitutional with what is just. Banning all Muslims from entering the country from overseas is not just or libertarian for that matter. So while I can in one topic attack Reason for calling it blatantly unconstitutional, as I have, I can also call bullshit when people want to pretend that this means its A-OK.

                  But beyond that, just to reiterate, Trump has suggested policy towards Muslims that IS unconstitutional that you just want to ignore.

                  1. The guy said he’d close Mosques – tell me how Constitutional that is.

                    If they’re pushing a form of Saudi wahhabism or Salafism that incites their followers to violence, then closing those mosques down isn’t unconstitutional.

                    Banning all Muslims from entering the country from overseas is not just or libertarian for that matter.

                    Only if you’re open borders.

                    But beyond that, just to reiterate, Trump has suggested policy towards Muslims that IS unconstitutional that you just want to ignore.

                    It may be unrealistic, but it’s not unconstitutional.

                    1. Open borders doesn’t have shit to do with it. The government is not allowed to punish or discriminate against people for their religion. That is the libertarian principle, and if you disagree, you are coming from an authoritarian position.

                      All of you trying to cover for Trump and pretending like you’re the real libertarians are fucking disgraceful. You’re covering for an authoritarian piece of shit, and you’re doing the liberal game of using absolutely any argument that will allow you to arrive at the conclusion you’ve already settled on.

                    2. Open borders doesn’t have shit to do with it. The government is not allowed to punish or discriminate against people for their religion. That is the libertarian principle, and if you disagree, you are coming from an authoritarian position.

                      A country has a responsibility to its own citizens, not everyone on the planet. You’re preaching pathological altruism, not libertarianism.

                      All of you trying to cover for Trump and pretending like you’re the real libertarians are fucking disgraceful. You’re covering for an authoritarian piece of shit, and you’re doing the liberal game of using absolutely any argument that will allow you to arrive at the conclusion you’ve already settled on.

                      Save your outrage for the campus coffeehouse.

              2. I don’t have to agree with him on every political point to understand where he is coming from in his anger towards a candidate who attacks his faith when his son sacrificed his life for the country. Nor is Khan obligated to attack the war his son died in or prioritize that.

                You don’t think the venue he chose made this a little more gauche than, say, delivering a speech at a non-partisan event or penning an op-ed? He was there endorsing a political candidate, not giving a testimonial.

          2. How, exactly is trump spitting on their dead sons’ grave?

            Did,their son die to bring terrorist into the US? That’s the only way I can see Trumps position as being offensive to them. If so, fuck em. Or did their son die fighting terrorists, in which case, why would he want his,legacy to be bring them here?

            1. I think it’s pretty understandable that Muslims would perceive Trump as a little bit more than anti-terrorist. He’s made comments that spoke far more broadly about Islam and proposed policies that would create repercussions for Muslims who are not terrorists.

              If you want to argue about the legitimacy of said policies, go ahead. But you are basically saying that reasonable people can in no way disagree here. Similarly for claims that he must come out and condemn the war or he should be prioritizing x rather than y.

              1. He’s said that he wants to exclude potential terrorist from immigrating to the US. How is that anti-musli? And why should,that be offensive to a current US citizen unless importing more of thei religious group is more important to them than the safety of the US? Should German Americans duringWWII have been offended by the ban on German immigration? Should they have also been offended by the ongoing ban on NAZI party members immigrating?

                1. 1. And a month ago he was saying ban all Muslims. I find this comment disingenuous.
                  2. Trump basically said fuck the first amendment and said lets have cops target Muslims with extra patrols (it’s been done, but never so brazenly advertised)
                  3. He’s talked about closing Mosques which…is blatantly unconstitutional.

                  There may be other dumb shit I’m forgetting.

                  When you start asking why it should be offensive or less important, that’s just…yea, you really can’t figure out why a Muslim may be offended by any of that, even if you disagree?

                  Then you go back to FDR and to put it bluntly, his treatment of certain groups during WW2 was unconstitutional. Some things are technically in some sense Constitutional, but that doesn’t make them right. You don’t seem to want to make any distinction.

                  1. Do you have a cite for numer 3?

      2. So if some Asian father in WW2 had come out and condemned FDR following his son dying in a concentration camp because of some government negligence, would that father be a piece of shit for condemning the policy that put his family there?

        If they were making these announcements at a national convention for a politician that enthusiastically supported internment camps during the war, yes.

        Not to mention your example in general is pretty bad. It’s not like a man criticizing FDR, it’s like man criticizing some businessman who was anti-internment camp but also anti-Japanese immigration from the podium of a candidate who was in FDR administration.

        1. Khan made no statements about supporting or opposing the war. Khan wasn’t talking about his son dying in vein and blaming Trump. Your analogy makes no sense.

          1. Your analogy about internment camps make no sense in context either.

            I think it’s entirely fair to call him out for politicizing, especially in the cynical way they’re doing it. Khan stood on a stage in front of a crowd and surrounded by a gaggle of politicians who don’t give a shit about the sacrifices of his son. He then proceeds to give an extremely emotionally manipulative speech, and said audience and politicians cheer and clap not on the content of the speech, but how it’s an attack on their opponent (and probably his status as a minority). If he a white guy attacking Clinton for supporting Iraq these people wouldn’t give a shit about him. And his stinger was just nonsensical. I mean, “Have You Read the Constitution?” Khan hasn’t read it either if he thinks anything he said at the DNC is somehow relevant to the constitution. Or that the Democrats somehow care about the constitution.

            This is just bare-faced cynical culture war political manipulation, and it’s entirely fair to call him out for going along with it. He has to either be an idiot or fully aware of what he’s doing.

            1. Khan being wrong to support Hillary is not the same as calling him a piece of shit or arguing that he is wrong for pointing out the wrongs of collectivizing. And Trump has engaged in collectivization of Muslims.

              The argument presented in the initial comment wasn’t that Khan was wrong, but that he shouldn’t say his piece at all in a public forum because…well, emotions? I didn’t see a rational rebuttal or disagreement with Kahn’s arguments, but an attack on his character for daring to point out that his Muslim son sacrificed for a country where a large part of the population would apparently go along with banning Islam.

              Anyone who would use his dead son to make political hay is a piece of shit. Fuck Kahn.

              If you can’t make this distinction between disagreeing with a man and viewing his position as wrongheaded versus condemning him for saying it, I don’t know what to tell you.

              1. Again, he’s being used as a figurehead for a political attack on an opponent in a Presidental campaign. His authority in the debate comes from his association with a dead soldier. So yes, he’s literally using his dead son as a soapbox. I can understand why people might call him a piece of shit for it, but admittedly I think it’s unnecessary to do so.

                1. *Not literally dammit.

                2. I think people who just want to call him a piece of shit are engaging in the same sort of emotionally based arguments as the Democrats who trotted him up there.. Nor do I feel like playing mind reader or getting on a high horse to throw around moral condemnations. Kahn’s position is open to rational argument and questioning.

                  If he took a position against the Iraq War, he’s just as much politicizing his son’s death. So I’m not seeing much coherency from the moral condemnation side of this.

                  1. I think a lot of the response around Khan has more to do with the media fondling over him, and people being well aware of the game they’re playing. But they throw their dislike onto Khan himself as the figurehead.

                  2. He’s using his son’s death to make a political point, and that makes him a piece of shit. He should’ve told everyone not to vote for Hillary, because she started the war that got her son killed. That would be totally different.

              2. The argument presented in the initial comment wasn’t that Khan was wrong, but that he shouldn’t say his piece at all in a public forum

                Yeah, because endorsing a political candidate at their party’s national convention is indistinguishable from any public forum, right you disingenuous fuckstain? Of course the reaction would be exactly the same if he’d written an op-ed in his local newspaper or started a blog or delivered a speech during one of the numerous protests at the RNC.

  35. Peter is starting to get warmed up again. In case you never saw it, this speech was only exceeded in prescience by this one.

    1. I changed my modest position to secure 3 months ago. It went up, by not as much as unsecured position would have.

      1. You’ll make more until you don’t. Personally, the only idiom I follow is that the markets can stay irrational longer than I can stay liquid. That’s the dilemma any libertarian investor is going to face. If people want to time their jump out, I wish them luck and no ill will.

        1. I’ve been thinking about getting out for a minute. Consumer spending has been up though.

          1. It’s crazy. Look at the market after Brexit. Shorts have to cover and the FTSE gets juiced higher than before. I’m not Palin’sButtplug so I won’t even pretend to know what to do. Drink a beer?

            1. With rates being kept artificially low by the Fed, no one wants to put their money anywhere else. Brexit drop was a tantrum that ended as soon as it started. Fed says it’s still planning on raising rates this year so that may be a trigger but of course people are going to try and get ahead of it. How far ahead is the question. There is also the possibility of a real recovery in which case the market may not be as overvalued as it appears. I have a ways to go until retirement so I’m not losing any sleep at this point. In short, my crystal ball doesn’t work.

              1. More likely to cut than to raise. They learned their lesson in December. I’m nearing 50 and I don’t remember anyone caring about FOMC minutes until about 10 years ago. The fact that every investor takes monetary policy in mind first and foremost when investing speaks volumes to how fucked we truly are.

                1. I’m not terribly concerned long term. Certainly if I can take advantage of a large drop and subsequent rise, I would like to do so.

                2. They can’t/won’t raise rates. We’re headed for another market crash. The gains in the market over the last few years have been due to corporate buybacks and not retail investment. But it’s running out of steam and there’s no support under the current prices.

  36. If Trump does win I hope he tells NATO to fuck off, it’s about time my tax money quits subsidizing European defense.

    1. If we had done so 20 years ago, they(the EU) might not have the problems they have now

    2. Don’t worry, they’ll figure out a new way to allocate that formerly NATO money.

      1. True, perhaps a few new aircraft carriers, you know we could use those in the pacific.

  37. Seems like a successful DNC strategy would be to trot out the most sympathetic characters they can find to criticize Trump. They can even be very mild criticisms, Trump can’t help but return fire. People will get tired of the apologetics quickly.

  38. Is Trump working for Clinton? Seriously all he has to do is keep his mouth shut and let the scandals ruin Clinton. Also the whole pocket constitution thing was kind of stolen from a speech by Weld in early July.

    1. As a likely Trump voter in California (no chance my vote will make a difference) I have already factored in a constant stream of gaffs There seems to be some hope that Trump will one day make some gaff that is so ludicrous that I will come to senses, assuming I had any to begin with. Possible, of course, but don’t hold your breath.

      1. Voting Trump as a protest candidate in California makes more sense than it does elsewhere.

        If voting Johnson doesn’t get your middle finger high enough in the air, I can see voting for Trump.

  39. “Since the folly of that war has been a recurring theme of Trump’s campaign, a response along those lines would have made sense. “

    Three points:

    1) Trump being anti-PC isn’t just for show. Insensitivity may be fundamental to his personality.

    If he were faking anti-PC, it might hurt his authenticity. Meanwhile, wanting a fundamentally anti-PC President who is instinctively sensitive to other people’s feelings may be like wanting to go swimming without getting wet.

    And I’m not sure sensitivity is an excellent criteria for being a good President. Aren’t we being foolish if our main criteria in choosing a pediatric heart surgeon is his bedside manner?

    2) Yes, the fact that Trump is criticizing the war that killed their son remains true–regardless of whether Trump’s response was insensitive. We shouldn’t look past that and Hillary’s necon warmongering–just because Trump is being insensitive.

    Remember, Hillary’s primary criticism of the Iraq War was that the Bush Administration wasn’t going far enough. That’s why she lost to Obama eight years ago. That fact doesn’t change simply because Donald Trump was being insensitive.

    1. Remember, Hillary’s primary criticism of the Iraq War was that the Bush Administration wasn’t going far enough.

      Cite?

      1. Wading through google searches for “Hillary Clinton” “Iraq War” and anything else to look for what she said when she tacked to the right of Bush between 2002 and 2006–in anticipation of running for President–is tedious as hell.

        I’ll find it.

        For the moment, suffice it to say that Hillary endorsed both the Bush Administration’s contention 1) that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear and other WMD programs and 2) that Saddam Hussein was coordinating with and providing material support for Al Qaeda.

        The Niger yellowcake connection was horseshit (google “16 words”), but maybe Hillary didn’t know that at the time. However, I believe Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat to contend that Saddam Hussein was providing material support for Al Qaeda.

        1. Remember, Hillary’s primary criticism of the Iraq War was that the Bush Administration wasn’t going far enough.

          That’s the part I’m interested in, not the sideshows. If that’s accurate, it would be useful to know.

          1. Yeah, and when she was in favor of the Iraq War, between 2002 and 2006, she differentiated herself from Bush by being a bigger neocon than Bush and by pushing the idea that Bush wasn’t going far enough.

            There wasn’t hardly any opposition to the Iraq War from Democrat leaders until John Murtha came out publicly against it in 2005. Even then, opposition was highly controversial within the Democratic Party. If you wanted to differentiate yourself from Bush on the Iraq War between 2003 and 2005, you didn’t oppose it. You argued Bush wasn’t doing it right. You argued for faster, harder, stronger, and that’s what Hillary did right up until 2006. The reason an outsider and relative unknown like Obama beat Clinton in the Democrat primary in 2008 was because she had been a warmonger and he’d been ostensibly against the war–he was only one of a few politicians that could play it that way.

            When Kerry was being pummeled for being too weak on the Iraq War and weak on neocon values generally, Hillary was differentiating herself by presenting herself as a meanie.

          2. I’ll go find the links for future reference, but not today. That’s going to be a spare time project. Go google “Hillary Clinton” “Iraq War” and anything else you like, and you may not get any results from that time period for ten, twenty pages, or more.

            I’ve got other things to do today. I’ll find the links some other time. Some of the best may be here in the Reason archives. I was here and against the war every day from 2004 to 2006. It’s hard to want to sift through Hillary links looking for something I already remember.

            But I’ll want to find those links myself for future reference eventually, and I’ll be sure to let you know when I find them.

            1. But I’ll want to find those links myself for future reference eventually, and I’ll be sure to let you know when I find them.

              Looking forward to that. It would be valuable ammunition, but you have to have that argument be backed up by real quotes, not out-of-context or restated stuff for it to be any better than those stupid Facebook memes.

      2. I think this was one of the biggest reasons why Americans supported the invasion. By overwhelming margins, Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the anthrax attack. Once Hillary supported the Iraq War with that contention about Iraq’s WMD program and Al Qaeda (and I don’t know how she got that bogus information), it chilled Democrat opposition like maybe nothing else could. If the lady running for President says it, why would the rest go after her?

        Between that speech for he vote in 2002, her support for the Iraq War was extreme–going through 2006 when the mood among the Democrat base started to sour. She changed her tune once it suited her political ambitions.

        I’ll find some of those links. But I’m not going to spend all Sunday pouring through what Hillary said about Iraq between 2006 and 2016 to do it. Even her old speeches to AIPAC are hard to find past the google results of the neocon pandering she did there in 2016.

        1. Ken: Google might not be the best search engine for your requirements. Give MillionShort a gander — it’s got the ability to shoot right past the “popular” results to the more idiosyncratic and difficult to find.

      1. nit picking

  40. 3) I have yet to see a statement in which Trump calls for a ban on Muslim immigration. Maybe it’s out there! The statement I’ve seen is in Trump’s nomination acceptance speech:

    “We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.”

    That simply does not contain a call for a ban on Muslim immigration. It calls for suspending immigration from countries with immigrants that present a high risk of bringing in anti-American terrorists–regardless of the immigrant’s religion.

    1. It’s worth asking what purpose is served by any immigration. Start from there. You want a few Solzhenitsyns and Einsteins, I presume. 20 million Aztec farmers? Bridges or walls?

      1. My primary concern is the First Amendment.

        My secondary concern is protecting the rights of the American people from foreign criminals, foreign terrorists, communicable diseases, etc.

        I see the pluses and minuses of immigration apart from those considerations as something that should properly be sorted through market participation.

    2. You must not have tried very hard. Googling “trump ban muslim immigration” and the first link is a press release from the Trump campaign.

      The title is “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” and the first sentence is “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. “

      1. “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.

        —-Donald Trump, actual statement

        From your link, even then, he appears to be talking about trying to keep out those Muslims “that only believe in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life”. In other words, even then, it’s the terrorists he’s ultimately trying to keep out. He’s saying that we can’t tell the difference between those that mean us harm and those that don’t.

        I”m a big First Amendment guy. Even if Muslims really did present a danger of terrorism to the American people, I wouldn’t want the government to police people or discriminate against them for what they believe anyway.

        The formulation in Trump’s acceptance speech doesn’t do that. It’s consistent with the First Amendment.

      2. In fact, my opposition to the Obama Administration committing to bringing 85,000 refugees to the United States this year and another 100,000 next year isn’t about their being Muslims. It’s about them coming from areas that are rife with anti-American terrorism and our government being incapable of telling the difference between those who mean us harm and those who don’t.

        Yeah, the headline on that press release and the verbiage in it is dreadful.

        Trump’s actual quote within that press release is more consistent with what he said in his acceptance speech.

        1. Are you suggesting that a press release from the Trump campaign, that has been up since 2015, much discussed, and never retracted, does not actually represent Trump’s position?

          1. I’m saying that Trump’s quote within that press release is consistent with what Trump said in his speech–which was not anti-Muslim.

            I also said the verbiage in the press release was dreadful.

        2. Also, refugees often get welfare. That’s a valid objection.

  41. It is hard to believe Trump’s answer in light of his assertion that Khan “has no right” to say mean things about Donald Trump.

    If it is so hard to believe, one wonders why it did not then occur you to consider rendering the phrase as “has no call”.

    You found lots of good points to make, so why go and ruin it with this silly gotcha? Why jump to the conclusion both most ominous, and least likely? Ironic, perhaps, that the type of thought process which prompts trump to question the wife’s being allowed to speak, should be the same one by which you arrive at your lede.

  42. Just to lighten the mood:

    Swimsuit mural of Hillary Clinton creates a stir in Australia

    Melbourne (AFP) – An Australian mural of US presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in a revealing, stars and stripes swimsuit may be taken down, after it has reportedly been deemed offensive.

    The creator of the painting, the street artist who goes by the name Lushsux and who has also painted murals of the likes of Donald Trump and Kim Kardashian, branded calls to remove it “pathetic”.

    1. My penis shriveled up and is either dead or in a coma now. Thanks.

      1. Crusty is fapping furiously.

  43. As someone pointed out above, reason happily printed and article comparing Chris Kyle to Adam Lanza. Do dead soldiers only deserve respect when they are Muslim?

    Go fuck yourself Sullumn, you leftist twit. Leave defending dead soldiers to people who actually give a shit and do so out of anything other than political opportunism. When people like you do it, it is just insulting to everyone involved.

    1. And that article written by non-Reason staff was roundly criticized by commenters. Why should the existence of a controversial article on the site mean they can never criticize related bad behavior a year and a half later?

      The criticism of Trump isn’t that he spoke ill of a dead soldier anyway, it’s that he lied about what Khan said and insinuated things about Khan that are borderline slanderous.

      1. That article was written by Sheldon Richman, who is a frequent reason contributor. And while it was criticized by the readers, it was never once criticized by reason itself or anyone on the staff. I see no reason to believe Sullumn or anyone else at reason had a problem with Richman’s position. If they don’ want to be associated with it, they shouldn’t have printed it or if they did made some effort to repudiate it.

        Moreover, I defy you to come up with a single example of anyone at reason defending the honor of a dead soldier before this.

        1. Richman is a freelance writer who is published in many places. Reason is hardly responsible for what he writes.

          They’re not defending the honor of the soldier in this case either because that topic never came up.

          What they’re criticizing is Trump lying about what Khan said and insinuating that he treats his wife as a slave with no evidence. The identity of his son has nothing to do with it.

          The only effect of it being a dead soldier’s family is that is that it makes the optics even worse.

          1. Reason isn’t responsible for what its writers print? What sense does that make? He wrote it and posted it on their website and they never said dick about the stupidity of his position. To be clear, the article wasn’t even just about Kyle, but a general attack on American soldiers.

            1. So your position is, because Reason posted a controversial article once, Trump can never be criticized for anything he does to a dead soldier’s family.

              Accepting that FTSOA. I’m here arguing that Trump is an asshole and what he did was wrong and it is going to hurt him in the campaign. I’ve never printed anything by Sheldon Richman. So now you can’t use that tu quoque.

              1. I think you’re going to run into the problem of people caring about Reason’s positions, and not yours.

                1. I think you’re going to run into the problem of people caring about Reason’s positions, and not yours.

                  Or the problem of Trump supporters clutching at straws and using an article from 18 months ago as a get out of criticism free card for their beloved clown candidate.

                  1. Nope, still don’t care what you think.

              2. a dead soldier’s family.

                Explain to me how having a child die in a stupid war makes you magically right about everything, and beyond criticism?

                Is this called Cindy-Sheehanism?

                1. Explain to me how having a child die in a stupid war makes you magically right about everything, and beyond criticism?

                  It doesn’t. I would have had no problem with Trump criticizing Khan’s argument.

                  But he didn’t; he went and (a) lied about what Khan said, and (b) attacked his relationship with his wife. The fact that it’s a dead soldier’s family just makes the optics of the already unjust attack by Trump even worse.

                  1. So now you’re really upset and you want to tell everyone about it?

                    1. So now you’re really upset and you want to tell everyone about it?

                      Are you planning to contribute to the discussion or just randomly poking in and opposing whatever people write?

              3. Trump can never be criticized for anything he does to a dead soldier’s family.

                No. Nor is that what I said so stick to the arguments I’m actually making. Nor have I defended Trump. Reason is entirely free to criticize Trump. And anyone else is free to question how sincere that criticism is coming from that source when there’s other evidence indicating that Reason doesn’t particularly mind people saying inflammatory or stupid things on that subject.

                Sullum isn’t Richman, but he writes for the same organization that allowed Richman to print that garbage without saying a word about it/against it.

                1. Richman is a freelance writer. Reason has no ability to keep his writing from being printed.

                  1. Richman didn’t write that article elsewhere. He wrote it on Reason.com and it’s still there and no one on the staff ever said a damn thing about it. I mean, this has been stated already. Richman didn’t write this on some third party source so I don’t even see why his freelance status is relevant.

                  2. “Reason has no ability to keep his writing from being printed.”

                    They have the ability to keep it from being printed on their site, or in their magazine, which is the actual issue everyone is discussing.

                    Do you think this constant stupid deflection is working for you?

                    1. So your argument IS that Trump can’t be criticized because Reason printed something by a non-Reason writer 18 months ago.

                    2. No, my argument is what I wrote.

                  3. “Richman is a freelance writer. Reason has no ability to keep his writing from being printed.”

                    So Reason staff has no editorial control over its magazine. Can’t choose who writes for the magazine?

                    OK.

              4. ‘So your position is, because Reason posted a controversial article once,…’
                Reason isn’t a blog, Richman was paid for the article.
                and
                ‘…Reason posted a controversial article once,””
                Welcome to Dalmia town, I guess you’ve never been there.

              5. I suggest that Sullum would never accept that Khan had a moral immunity from criticism if he was taking a position Sullum did not like.

          2. “Richman is a freelance writer who is published in many places. Reason is hardly responsible for what he writes.”

            This could be the worst defense of anything ever.

            “Bu-bu-bu, HE HAS ONLY CONTRIBUTED DOZENS OF ARTICLES OVER MANY YEARS!!! HE’S NOT ON STAFF!!! DON’T BLAME REASON FOR WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO PUBLISH

            Seriously guy, Trump is in your head.

    2. Oh shit, completely forgot about that. Well, to be fair, I wouldn’t vote Chapman for president, either.

      You know, it might not be that people are going all in for Hillary here. It could very well be anger at Trump for fucking all the way up the opportunity to finally put a nail in the coffin of her presidential aspirations. I know that’s definitely one of my Top Ten Things to Dislike about Donald Trump.

      1. Holy crap, I thought that was Chapman. Richman wrote that? Damn.

      2. I think they are angry at Trump for not giving a fuck about their PC agreed to rules of politics. Trump is breaking all of those rules and showing that most of the public doesn’t give a shit about them. That is why everyone left and right in the media has gone so insane over him. They actually thought that the rest of the country gave a shit about the mores of their little sub culture.

        1. This wins the intertubes for the day.

          I have spoken.

        2. ^This. So True.

        3. Of course that’s what it is. They would be saying the same thing about any other GOP candidate. It’s just that the other GOP candidates would all bow down to their PC master, like McCain and Romney did. No matter what anyone thinks of Trump, he is doing society a great favor by giving a big middle finger to PC. If the GOP don’t follow the lead, they will remain the Stupid Party.

    3. “Reason happily printed and article comparing Chris Kyle to Adam Lanza. Do dead soldiers only deserve respect when they are Muslim?”

      Going after Sullum for something someone else wrote is absurd.

      There have been a number of posts by Reason staff lately that I would consider unfair Trump bashing.

      This isn’t one of them.

      Sullum is taking issue with what Trump said in a logical and consistent manner.

      You’re treating Sullum worse than he’s treating Trump.

      1. There have been a number of posts by Reason staff lately that I would consider unfair Trump bashing

        Really? Reason holding Trump to a totally different standard than the Hildebeast? To be fair, they’re just doing what the rest of the media are doing.

        1. I think some of them (Suderman, for instance) have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

          I think it’s impossible to tell the difference between why progressives hate Trump and why Robby hates Trump. But then I generally can’t tell the difference between a progressive and Robby on most issues.

          You can probably chalk ENB up to the same thing.

          Far as I can tell, Sullum, Bailey, Walker, Gillespie, and Welch are calling it fair. Doesn’t mean I agree with them all the time, but there’s a difference between disagreeing with Trump and not calling a fair game.

          This piece is an example. If I supported Trump, it might be despite the misgivings Sullum brings up in this piece. I wouldn’t ignore them as being unfair mischaracterizations.

          I’ve seen people argue that Trump wants to kill ISIS’ family members just for being the family members of ISIS. That’s an unfair mischaracterization.

  44. A new lecture from the Kahns in the WP today.

    “When Donald Trump is talking about Islam, he is ignorant. If he studied the real Islam and Koran, all the ideas he gets from terrorists would change, because terrorism is a different religion.

    Can’t be denied since it came from a gold star mother. This is now a stone cold fact that all must embrace.

    1. Kahn needs to take his argument up with ISIS rather than Trump. If he doesn’t like people thinking Islam is associated with ignorance, terrorism and barbarism, he should take that up with the millions of Muslims who associate it with such.

      This is another example of Trump playing the media and his opponents. What message does the general public get from all of this? That the Democrats are on the side of Muslims. The Democrats and twits like Sullumn think that is great because in the nerd bubble they live in, it is great. But to the rest of the country, it is not exactly a winning message for Democrats.

      1. My God you’re deluded.

        1. Why? Because I don’t agree with the voices in your head? Again, what message does the public get from all of this other than “Democrats love Muslims”? Apparently you think Muslims are popular with the general voting public. But I am the deluded one I guess.

          1. What most people are going to get from this is that Trump is a rank asshole, in addition to all his other problems with the electorate (56% negatives). I don’t think we’ve descended far enough into the pit of decadence that the population thinks being a rank asshole to the family of a dead American soldier is cool so long as they are Muslim.

            1. “What most people are going to get from this is that Trump is a rank asshole”

              That’s not news.

              Fuck, that hasn’t been news for twenty years.

              1. No it’s not, but it reinforces the existing narrative.

                1. To WHOM?

                  No one whose mind would be changed.

                  1. In that case there’s no sense reporting any incidents where Hillary is caught lying or cheating, since she’s been know for both for the past 25 years?

                    1. Please post anywhere where I said otherwise, thanks.

                    2. Your position is that Reason should NOT post anything about Hillary’s lies about her email server then?

            2. Wait, you think the optics of Trumps backhand attacks on the parents of a dead soldier is going to pull him down more than the optics of the democrats love muslims” will pull Hillary down?

              If you also believe at least a quarter of the population is retarded, how is that in any way true?

        2. Tulpa, is that you?

          1. Seems like it. I had my suspicions as well.

    2. Meh, that’s just Rule #1 of most Islamic debate, regardless of terrorism.

      “What I believe and whatever sect I associate with is true Islam, everything else is apostasy”.

    3. “When Donald Trump is talking about Islam, he is ignorant. If he studied the real Islam and Koran, all the ideas he gets from terrorists would change, because terrorism is a different religion.

      So does this mean Christians don’t have to feel bad about the Crusades anymore? “That wasn’t real Christianity, because God is Love.”

  45. I can’t believe no one from the magazine is on any of the MSNBC shows this morning talking up how great Hillary is from the libertarian’s perspective. MSNBC is still around, right?

    1. Et tu, Etiquette Fisticus?

      1. Et tu, Pugno etiquette?
        (The etiquette bit isn’t right though, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.)

        1. You’re about to get a pugno in your ostium, mister.

          1. Mister? Uncouth fellow, sir if you please.

    2. They have to compete with everyone else jumping over themselves to sing Hillary’s praises. That puts them at the bottom of the pack.

    3. Brother Matt was on Bill Maher shaking hands with Cornell West two days ago and you still aren’t satisfied?

      1. I CANCELLED MY HBO SUBSCRIPTION AS SOON AS I HEARD HE WAS GOING ON MAHER.

      2. I think you are being rash in jumping to conclusions about this.

        What if Matt & Cornell West *are* (long-separated half) brothers? I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that. I think its touching, honestly.

        (imagines child Cornell West and child Matt Welch playing together in the fields behind the farm. Matt would help Cornell climb trees and pick sticks out of his afro, and Cornell would lecture Matt on the ethical dimensions of Marxist thought)

    4. You have to laugh about how Trump plays them. Trump not liking Muslims isn’t going to cost him any votes. Meanwhile, the Democrats making an issue out of this just makes them look like the party that won’t do anything to defend the country. If Sullumn and the rest of the beltway thinks “we defend the rights of Muslims” is a winning platform, I wish them luck with that.

      1. I’m sure that’s the way the campaign will go inside your head, but reality and the contents of your cranium are two different things.

        1. That is more of a cry de coer than an argument. This is what Trump did to his Republican opponents. He got them so obsessed with trying to punish him for his breaking the PC rules, they never bothered to offer any reason to vote for them. What was any of their positions on immigration and terrorism? Hell I don’t know and neither did the voters. All anyone ever heard was Trump wanted to do something about them and the rest of the field thought he was unfit for even suggesting it. The same thing is happening here. You and Sullumn and the Democrats live under the delusion that most people give a shit about PC or Trump saying something bad about a Muslim. And in thinking this hurts him just let it prevent you from making attacks on him that might be meaningful to anyone outside of those inside your bubble.

          1. Let’s not forget that while we’re all cool, thoughtful people, most of the American voters aren’t anywhere near as engaged in politics as we are. And many of those that are aren’t even thinking about policy specifics, but they are feeling that the world is dangerous (right or wrong, perception is king).

            Consequently, the lure of a candidate with a “plan – any plan” is comforting because all the other politicians are just standing there – at best – mouthing platitudes. Trump – rightly or wrongly (or ludicrously) comes off as a man of *action* and not *words*. There’s still enough cultural momentum in the US for people to favor action over inaction.

            This would be a different political season if the dems were prepared to commit to concrete actions rather than (obviously) meaningless platitudes.

          2. One can’t argue with somebody else’s fantasy. Where the hell does one start?

            The general electorate is not the same as the GOP primary electorate; the same tactics won’t work. Plus Trump won’t have the benefit of Dems crossing over to vote for the weakest GOP candidate as he did in the primaries.

            1. So the Bernie Bros. will not be crossing over?

              1. No fucking way are they voting for Trump. Some of them may stay home or go Green but in the end they probably succumb to the pressure and vote for Hillary.

            2. If it didn’t work, why is he ahead? Why has Hillary’s poll numbers tanked. Again, you assume every Democrat follows PC or cares that much about it. A lot of them don’t. You can’t argue with this because you have no answer other than “no way”, which again is more of a cry de coer than an argument.

              1. He’s not ahead in most polls. The only reason it’s even close is that HRC is almost as despised as he is.

                Literally any of the other 16 GOP primary candidates, even Jim Gilmore or George Pataki, would be kicking Hillary’s ass right now.

                1. ” the same tactics won’t work. ”

                  Yeah yeah, you sound like the loser ass Repubs who got their asses handed to them.

                  Put some fucking skin in the game with that prediction or admit it’s wild ass speculation.

                  1. Put some fucking skin in the game with that prediction or admit it’s wild ass speculation.

                    Unfortunately there’s no way to test that prediction, but it’s true.

                    Would you be willing to bet that Trump wins? I would bet every penny I have in the bank going the other way.

              2. 2nd strike.

        2. With each attack and each passing day, the narrative that there is no correlation between Muslims and terrorism (and other crimes) becomes more and more indefensible.

          1. Ding. Ding. Trump has a gift for taking positions that will be validated/confirmation biased by events.

            1. Yup. Been saying that for months. Nearly every conceivable bad news from now to the election helps him.

      2. Yeah but I don’t think Reason is coming at the story from a campaigner’s perspective. If they were concerned with popularity they would choose to be something other than libertarian.

  46. which makes it seem like he’s trying to have it both ways

    Trump?

    NEVER!

    1. Do you know who else went both ways?

      1. Hillary Clinton on gay marriage?

        1. Hillary Clinton on Huma?

      2. Tim Kaine on publicly funded abortions.

        (It’s kind of interesting that I still a squiggle below Kaine with Chrome. Google’s in the bag for Trump!)

        1. Kaine’s fellow campaigner – CoKaine.

  47. The proper response to terrorism:

    http://classicalvalues.com/201…..-race-war/

  48. YOU PEOPLE ARE JUST TRYING TO DISTRACT US FROM THE VERY-IMPORTANT, “WHERE WUZ THERE FLAGS @ THE DNC!@!??!?”-DEBATE

    ALSO, TRUMP DOES TOO HAVE A DEAD MUSLIM SON. LIKE 3 OF THEM.

  49. Lp update. Johnson has till the 15th of August to make the 15%

  50. Trump is to politics like Muhammad Ali was to boxing. Ali would keep his hands down during a match, looking defenseless, and provoking his opponent to take a swing, which he would then quickly dodge and then counter with another punch. He would do this over and over making his opponent become more and more frustrated, and forcing them to make more and more mistakes.

    Trump does the same thing to the left. He makes a comment that is basically innocent, but that he knows will get under the left’s skin, and they react, and take a swing at him, and it misses.

    Look at how one innocent comment by Trump about Russia forced the media to talk about Hillary’s email scandal again, during the DNC for example.

    The man is a brilliant strategist, he knows how to play the left, he knows their weaknesses, I just wonder if he’s playing us too.

    1. Probably. We won’t find out what he is about until he is elected. Kinda like Obamacare.

    2. MetalBard is insightful. This is part of what Scott Adams has been talking about.

  51. Serious question for the Trump supporters. If your kid said something similar to what Trump said about another kid at school, would you be cool with that, and not pull them aside for a talk or discipline them?

    1. Something here feels like a Tulpa sock.

      1. NOW UR A TRUMP SUPPORTER!! HE FOOLED YOU, SUCKAH

    2. I don’t treat children the same way I treat adults.

      That may be, perhaps, part of your problem.

      1. Of course. I would hope you hold adults to a higher standard of conduct.

        Which means that if you would discipline or reeducate your child for saying what Trump says, then you should definitely not be OK with Trump saying it.

        1. “reeducate”

          I loled.

  52. Forget your opinion of Trump for a moment and try to think about this objectively. The Democrats just spent an entire convention trying to be the party of patriotism and positive thoughts. And they did a pretty good job of it until Hillary gave such a lousy speech. Now this has come up and what will anyone going forward remember about the Democratic convention? That Muslim guy and his wife who didn’t speak. After all of that work to create one impression, Trump says a single thing and the Democrats go crazy over it and wind up leaving an entirely different impression on the public. Trump has run this play down his opponents’ throats like Lombardi running the sweep. He will say something that violates the PC dictates of the media and politics and his opponents will take the bait and attack him from breaking the rules and in doing so leave the impression that only Trump cares about trying to solve the underlying problem.

    When you are a linebacker or a defensive lineman and the guard in front of you pulls, you are supposed to follow him because that is where the play is likely going. You are not supposed to shoot the gap created by his pulling because the backs will be following him and you will end up grasping at thin air. The Democrats and the media and the Republicans before this are like poorly coached defensive players. They just can’t help but try and shoot the gap and get Trump for his violating of the rules of PC while Trump runs the sweep right around them.

    1. Hmm. I actually didn’t consider that, but it fits in nicely with what i said earlier. Seriously he’s the Muhammad Ali of politics, baiting and frustrating his opponents into making stupid mistakes. He is basically controlling the media, and they’re still too stupid to realize it.

      1. and they’re still too stupid to realize it

        Politics is the mind-killer.

    2. Main weakness in this latest straw you’re grasping is that the Democrats have more they would want forgotten about the convention than remembered (DWS’ ouster, the Bernie boos, etc).

      If all that’s remembered is the parents of a dead American soldier getting slandered by Trump, I think the Dems will gladly take that deal.

    3. If Trump had done what Sullum suggests – point out that Hillary’s vote helped sacrifice the Khans’ son – then the Democrats who have a far harder time “go(ing) crazy” over it. Trump needs to learn what used to be known as the “perfect squelch.”

      1. True, if that would have been Trump’s response then the media wouldn’t be talking about it.

        1. It’s not too late, as soon as he starts hammering them with that, they’d have to make the Khans go away or risk it taking over the conversation.

      2. He belatedly argues that “Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for her central role in destabilizing the Middle East,” noting that she “voted to send the United States to war against Iraq” and that she has “never met a regime change she didn’t like.”

        Jacob actually quoted him tying her to Iraq. He’s just not bright enough to bring that full circle.

      3. He did do that.

    4. “The Democrats just spent an entire convention trying to be the party of patriotism and positive thoughts. And they did a pretty good job of it until Hillary gave such a lousy speech. ”

      They didn’t do all that good a job of trying to be the party of patriotism.

      During a tribute to veterans, they played a video of warships on a big screen.

      Those ships were actually Russian ships of the Black Sea Fleet – not U.S. Navy ships.

      Whoever selected the video to show was too stupid to know the difference.

      1. That was at the 2012 DNC.

      2. Probably John Kerry.

  53. Could anything be less libertarian than collectivising a group of people and supporting government discrimination against that entire group based solely upon their prefered brand of mysticism?

    I wonder if any of the yokels here, can defend that argument based upon first principles?

    1. Nothing could be. But that just says how useless Libertarians are when confronted with something like radical Islam. You can’t understand that because you think everyone is just like you and can be reasoned with or deterred. And you will never change.

      1. So libertarianism is useless whenever there’s something scary in the world.

        In 1787 the most powerful country in the world was occupying forts in our territory, we were subject to constant Indian raids, and many other terrible threats would appear in the coming years. Did libertarianism not make sense then either?

        1. So libertarianism is useless whenever there’s something scary in the world.

          How many times throughout history have people used their own cowardice to justify initiating aggression? The funny thing is, history looks upon those cowards as the “bad guys”. Too bad no one seems to be able to identify such actions until it’s too late.

          If only there was some philosophy one could live by that didn’t permit people to violate the rights of others just cuz they’re ascared.

          But alas…

          1. To get pedantic here, history says nothing. Current writers of history tend to adopt a certain position, but that doesn’t mean it is the view of the past tomorrow will take. For all anyone knows its possible there will be Hitler-revisionism that society as a whole takes seriously.

            I don’t disagree with you on your overall position. Just an off-comment on history. A lot of those ‘bad guys’ of history today were written about glowingly in the past or by the earliest source material we have on them.

            1. Good point.

      2. Hey big boy you’ll protect me from them scary mooslim terrists right?

        1. Aren’t you one of the guys who’s afraid of killer cops?

    2. Your error is to think all “brands of mysticism” are equivalent from a libertarian point of view. They aren’t. One particular brand is explicitly extremely anti-liberty, much more than any of the others, both in theory and practice.

      1. Your error is to think all “brands of mysticism” are equivalent from a libertarian point of view.

        The “libertarian” point of view is that you can believe any fucked up thing you want, so long as you don’t initiate aggression upon others.

        So your fucked up mysticism can call for eating babies…provided you’re not actually eating babies, who fucking cares? Those who do eat babies get arrested, tried, convicted and punished.

        And you DO realize, that discriminating against an entire group based upon the actions of a few IS an initiation of aggression, right?

        1. The high level of support for “baby-eating” doesn’t concern you? Would you say immigration by Communists is OK, as long as those individuals didn’t personally operate a Gulag, but merely support those who did?

          1. Yes, I’d welcome communists here if it meant they could escape the shitholes they’ve endured and make a better life for themselves. If they thought communism was so great, why would they leave where they are from?

            Oh yeah, the great conspiracy of how it’s a giant plot to infiltrate and overthrow a nation from within.

            1. You are making the overly-rational assumption that people fleeing the cause of their misery will all know what caused their misery. Sadly, humans often don’t work that way. Ask someone in Oregon about California transplants. Or New Hampshire residents about New Yorkers. They will flee big government and high taxes, and then vote for it in their new homes.

              As for conspiracy, we know for a fact that the Labour Party secretly and explicitly planned to “elect a new people” by opening the floodgates to immigration. You don’t think the Democrats are thinking the same way? They practically crow about it.

              With Muslims, the Democrats get new voters and welfare cases, the Chamber of Commerce gets cheaper labor, and the surveillance state gets more reason to surveil. Yeah, that’s some “pro-liberty” position you have there.

            2. I’m sure they’ll help American society rise up to the level of Pakistan’s.

              Libertarianism only works if nearly everyone believes in it.

              When a majority, or even a sizable minority, believe that their “religion” justifies murder of the infidels then you’ll find life quite different.

  54. Khizr Khan responds to the latest from Trump: ‘Typical of a person without a soul’

    In response to Trump’s attack on his wife, Khan said the Republican nominee’s words were “typical of a person without a soul.” […]”This is my country too,” he said, adding that Trump “lacks understanding,” that most Muslims are victims of terrorism, not perpetrators ? and they condemn it. “He lacks awareness of these issues. He doesn’t realize there are patriotic Muslim Americans in this country willing to lay their lives for this country. We are a testament to that.”

    Trump is a daywalker I think, but still technically a ginger. Khan may have a point here.

    1. I think its awesome that the democratic party has chosen a screamy-angry-moozlim to replace Debby Wasshername Shlitz

      so open-minded

      1. Do you disagree with anything he said?

          1. Khizr Khan in the quote above.

              1. Because his son died, therefor he has absolute moral authority to tell you what to think.

                1. aka “Cindy Sheehanism”

                  yeah, i don’t think so.

            1. that most Muslims are victims of terrorism, not perpetrators

              Considering that large minorities and even majorities of Muslim population express support for terrorists and acts of terrorism, which could not persist without such widespread social and material support, I have to vehemently disagree that Muslims are innocent bystanders in all of this. Even if we grant them that Muslims are more affected by terrorism than other groups, it is at least due to the proximity of the Muslim society from which terrorism spawns in the first place. It’s like saying gang members are the real victims of near constant shootings in Chicago. Well duh.

              1. There’s a fine line to talk in criticizing Islam on this. I live in a country where large minorities and sometimes majorities support all kinds of dumb shit that I disagree with. I think Islam in the as a whole has a serious and real problem. I don’t think it’s fair to say all Muslims have a problem. To me the comparison is that its not right to blame all black people for gang violence. And it perhaps is fair to say that the most common victims of gang violence are other black people who have done nothing wrong themselves.

                Trump either isn’t capable of or interested in splitting these hairs. And the Democrats are just fine going in the complete opposite direction for exploitation. They deny any problem with Islam by defining what Islam is for every other Muslim…it is horribly condescending and just as dubious.

                1. One of the idiotic aspects of the reaction to Islamic terrorism is losing cit roof the fact that it is a belief system and all it takes to not be Islamic is to stop believing. So criticizing Islma is not the same as criticizing a racial or ethnic group, instead it’s analogous to criticizing another abhorrent ideology like say white supremacism.

                  Next time you hear someone defending Radical Islam or attacking anti-Islamic speech replace the word Islam with white supremacy to see how ridiculous the arguments are.

                  1. “And hey, most white supremacists don’t kill anyone, so why would anyone object to importing vast numbers of foreign white supremacists to the US, so that we can put most of them on welfare?” Somehow, I don’t think Democrats would be OK with that.

                2. I live in a country where large minorities and sometimes majorities support all kinds of dumb shit that I disagree with.

                  There’s not a place on earth where you won’t find at least a plurality of support for some conceivable nonsense of one variety or another. The question is whether that nonsense is something like “the Earth is 6,000 years old” or “I support Al-Qeada’s goals and interpretation of Islam”. Only one of those is a realistic ideological catalyst for atrocities.

                3. To me the comparison is that its not right to blame all black people for gang violence

                  No I didn’t say Arabs or Pashtuns in my comparison. Arabs and Blacks are not ideological, philosophical or religious categories. Whereas Muslims are such a category.

                  They deny any problem with Islam by defining what Islam is for every other Muslim…it is horribly condescending and just as dubious.

                  People define all sorts of things. I’m not a communist but I’m not going to leave it up to them to define themselves. I’ve reviewed their ideas and their actions. The dubious part of defining what is or is not a Muslim, is whenever a Muslim has ideas the left doesn’t like, is when the left says “That’s not real Islam”, which is the epitome of moving goal posts.

                  When one examines the practice of Islam and societies immersed in Islam, when one examines it’s pronouncements of conquest and submission without cherry-picking, is when you might see a fair reading. That is not what the left is doing when they routinely excuse Islam and Muslims generally.

                  1. The dubious part of defining what is or is not a Muslim, is whenever a Muslim has ideas the left doesn’t like, is when the left says “That’s not real Islam”, which is the epitome of moving goal posts.

                    This isn’t from the left’s playbook, this is from the Islamic playbook. Reformists like Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah get this crap all the time. It’s not like ISIS or other Islamic terrorists groups don’t play the same game, declaring anyone who won’t kowtow to their interpretation as apostates. The left has just internalized it.

                4. I blame Prohibition for gang violence.

                  http://classicalvalues.com/201…..-race-war/

                  1. The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre wasn’t “real” gangs!

    2. “…most Muslims are victims of terrorism, not perpetrators ? and they condemn it.”

      Citation needed.

      1. If our sect is violent there is a good reason. If their sect is violent it is because their sect teaches bad things.

      2. Aren’t they the victims of it in Muslim countries? Sure, going by pure numbers there are more non terrorist than terrorist, but it’s not like the IRA or a Japanese terrorist group are going into those countries.

  55. I find this all really sad & funny. Trump’s criticism of his wife is legitimate, she should have spoken and it was weird how she stood there silently. But then he was undermined by his own wife’s speech – plagiarism of his nemesis’ wife. Better had she not spoken. Ironic. OK now please tell me that you don’t think the word ‘ironic’ means what I think it means:

    1. LOL.

      Rule To Retroactively Justify What Trump Does #748: Wives have to speak when on stage with their husbands.

      1. I like it when the socks talk to each other.

    2. Well, it was surprisingly bad optics for the DNC to spend a week playing up the vagina angle, and then put Muslim parents on stage where the man does all the talking with his wife standing silently by his side in a burka. I don’t know how this plays to the normies overall, though.

      1. She was wearing a handjob, I believe.

        1. Yes, that is my mistake. A hijab. Still not something a lot of Americans are going to view sympathetically.

          1. Still not something a lot of Americans are going to view sympathetically.

            I did call it handjob.

      2. I don’t know how this plays to the normies overall, though.

        The Normans are equal partners in our diverse cultural tapestry, you hater.

    3. …plagiarism of his nemesis’ wife.

      I got a wild hair up my ass a few nights ago and read the first few pages of Michele Obama’s dissertation. Umm, she’s intelligent and above the bromides that you leftists carelessly attribute to her.

      1. The Communist Manifesto is very eloquently written, say some. Yet it’s not exactly what I would consider a triumph of intellectual pursuits.

      2. Fair enough, but I was just saying that Michele Obama was not plagiarized. Some up-and-coming staff member wrote it, and he/she was plagiarized, not Michele.

  56. OK, so that’s strike #2.

  57. Fucking idiot supports woman who voted for the war that killed his own son and impugns man who opposed that war.

    Genius.

  58. Has everyone on Reason lost their minds? Right now, we have one candidate who attempted to shut down political speech directed towards them in a campaign season, who is running on modifying the First Amendment to restrict that type of speech. Then we have a candidate who responded to one of many DNC political speeches when asked about it. Are we really supposed to go find our fainting couch in the second case while treating the first as a disagreeable but fundamentally acceptable series of actions?

    There is nothing outrageous about Trump’s statements in this case, and I don’t give a damn that a Muslim was offended by an American’s free speech or assumptions about their culture. Frankly, that’s something that should be happening with at least as much regularity and aplomb as it does in the case of cloistered Christian culture. It is not threatening to free speech or concerning in the least. I wouldn’t mind reading about the things that Trump does that are *actually* concerning, but this ain’t it and Reason’s shit coverage of the election evidently isn’t going to ever go in that direction.

    1. The Democrats trying to rewrite the 1st Amendment to exclude political free speech is unimportant because those horrible Republicans in Congress will prevent them from actually doing it. Meanwhile, the GOP must be destroyed.

      1. Not to mention shitcanning the 2nd Amendment and wiping their asses with the rest of the constitution. Has Trump read the constitution? How about asking if Hillary has read, or better yet, would protect and defend it (and she’s said she won’t)? It was her convention that decided to use reading the Constitution as a prop. Let them swing from their own scaffold that they erected.

  59. ‘Are we really supposed to go find our fainting couch …’
    Yup, we really are. It’s fainting couches all the way down.

  60. Screamy-Angry-Mooslim Adjusts Rhetoric For Sunday Talk Shows

    “No Soul” has been (up?down)graded to “Black Soul

    Clearly the DNC is on to some master plan here, using angry-mulsim-guy as their spokesperson.

    Because obviously this is the sort of authority figure the general public needs to change their mind. A guy who’s wife wears a bag on her head and probably isn’t allowed to drive, and who would probably demur from criticizing countries which stone gays to death.

    He’ll lecture everyone on moral authority and all the Republicans will feel bad and cry themselves to sleep. Its a stroke of genius.

    1. Well, in a few years he may stray from the Democratic convention and find himself ostracized like Sheehan who has now just some whack job. I mean, she criticized Obama? The nerve.

      1. Since Khazir Khan speaks for all Muslims, he should be sent on a goodwill mission to Syria, to help explain Hillary’s policy to them. Clearly, she is what is best for the Muslim world. Because she will not insult them with things like “temporary immigration restrictions”, which is a concept which offends any decent Muslim country.

    2. Yeah, I don’t think this is going to sell well. Obviously I wouldn’t associate Khan with actual terrorism, but ‘angry Muslim guy’ who suddenly starts talking about the ‘lack of/black soul’ of people who disagree with him (no matter how stupidly they do so) doesn’t come off as a good spokesperson. It reminds people of the actual Islamist rhetoric they’re worried about.

      1. It will play badly with Trump supporters and well with Hillary supporters. I used to think I understood the soft middle well enough to say that it would, on balance, play well with them, but I’m not confident in that any more.

        This is more or less what the next few months are going to look like. Trump will say something, Hilary will call it racist/sexist/etc., Trump will simultaneously walk it back and double down, it will stay in the headlines for a day or two…wash, rinse, repeat. I suspect it will ultimately end up hurting Trump, but who knows.

        1. I think this election is going to be entirely driven by events, many of them outside of the United States. If we get more weekly or monthly attacks in Europe that the media desperately tries to cover up, this election’s probably going Trump. If we get more police shootings of black people, Hillary will get a bump. If we get more shootings of police officers, Trump gets it instead. At this point it’s entirely dependent on what’s driving the cultural zeitgeist in November.

          1. I agree. I think economic downturn probably also favors Trump, whereas status quo favors Clinton.

      2. Trump has said far worse and more shrill things than Khan said. If you have a problem with Khan as a spokesperson, you must have an even bigger problem with Trump as president.

        1. You look at him as a person. Other people see the zeitgeist. Muslim standing in America is not at a very high level.

        2. Someone didn’t actually read what I wrote. It’s about perspectives and bringing the right argument. The absolute worse way of challenging Trump would be to dehumanize him from a religious standpoint, i.e. declare that he has no soul, because that is exactly what people are worried about when it comes to Islam. Like it or not people will mentally associate ‘angry Muslim man’ with ‘that video of the imam saying those horrible things I saw on youtube’ pretty quickly.

          If he gets upset and switches to a foreign language for some reason? Then he’s really screwed.

          1. The absolute worse way of challenging Trump would be to dehumanize him from a religious standpoint, i.e. declare that he has no soul, because that is exactly what people are worried about when it comes to Islam.

            This. Trump’s blowhard wild man persona is a hell of a lot more comfortable for John Q. Public than an angry muslim employing dehumanizing rhetoric toward a skeptic of Islam. If the DNC wants to wage a culture war of Islam-doters vs. nervous Americans, it’s not a fight they can win. At least not democratically.

        3. I don’t care about trump you pig-fucking retard

    3. Not gonna lie, I absolutely love reading your takedowns sometimes.

  61. I’m not sure that tone policing any candidate is really very effective this cycle, and may even be counterproductive in an anti-establishment cycle.

    Reason would obviously rather see Hillary win than Trump. What they aren’t doing well is present any substantive arguments for this preference, instead retailing standard issue DemOp media memes. Give me something more substantive and original, pls.

    1. I’m surprised no one has posted connecting the Kochtopus’s refusal to attack Hillary and Reason. *puts on tinfoil* Conspiracy?

      1. I’m going to go out on limb, and say that the Kochs won’t be running anti-Hillary ads because they think she’s going to win and they don’t want to be on the new queens shit list.

        Which is just another validation of the inherent corruption of the current political paradigm.

        1. The Kochs have been on the current administration’s shit list the entire time, and will be on Hillary’s shit list regardless (if only for rhetorical purposes). So I doubt that has any influence.

          It’s nice that you’re adopting the Left’s tactic of assuming anybody who disagrees with you is motivated by financial self-interest and not sincere belief.

          1. Money is not a sincere reason? “Clinton Cash”

      2. I think I posted this yesterday.

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..ry-clinton

        1. The Kochs our are sponsors, my occasional magazine subscriptions are not enough to turn the lights on at Reason Central. But let me speak ill of them anyway…

          1. All Reason mag does is pile up on my kitchen counter when I fetch the mail( I read it all here!)

            Just went to look- oldest in the stack is Oct 2014 “Millennial” issue- and had a good laugh. (Old man rips off mask-“I would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you pesky Millennials!”)

      3. Not much of a conspiracy. The Kochs have said they preferred Hillary for a long time; HRC’s campaign even took the time to snark out a rejection of their “endorsement.”

        Reason has had a hard-on for Trump for months. It’s clear that the grunts are expected to splooge out anti-Trump articles by the boatload, and no one wants to lose hizzer job at this moment. If a Reasonite is fired or resigns before the election, I expect we’ll hear something about it the editorial decisions that have been so prominent and unpopular with the Reasonoid collective recently.

        Regardless, Reason has lost a ton of credibility this election cycle. Being the NYT West with a few nods to Econ 101 isn’t what anyone would mistake for libertarianism.

        1. If Mr McSuderman gets fired, where would he go… National Review, Daily Kos, or Gawker?

    2. This is the Kobeyashi Maru election

    3. When they do post substantive arguments, of which there have been many, it gets pretty much the same reaction. More rationalizations for why Donald Trumps stated positions are fake when you disagree with them, and real when you do. More “But what about Hillary!!!!”. More convenient forgetting of things Donald Trump has actually said and advocated. More “But he’s trolling people I hate , therefore good!”

      1. ‘More convenient forgetting of things Donald Trump has actually said and advocated.’
        Compared to the things Hillary has actually done, Donald, short fingered vulgarian that he is, looks like the better choice.

      2. In what world is the asshole that says mean and horrible thing so much worse than the asshole that says AND does mean and horrible things?

      3. Much of the attacks on Trump for what he has said rely on mischaracterizations of what he actually said, following the DemOp media talking points du jour.

        So lazy and dishonest, when you could fill the same slot with something original and interesting.

  62. The one thing we know for sure is that Khan is just the latest victim and useful sheep of the Democratic party plantation. Vote Democrat sheep, and don’t forget to pay your taxes. Hillary won’t have any problem or regrets about sending thousands more like your son to their death in some 3rd world hellhole.

  63. BTW, when’t the next Trump article?

  64. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ————— http://UsatodayJobs.Nypost55.com

    1. Wow, I blame Trump

  65. Funniest thing I read today… Gary Johnson is slightly more popular than a dead gorilla.

  66. LEAVE DONALD TRUMP ALONE!!!!

    1. LEAVE DONALD TRUMP ALONE!!!!

      What’s funny is that you think this is what’s being said by anyone.

      This channel is tuned to “all-Trump all the time”. to the exclusion of anything else.

      its sort of hard to claim that people are somehow ‘overly sensitive’ to trump criticism.

      Its like ITS TOFUTTI TIME!!! WHY DONT YOU LIKE TOFUTTI DO YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF PROBLEM??

      Not everyone thinks it tastes like ice-cream

      1. What’s funny is that you think this is what’s being said by anyone.

        It’s being said all over this thread, actually.

        1. Go back and play with them, then, retard

      2. Just don’t say anything bad about hummus. You’re been warned.

        1. Hummus…meh, can take it or leave it.

        2. Hummus is Yum-mus

          One aspect of hummus which i appreciate the most is when you have an arab and israeli in the same room and then you insist they debate “who invented it

          In 2009, Fadi Abboud ? the minister of tourism ??? led Lebanon to break the world record for making the largest tub of hummus in the world. At the time, Abboud was also chairman of the Lebanese Industrialists Association. “A group of us just came from a food exhibition in France. There they were telling us that hummus is an Israeli traditional dish,” he says. “I mean, the world now thinks that Israel invented hummus.” Abboud could not let that stand. “I thought the best way to tell the world that the hummus is Lebanese is to break the Guinness Book of Records.”

          [but]….. in January 2010, the news was broadcast around the world. “In the town of Abu Gosh this morning, Israel re?took the title for the world’s largest hummus dish, weighing 4 tons and served in a satellite dish,” one news announcer intoned.

          Within hours, the Lebanese planned a counterattack ??? and within months, they presented the world with a vat filled with 23,042 pounds of hummus.

          1. Sounds like having a Polish guy and a Russian guy in the same room and have them debate over who invented Vodka.

            1. And they would both lose, since vodka was invented in Ukraine.))))

              1. C’mon Groovus- It’s supposed to be (((Ukraine)))- because Jews!

          2. I wold ask the Israelis, who did not exist before 1948, how they could have invented a dish common in the Arab world all the way back to the 13th century.

            1. 1) You are basically setting yourself up to be assassinated by Mossad.

              2) You miss the point… which is more that “culture doesn’t belong to anyone” Are chopsticks chinese or japanese? its not the underlying truth of the matter which anyone cares about = its the excuse to shit on one another. They fight about it because they can, not because it matters.

              3) & re: Actual Origins? No one actually fucking knows =

              The use of chickpeas to make a traditional dish called “Hamitz” was mentioned in the Talmud, some 1000 years earlier. But nobody said anything about tahini there ? and there are many dishes that has chickpeas in them and aren’t hummus. We only call it “hummus” when it’s Hummus bi’Tahina (which is also pronounced very similarly in Arab and in Hebrew) ? hummus with tahini.

              And then there’s the theory dating hummus invention around 1000BC, claiming it was mentioned in the bible. That’s a great story, of course, but you can hardly call it a proof.

              Its sort of like the fight over whether the Vikings or the Eye-Talians/Spanish discovered the New World. OK, one may have “got there first”, but the latter are the ones who *owned* that bitch.

            2. Tremendous accomplishment! You boiled some chickpeas, then mashed them together. Refried beans is the mark of a higher civilization…

          3. I’ve thought a winning brand for hummus would be ‘Atune’.

            As in “Hummus Atune, won’t you?”

            (wraps comb in wax paper)

  67. Perhaps Tump doesn’t accept the concept of somebodt asserting, “I haz a sad so I can slur you as I wish and you can’t respond”. Mr. Khan jumped into the political arena and he can damn well deal with what he gets there.

    1. Mr. Khan jumped into the political arena and he can damn well deal with what he gets there.

      Therefore it’s OK for Trump to lie about what Khan said and slander his relationship with his wife.

      1. That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying Mr. Khan stepped into the political arena of his own accord and that he isn’t above reproach because his son died. I’d have to agree with that.

        1. I’m not saying Trump’s comments are out of line because of Khan’s son’s service.

          They’re out of line because they are lies and slander.

          1. What part of what he said specifically meets your assertion?

            1. Trump said Khan said that Trump hasn’t read the Constitution. What Trump said is a lie.

              Trump said that Khan’s wife was silent on stage because she was afraid of her husband. That is slander.

              1. Asking someone if they have read the Constitution as a point of attack implies that one believes the other either hasn’t read it or misunderstands it. Otherwise, why ask the question?

                As for the second assertion, you’re misrepresenting what he said although I’d agree that he shouldn’t have said it.

              2. But then he adds, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably?maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”

                That’s not slander, that’s speculation.

                1. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

                  It’s so depressing watching the commentariat devolving into a den of liberal-style excuse-making for Donald fucking Trump.

          2. They’re out of line because they are lies and slander.

            And why should we care? The Khans thrust themselves into the public spotlight with emotional cheap shots and bogus arguments about the Constitution; they were already playing at Trump’s base level.

      2. Therefore it’s OK for Trump to lie about what Khan said and slander his relationship with his wife.

        Why not? That’s what politicians do to each other.

        As for the Khans, not only did they put themselves in this position, their attack on Trump itself was utterly besides the point and simply meant to score cheap emotional points.

        Let’s also not forget that the Khans didn’t make a sacrifice, their son did.

  68. Well, you have to look far and wide to find anyone who makes Shrill look preferable, but the GOP has certainly done its best.

  69. It is hard to believe Trump’s answer in light of his assertion that Khan “has no right” to say mean things about Donald Trump. If Trump did read the Constitution, he must have skipped the First Amendment.

    Everybody loves a definition nazi. Sullum must be a blast at parties when he starts in on the difference between gender and sex or race and ethnicity.

    1. He should learn the definition of “turn of phrase.”

      1. I think he knows better. Sullum was just phoning the piece in to meet his anti-Trump quota ASAP.

  70. OT: Culture change? Top cop swiftly pulls badges of officers in shooting

    Within 48 hours of Thursday night’s fatal shooting of 18-year-old Paul O’Neal, police Superintendent Eddie Johnson stripped police powers from the officers who opened fire, saying they appeared to have violated department policy.

    Department officials acknowledged that O’Neal was unarmed. On Saturday, the Cook County medical examiner’s office said an autopsy determined he had been shot in the back.

    Surprising. We will wait and see what happens months from now, but I think this is promising.

    1. Nothing will happen to the cops. But there will be a culture change. Just not the culture change we want.

      This has been made all about race. So the cops will figure this out, and just shoot white guys down at the trailer park instead. Problem solved. Cops happy. Media happy.

    2. I knew paul o’neil’s temper would catch up to him someday

  71. Pope Connects To Youth Like a Dial-Up Modem to an AOL Account. During an Electrical Storm

    Francis, 79, who has said he is a “disaster” with technology, sprinkled his sermon at the last major event of the trip with social media and technology terms.

    He urged the young people to “‘download’ the best ‘link’ of all, that of a heart which sees and transmits goodness without growing weary.”

    He said their response to the challenges of life cannot be “texting a few words,” that prayer should be given pride of place over their internet “chats”, and that God’s memory was not a “hard disk” filled with files on everyone, but more of a compassionate heart that wants to help them “erase” evil.

    I’m starting to understand why ISIS-recruiting is doing so well.

    1. Especially funny consisting that about 90% of this Pope’s support outside of Catholic circles comes from Facebook points of his out of context quotes.

  72. ‘Dictator’ Kerry Kennedy is ruining family legacy

    Multiple sources ? all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity ? say Kennedy uses foundation funds to pay for lavish expenses and the foundation itself as an excuse to party with celebs around the globe. The foundation’s most recent tax filings show she paid herself $357,340 in 2014. That same year, she took out a $2.4 million line of credit for the center, which has offices in DC and on Manhattan’s Madison Avenue.

    Never forget:

    Two months after Mary’s suicide, Kerry was arrested for driving while impaired. She had smashed into a tractor-trailer on I-684 and fled. She claimed to have taken only an Ambien and, on the witness stand, told the court of her human-rights work. She was so anxious about an imminent aid trip to Uganda, she testified, that she mixed up her meds

    Also, Andrew Cuomo’s ex.

    Also, she smiled at me once, so there is that.

    1. She sounds like an excellent Democrat candidate for President, or at least the Senate.

      1. Left-wing organizations are often hotbeds of employee exploitation and abuse.

    2. “I can’t recall seeing her read a newspaper or a magazine,” says another ex-employee. “She spends all day on the phone. She writes a lot of thank-you notes to people who’ve donated money. She’s constantly trying to get celebrities and throwing celebrity gala events. I asked the question while I was there: ‘Who are we helping?’ I don’t know.”

      This source also says Kennedy “always stays in really nice hotels ? four star. Car services. Sometimes she would stay in really rich people’s homes.” Proximity to wealth and fame, says this source, is Kennedy’s priority, with human rights nowhere on the radar.

      Can’t say I’m surprised by this.

      Why did she smile at you? Faith Hill once smiled at me. I was standing around backstage at a Tim McGraw concert. She was there with her kids and I think I was the most friendly-looking of all the roadies there.

      1. Faith Hill: hot.

        1. Some famous people aren’t as good looking in real life. After seeing her there, I can report that she’s definitely in the 99.999 percentile for beauty.

          1. I really want to be on “The Price is Right”… those ladies can’t all be that fricking hot. TV Magic!

    3. Rags to riches to rag in three generations.

  73. Good gugu mugou. Can we just pretend the election already happened and get back to discussions that don’t devolve into yokel-cosmo namecalling slapfights?

    Trump threads make me miss abortion threads.

    1. You give deep dish pizzas circumcisions.

  74. Shooting of 76-year-old man by State Police a ‘tragic mistake,’ family friend says

    Gerald Sykes and his wife were asleep late Friday night at their Cumberland County home when their dog began barking.

    Sykes’ wife woke him up and he went into the living room. At that point, according to longtime family friend and attorney Rich Kaser, Sykes looked out through the French doors leading to a deck where he saw the shadow of a person outside.

    Kaser said Sykes went back into his bedroom and got his shotgun.

    Sykes “felt intruders were trying to get in and he was yelling to his wife to call 911,” Kaser said.

    What happened next is subject of investigation. Authorities say two state troopers had come to the home after mistakenly being told it was the location of a 911 hang-up call.

    According to authorities, shots were exchanged. One trooper fired four times and Sykes fired his shotgun once.

    Authorities have not said who fired first.

    1. “Authorities have not said who fired first.”

      In other words, the cops fired first?

    2. According to authorities, shots were exchanged. One trooper‘s sidearm fired four times and Sykes fired his shotgun once.

      1. These cops are like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice in Fantasia, they make objects come to life and wreak havoc.

  75. *skims biased claptrap*

    Nope.

    *scrolls through divisive vitriol*

    Fuck this shit. Fallout Shelter released for PC sounds like a far more productive use of my day. Y’all have fun with yours.

    1. I rarely buy DLCs. Just checked my Steam account, 124 hours in Fallout 4. So I obviously liked the game, but I’ve had enough. Replaying DAO with some mods.

      1. “Skip the Fade” I assume?

        1. Not using that one. Honestly, my favorite one is the menu mod that makes the menus large enough that I can actually read them. Even works at 4K, but the game engine isn’t quite up to it, it gets all glitchy at higher rez, so I’m sticking with 1080. It’s such a great game.

          1. I played through it three or four times, somehow I’ve never managed to finish Awakening. Also I can’t play as anything but Arcane Warrior anymore because they’re so stupidly overpowered.

            And if you want to see some goofy bullshit, the POV increase mod for Mass Effect 3 breaks most of the cutscenes. Not that I could see a good reason to replay it again.

            1. I like the 2nd DA better. Inquisition is good also, but I’ve never finished it. I’m planning on it. This is only my 2nd play through of DAO. I always play as a rogue with a focus on ranged weapons and try to have the best mage I can get in the party.

              ME3 is a game I’ve never played. I own it. I’ve finished both 1 and 2. One day I will be captain sheepherder for one last time.

              The goofiest video game thing I’ve ever seen is trying to play Skyrim at 144 FPS. Anything over 60 will screw it up. I was walking down a path and there was a deer standing in front of me. It just suddenly shot straight up in the air like a rocket ship, lol. I was thinking WTF? when a pack of wolves flew over my head.

              Are you going to play No Man’s Sky? I think I will probably give it a try, since there are no good RPGs coming out right now. I’ve held off on Technomancer, until it’s goes on sale, then I might give it a try.

              1. I kind of miss when Elder Scrolls games had mechanics that you could break just for fun, like buffing your movement stats so much you could jump across the map.

                I haven’t had a huge amount of time for long-burning RPGs recently, I got Witcher 3 three months after release and still haven’t gotten around to finishing it. But I’m pretty sure half my playtime is Gwent so that’s probably my own fault. No Man’s Sky looks cool but I just don’t have the hours to sink into it.

                If you’re a fan of Baldur’s Gate style RPGs Obsidian’s got a game called ‘Tyranny’ coming out sometime in the near future that looks interesting.

                1. I got Witcher 3 three months after release and still haven’t gotten around to finishing it

                  Witcher 3 is the best movie I’ve ever played. After 70 hours, I couldn’t take it anymore, too many cut scenes by far for me. I like Fallout 4 a lot better. Also, Witcher fans are like cultists, they go ape shit if you criticize their games.

                  Tryanny I will definitely buy. I liked POE quite a bit also, for an isometric party based game. But as far as games like that go, I’ll take the DA games. For turned based, DOS is the best party based game I’ve ever played. Looking forward to the 2nd one.

              2. Technomancer is *not* getting good reviews.

                Its made by the same company that did Mars: War Logs and Bound by Flame. The former didn’t get good reviews either (didn’t play it) the latter – played it for a while, but way too difficult and too often I got stuck in no-win situations where I died and a reload would put me in a position to be one-shot immediately.

                1. Actually, the Technomancer has mostly positive reviews on Steam. I think it will be pretty good, just not $45 good. I picked up War Logs on sale for $3 and I like it. The controls are sort of clunky and take some getting used to, but besides that, it’s a good game to pick up for cheap.

            2. The writing and script of ME3 breaks most of the cutscenes.

              And most of the rest of the game actually.

  76. I think Trump was callous, inarticulate, and insensitive, as usual. I also think it was shameful and reprehensible of the Hillary and the Khans to use the death of their son to score political points on something completely unrelated, namely immigration policy.

    1. I feel even more sorry for the guy if he thinks the DNC gives a fucking rats ass about him. What a sucker. Go vote for the people who sent your son to his death for no good reason.

  77. He Made a Move: I Had to Get It On

    CT Authorities Reviewing Policies Which Led to Killing of “Aggressive” Swan.

    #BlackSwansMatter

    1. Nicholas Angel: The swan’s escaped?
      P.I Staker: Yeah.
      Nicholas Angel: Right. And where has the swan escaped from exactly?
      P.I Staker: Uh, the castle.
      Nicholas Angel: Oh, yeah? And who might you be?
      P.I Staker: Mr. Staker. Yeah, Mr. Peter Ian Staker.
      Nicholas Angel: P.I. Staker?
      P.I Staker: Yeah.
      Nicholas Angel: Right. “Piss Taker.” Come on!

    2. The details will be worked out over dinner.

      “Mmmm…this duck a l’orange sure is tasty!”

      “I don’t think it’s duck.”

  78. Rand Paul = Is One Broke-A$$ N*gga

    LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) ? Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, known as an anti-debt crusader, piled up more than $300,000 in unpaid bills from his failed presidential campaign.

    The Lexington Herald-Leader (http://bit.ly/2aCn3yB ) reports Rand Paul for President had $301,108 in debts and $2,558 in cash on hand as of June 30 in its most recent Federal Election Commission filing.

    The campaign owes dozens of businesses and individuals for rent, insurance, telemarketing, phone and internet access, legal fees, consulting, facility and equipment rental and expense reimbursements promised to campaign workers.

    Peter Kutrumanes says his company is owned $3,962 for equipment leased to Paul’s campaign. He says his company won’t do business with Paul again.

    Paul campaign spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper says everyone will be paid in full.

    1. Rand Paul is digging in his pocket but all his money’s spent, so he digs deeper but still coming up with lint.

    2. Ask if they’ll accept gift certificates for free eye surgery.

      1. If their vision is unimpaired, they can sell the gift certificates on ebay.

        You just gotta think outside the box here.

    3. Peter Kutrumanes says his company is owned $3,962 for equipment leased to Paul’s campaign. He says his company won’t do business with Paul again.

      I wonder if he’d be making this statement if, all else equal, the nominee was currently Paul.

      1. He wouldn’t nag a Presidential nominee over a little debt, it would distract attention from other issues, like who will be Chief of Procurement for the General Services Administration in a Paul administration.

  79. A future where millions of people mill about staring at their gizmos

    A friend of mine has a start-up making “pre-teen educational software” for iPads. They were explaining their various apps over dinner, and i said,

    “well, no matter what the software pretends to be about, they’re mostly still “learning” the same thing – which is “How to use iPads“”.

    It didn’t go over well.

  80. Good reporting on the Wrath of Khan. But the fact remains that if Trump’s policy had already been in place his son would still be alive.

  81. Disclaimer: I’m a bad person

    BUT- I got all the way to this point: Ghazala Khan told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and ceased to give a fuck.

    If you go running to that worthless homunculus O’Donnell to broadcast your butthurt to the world, you can fuck right off.

    Also, the Democrats are now the party of warfighter fetishization? Truly, I have awoken in bizarro world.

    1. They’ve been trying that since the nomination of John “Rambo” Kerry in 2004.

      1. And don’t forget George McGovern – he flew warplanes in World War II

        (Just like George Wallace)

    2. Also, the Democrats are now the party of warfighter fetishization?

      And celebrating socially-conservative, retrograde religions

      1. A religion which allows you to have up to four wives, and to divorce any one of them by telling her “I divorce you,” is not what I’d call socially conservative.

        1. A religion which allows you to have up to four wives, and to divorce any one of them by telling her “I divorce you,” is not what I’d call socially conservative.

          I presume that’s offset by having to wear bags over the heads in public and being forbidden from speaking

        2. Uhm, why not?

          Conservative just means ‘slow to embrace change’ – if its been a thing *where these people live* for longer than the US has been in existence, continuing the practice would be pretty conservative.

          1. They’re not *American* conservatives, but this is the kind of confusion fostered by the MSM.

  82. I remain resolutely ignorant of this kerfluffle, but when exactly did Trump send that guy’s kid to Afghanistan or wherever the fuck he didn’t come home from?

    1. I don’t think that Trump did that. Had to be Hillary or Obama. But whatever Trump said is WORSE than getting someone’s kid killed for no good reason. You must be one of them Trumpets.

      1. It’s one thing to get hundreds of thousands of muslims killed, but it’s another entirely to be (called) an islamophobe.

        Islamophobic is literally the worst thing that a person could be.

    1. Meh. There’s only one dude in history that can make a flute cool.

      Ian Anderson flute solo

        1. Needz moar crunchy guitar.

  83. The only thing I’m disappointed in about this election is that Lurch isn’t going to be Hillary’s VP. Image a Hitlary/Lurch administration. *swoon*

  84. THe world needs ditchdiggers machinists, too.

    “We’re having to rebuild the entire pipeline of workers,” said Katrina Evans, assistant director of the state’s Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau. “It’s not even so much a skills mismatch as it is a warm body mismatch.”

    Nationally, a 2015 report from The Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte found that the skills gap “is real, and it is substantial,” noting that over the next decade, 3.5 million manufacturing jobs will have to be filled and that the skills gap means that 2 million of those jobs will go unfilled.

    Of the CEOs surveyed for the report, 82 percent said that the skills gap would impact their abilities to meet customer demands and 78 percent said it would impact their abilities to implement new technologies and increase productivity.

    “The basic consensus at this point is that the shortage of skilled labor is so severe that it’s actually affecting the ability of companies to grow,” said Val Zanchuk, a manufacturing executive and chairman of a new statewide effort to bridge the skills gap. “This is nationwide, and it’s certainly reflected in New Hampshire as well.”

    I’m sure there are plenty of Grievance Studies majors out there who could run a lathe.

  85. But some experts think the nationwide skills gap is overblown.

    Elise Gould, senior economist at the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said federal jobs data shows there are two unemployed manufacturing workers for every available job. She said employers looking for workers could be doing more to train available workers or attract more talent by offering higher wages.

    Yeah. Offer enough money, and those machinists will just sprout out of the ground.

    1. Yeah. Offer enough money, and those machinists will just sprout out of the ground.

      So what you mean is: “No machinist will work for a CEO’s salary.”

      WHAT LIBRARIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

    1. Animal cruelty!

    2. Did men need another reason to support Trump?

  86. I’m sure Hillary has a plan to subsidize the sort of people who work with their hands and create useful physical objects which have mass and occupy space.

    You know… Trump voters.

  87. I’m going to get some beer and then grill something of a bovine nature. Or maybe wings, I haven’t done wings in a while and there’s a large bottle of Louisiana Hot Sauce in my kitchen waiting to be used for something. Wait… buffalo wings! Wings of a bovine nature! Sorry, I’m bored.

  88. If we are choosing which spouse we’d prefer in the White House and who we have to see and hear about for the next four years, I choose this one. (NSFW)

    1. You don’t find ol Willy a lovely fellow? I mean for the lulz, you have to want him for the first dude. I can’t wait until the first time he’s caught naked on the Whitehouse lawn at 4am with a pizza in one hand and a bottle of vodka in the other, while getting a BJ from some young intern.

      1. And you’d have to watch Fox to learn about it, since the MSM would say it was simply a local crime story.

    2. Damn, she has breast implants, how disappointing.

      I wonder if she’d be the first First Lady to have implants?

      1. No, since “implants” cover orthopaedic appliances and replacements, not mention any other types of cosmetic or even dental implants, My Good and Right Colleague. If you are limiting to just saline fun bags, well, Melania would be the first we “know” about.

        WRT the rest of the FLOTUSes (FLOTI?), both past and present, and their chesticle buoyancy, it’s unlikely.

      2. Betty Ford? Not merely cosmetic, in her case, if she had them.

  89. And, of course, without the government there to hold their little hands and offer guidance, those dumb old kkkorporations would never be able to cope.

    Gov. Maggie Hassan announced this month the creation of the “manufacturing sector partnership,” an initiative to bring different manufacturing companies to the table with educators to find out exactly what skills are needed.

    1. Without wasting my time reading the article, I’m going to guess this is an initiative to make sure government schools actually teach skills needed in the actual economy. Maybe they’ll screw it up, but I think it’s aimed more at changing how the public schools work.

      1. They will screw it up.

        Because schools *used* to teach the skills needed in an actual economy – but then ‘Top Men’ got all twisted out of shape that we were churning out machinists from shop class and not enough who were ready to go for their Masters in Arabic Literature. So they changed the curriculum around to make graduates ‘more college ready’.

        Except that they screwed that up.

        Now – when manufacturing is an ever decreasing share of the American economy – they’re going to learn what modern manufacturers are looking for in entry level employees? And mold the curricula around that?

        Because I can tell you what an entry level employee in manufacturing needs – to be able to read, write, and understand basic math (and by basic I *do* include fractions, decimals, and a minimal understanding of algebra) – something public schools have had great difficulty achieving through *multiple* curricula changes over the last 50+ years.

  90. Not content to just fuck with us, squirrels also ruin crime scenes.

    I wonder how many people have been convicted based on rodentially altered evidence.

    1. All special snowflakes are equal, but some special snowflakes are more equal.

      I wonder if this guy gets a sport in the Hillary admin:

      Islam allows sex owning sex slaves

    2. Homosexuality is a hate crime against Islam.

    3. “the muslim brotherhood jihad group”

      I know you’re quoting Breitbart, but you should by now be aware of how idiotic this actually sounds.

      The MB is “islamist”, and wants an islamist government in Egypt (& elsewhere)… but the reason they’re so ‘well known’ and well-established is because they decided long ago that they wanted to achieve that through a political process. Hamas itself came into being because it *rejected* the Muslim Brotherhood’s insistence on eschewing violence. Pretending that they’re all the same is stupid and makes the public dumber.

      Blurring distinctions between “mainstream, non-violent” muslim groups and extremist, violent ones actually undermines the West by pretending that there are no shades of difference between any muslim-political group; ergo, we can ignore them all equally as ‘invalid’, and demonize anyone with any kind of lslamic associations.

      1. I was just quoting, but yes, that is poor phrasing.

    1. Did she intend to lie? Hmmmm?

    2. BUT TRUMP!!!

  91. The Australian Libertarian Society discusses Freedom of Religion

    Included on the panel was a ‘Muslim Libertarian

    (*he opens with a decent joke)

    My initial impression: The first necktie is excellent. The muslim’s has some against-the-grain striping-problem.

    I think its a worthwhile listen, as its a topic not much discussed in these pages lately, what with the 24/7 Colon-Cleansing.

    1. He was doing well until he dropped ‘the Dark Ages happened while classical works were being translated into Arabic.’

      THE DARK AGES. DIDN’T. HAPPEN. *collapses from rage-induced historicity stroke*

      1. meh. objecting to historical-shorthand is hopelessly pedantic. The point is that the relative-proportion of ‘civilization’ was at the time (sort-of) reversed, where the arab world was more heterogeneous, intellectually, and less prone to Inquisitions and Plagues and superstitions etc.

        i don’t think its a *good* point, but its still a point.

        1. The problem is that it causes laymen to imagine ‘the Dark Ages’ as a period of Monty-Python-esque shit-covered peasant farmers wallowing in their own ignorance, which just isn’t true. Small rural communities still had Roman-style bathhouses, people were more clean than in the early modern period for Christ’s sake. Yes, there was a transition from classical urbanism to rural agrarian feudalism, but technology did not stagnate, it just ended up primarily focusing on things like labour-saving devices, agriculture and architecture that no one seems to care about.

          Just talk about actual Arabic advancement of the period (which he does do in regards to Arabic numerals). I get the argument he’s trying to make, but there’s a major problem in public figures propping up nonsensical interpretations of the past. Christ, conflict thesis is considered a joke in most fields of history today but it’s preached as law on the internet, largely due to people like Tyson and Dawkins proclaiming it to be true.

          1. “Arabic numerals” originated in India. The Britannica calls them “Hindu-Arabic numerals.”

            1. I’m aware, and he mentions that in the video as well. Arabic mathematicians did expand on it with concepts like the decimal system.

    2. Based on my skipping around this … my impression is that “Libertarianism” in places like the UK and Australia are tending to appeal to religious folk in ways that it does not in the US…

      ….maybe because its seen as a political ideology which will defend their right to conscientious objection to what are increasingly leftist-social-policies which criminalize “impolitic attitudes, speech”?… or, “intolerance of lack-of-affirmation”

      It draws attention to a distinction which has often been glossed over in Reason/by readers… which is the whole deal about how “Tolerance” does not by definition include “affirmation” – and yet, increasingly, that is how “tolerance” is being redefined – particularly on college campuses, but also in wider areas of public life.

      Basically, that “tolerance” increasingly means, “complete and total erasure of any form of dissent/disagreement”

      There was a case in the UK a while back…university of glasgow, or something… where a leader of a student-government group was banned for suggesting that a plurality of views *wasn’t* necessarily hate-speech? that’s not quite right, but i recall the example being particularly poignant in showing how the tendency of these ‘justice’ movements is to increasingly demand greater and greater unanimity to the point where mere-suggestion of nuance of opinion was tantamount to a Hate Crime.

      i wish i could remember exactly what that incident was…. it was circulated here a while back.

      1. Here =

        Last week Imogen Wilson, vice president for academic affairs with the student association, was threatened with removal from her position after she “raised [her] arms in disagreement” during a council debate and shook her head disapprovingly.

        The Edinburgh Student’s Association safe-space policy says student association members must treat each other with consideration and respect, and this is defined as “refraining from hand gestures which denote disagreement or in any other way indicating disagreement with a point or points being made. Disagreements should only be evident through the normal course of debate*.”

        (*”normal“, of course being the norms established by the Socially-Just-Consensus: deviation from which is Hateful and Divisive)

        even the appearance of potential disagreement is Haram in the new, “safe spaces” conception of “Tolerance”.

    3. Muslim libertarians, like Muslim gay rights advocates, are rare creatures who can only exist in the open outside Muslim-controlled areas, because their beliefs directly contradict their own religious dogma.

  92. Space habitat concept drawings.

    I love these things. I had a small collection of books with this kind of art in them but they got “lost” by some incompetent or thieving moving men.

    1. I’d like to have a nice Dyson Sphere about a quintillion light years from the nearest politician or bureaucrat. I would set up a death ray that would automatically vaporize any aforementioned entities on approach of my habitat.

    2. Ah yes, back in the L5 Society days. I still have my autographed Gerard K. O’Neill book.

      Instead of space colonies, we have jihad. The 21st century is not what I had hoped. On the other hand, we do have cool computers.

      1. The brief period of enlightenment is over. We’ve entered a new dark ages where we’ve regressed to the same point as the old dark ages, witch hunts and all, except that now we drive 5000 lb steel death machines and have handheld cellular communication devices. But morally and intellectually, we’re the equals of the witch burning mobs from the dark ages.

        1. There has been a sense of backsliding… we’re headed for wars of religion and ethnicity, unless these globalists wise up.

        2. I’m not looking for any witches to burn,

          But I don’t want to keep letting barbarians into the city.

          Europe is finally beginning to realize the problem they’ve created, but for some reason we here in America are trying to pretend that they haven’t created a problem for themselves.

  93. Just the sort of generosity one might expect from a born* leader who understands what it means to be human-hearted and forgiving.

    Hillary: ‘I Don’t Hold Any Ill Feeling’ Against Benghazi Families Who Misunderstood Me

    1. Until I get elected, then there will be hell to pay!

      *cackling*

    2. Hillary: ‘I Don’t Hold Any Ill Feeling’ Against Benghazi Families Who Misunderstood Me

      Life imitates the Onion.

  94. What’s wrong with those ignorant slobs, anyway?

    Speaking on Fox News Sunday ? the most conservative of the news programs covering the campaign ? Clinton sought to contrast her long record of public service against Donald Trump, who she said “has offered nothing to help people.”

    “I have work to do to make sure people know what I have done and what I will do. That’s what this convention was about,” Clinton said during her post-convention swing through western Pennsylvania and Ohio. Regarding concerns many Americans have of her honesty and trustworthiness, she said, “All of these caricatures come out of nowhere.”

    Creating jobs in the private sector helps nobody. Buying and selling assets, and moving them into more highly valued uses, helps nobody.

    And the vast right wing conspiracy is keeping me down.

    Boo hoo hoo.

  95. What a dick. I have to say that I might have to reexamine this Republican Party– it now being full of cynical treasonous assholes. That’s my kind of limited government!

  96. I’d like to have a nice Dyson Sphere about a quintillion light years from the nearest politician or bureaucrat. I would set up a death ray that would automatically vaporize any aforementioned entities on approach of my habitat.

    What about the Domino’s Pizza delivery guy? Does he survive? You gotta eat.

  97. too little too late

  98. a distinction which has often been glossed over in Reason/by readers… which is the whole deal about how “Tolerance” does not by definition include “affirmation”

    Which is why I skip a lot of posts/comments.

    To be honest, I find homosexuality inexplicable. And yet, I don’t care. I certainly have no interest in seeing homosexuals persecuted.

    In much the same way, I find religious fervor (be it Moslem, Catholic or Melting-Ice-Caps Gaianism) inexplicable. Believe whatever the fuck you want, just keep it out of my face.

    I’m too fucking lazy to write a treatise on tolerance.

    1. Don’t you realize that tolerance is to be accepting when something is thrown in your face!!!

    2. Don’t you realize that tolerance is to be accepting when something is thrown in your face!!!

    3. Government is the intolerance we do together.

      1. We’re not intolerant, we’re just intolerant of people who are intolerant!

        /Democrats

    4. Believe whatever the fuck you want, just keep it out of my face.

      This is similar to why i sometimes make a stink about expanding definitions of “Bigotry”

      the nut of bigotry is the intolerance/hostility towards *people* who hold different views/subscribe to different beliefs. Its the unwillingness to let them speak, refusal to share space with them, objection to their inclusion, etc.

      Bigotry is NOT simply ‘disagreeing’ with other people, or holding impolitic views.

      A priest who denounces homosexuality as a sin during a sermon is not being “bigoted”.

      The people who demand a local gay-bar be closed because they object to the presence of “a certain class of people” ARE.

      the PC-brigades aim to change the definition such that there’s no difference. Which is why they use this convenient rhetorical device of “Creating/Contributing an environment of hostility” to pretend that merely having an objectionable opinion has some Cause-Effect connection to the actual-acts of “bigotry”, therefore must be treated the same.

    5. I’m too fucking lazy to write a treatise on tolerance.

      Indeed, Brooksie… I suggest exercising your tolerance to fine, fine scotch. Neat.

    1. That’s truly horrifying.

  99. 607 comments and counting on a Sunday. Love Trump or hate him, he generates hits.

    1. We would be at 700 even if this post were about Justin Bieber. Its sunday-open-thread.

      1. Yeah, and the only post all day.

        1. I missed that…y’all are right.

          1. I like the comments on the last posts of the day, and on one-post weekend days. The conversation gets less fragmented.

  100. Ghazala Khan wrote an editorial for the Washington Post.

    Don’t read it and respond to what you think it says. I am counting on all of you.

    1. Crazy Mary had a comment there within minutes of you posting that link

    2. Ah, the old “terrorists aren’t really Islamic” bit. The head of ISIS has a PhD in Islamic Theology. He can justify, theologically, everything they do.

    3. The commenters are so sympathetic to her loss that they’re going to vote for the candidate that not only voted for the war he died in, but also worked for the administration that murder droned the fuck out of their fellow Muslims over the last 8 years.

      Brilliant!

    1. The vocal fry makes me want to punch her repeatedly.

  101. I shall now parade my ignorance before god and the masses.

    Why would the Democratic Party, as main, if not sole, proprietor of the War on Terrrruh, call attention to it’s uniformed American victims?

    “Hey, everybody! Remember that war y’all profess to hate so much? Here’s a great big tearstained reminder! Howzabouta nice round of applause”

    1. I can’t answer that; maybe you can help me…
      Wih would Trump pick *this* battle on which to hang his hat? What possible positive outcome is there?
      Did Shrill hand him the loaded gun and paint the bullseye on his loafers?

      1. This seems like the result of Trump’s loose-cannon nature.

    2. Desperate, flawed political positioning.

      Note also that the party of Obama, anti-racism, and microaggressions is calling Trump’s speech “dark” and has a surrogate saying that he has a “black soul.”

  102. the PC-brigades aim to change the definition such that there’s no difference. Which is why they use this convenient rhetorical device of “Creating/Contributing an environment of hostility” to pretend that merely having an objectionable opinion has some Cause-Effect connection to the actual-acts of “bigotry”, therefore must be treated the same.

    Right. I get that. I read Robby’s posts and I do not doubt the reality of the encroachment of ungoodthink into the former realm of lynch parties.

    One sees many things, in a “college town” (Montana State has a fairly substantial footprint in Bozeman). Things like exchange students in hijabs, as well as regular old American upper middle class kids “finding themselves”.

    At target, not long ago, I saw a male* person wearing full makeup and a skintight girl’s t-shirt. He looked like an Eddie Izzard impersonator. I stifled my chortles of bemusement as best I could, but I can easily imagine being summoned before the Tribunal of Student Thought Leaders for re-education, if I were a student sniggering at him on campus.

    When did we abandon the distinction between thought and deed?

    1. Sounds like you’re only willing to tolerate it, not embrace it-not good enough. Truly you are a horrible person. Sounds like the town needs a thought tribunal.

    2. ungoodthink

      I’ve been in UKR too long; I initially read that as, “ungoodnik.”

  103. Wih would Trump pick *this* battle on which to hang his hat?

    “I’m sorry you’re a thin-skinned bitch” would probably go a long way toward solving that riddle.

  104. Invade the World / Invite the World in a Nutshell: The Khizr Khan Kherfuffle

    The Establishment is going nuts over Khizr Khan because his story so perfectly supports the bipartisan imperial consensus:

    We need to let in more Muslim immigrant cannon fodder in order to kill more Muslims in their own countries in response to the Muslims we let into our country killing us.

    Rinse and repeat.

    Also, if we don’t let in even more Muslims, the ones who are already here will get mad at us for being Islamophobic and haters, and therefore kill us.

    Granted, the actual numbers aren’t very promising. As far as I can tell, 14 Muslim-American U.S. soldiers have died in this century versus 15 American soldiers murdered in a couple of terrorist attacks by Muslim-American U.S. soldiers.

    Okay, so we’re losing soldiers on each one. (Never mind 3,000 dead civilians in the U.S.)

    But we’ll make up for it on volume!

    But that’s not the point. The point is that global empire costs a lot of money, which lines a lot of pockets around the Beltway, so we need to keep the Invade / Invite perpetual motion money machine going.

    1. Cytotoxic in a nutshell?

      1. I think he would justify it with some sort of Randian hand-waving, but yeah.

  105. The Botard Returns

  106. I suggest exercising your tolerance to fine, fine scotch. Neat.

    Beer, Groovus. Cold, cold beer.

    1. Put mine in the freezer. Grilled some bacon on pizza stone on grill, cooking everything else in resulting bacon grease. Yummy.

  107. Truly you are a horrible person.

    So say we all.

    DRINK!

  108. OT: But, it’s OPEN THREAD SUNDAY!

    Student punished for saying ALL lives matter

    Comments actually mostly good.

  109. Just because-

    #blacksoulsmatter

  110. Yeah, but!

    In all likelihood, this scenario will remain strictly hypothetical. According to FBI data, there were a total of 15 active shooter events on college campuses nationwide between 2000 and 2015 (none in Texas) resulting in 70 deaths (nearly half connected to the Virginia Tech mass murder). In light of the nearly 5,000 college campuses and 20 million college students in the U.S., the chance that any will be confronted by an armed assailant is extremely slim.

    Given these odds, the impact of the Texas campus carry law will not be measured by body count. But we will be able to measure it in terms of fear ? more for some, less for others.

    Ooh, the nagging fear that some drunken frat boy is just a hair’s breadth from homicidal freakout! If only we had taught him not to rape murder. Somebody should consider trying that.

    1. Remember the bloodbath that the Republican convention was going to be, due to open carry?

  111. This was a self serving, cheap stunt by the democrats. Obviously the parents of the fallen soldier deserve our sympathy, but you could say the same thing about the father of Jamiel Shaw who Donald Trump paraded around at his convention. Did he get any consideration from the leftists?

    I’m sorry, but the democrat’s crass and coldly manipulative agenda is more distasteful than anything that comes out of Trump’s mouth. There are literally hundreds of grieving families who lost their loved ones at the hands of ISIS agents. People lose their housing and workplace to make room for refugees. Where were they at the DNC? Maybe a hundred of them could have appeared onstage to urge an united front against radical Islam. Maybe the usual group of retards wouldn’t have shouted at them for being “racist and acting as recruiters for ISIS”.

    This Muslim soldier volunteered to fight for his country. He was killed by radical Islam, which kills more Muslims that anyone else and kills the people our soldiers fight to protect. Donald Trump is merely hyperbolic and wrongheaded in his solution to a serious problem. The Dems ignored it and cherry picked a sympathetic figure to push their usual agenda. Oh, not all Muslims are bad, we can’t give in to fear, etc etc.

    This is an extraordinarily evil political party. It will work harder to eradicate libertarianism than the GOP. Their nominee is proven crook who collaborated with the establishment to take down her rival.

    1. At least she’ll make the trains run on time

      /Reason

  112. Khan said; “Trump has a dark soul.”, now imagine if Trump had said that about Khan.”

    FACT; Trump did not kill your son in Iraq; another one of your own fellow Muslims did.

  113. I think you lose most, if not all, of the dignity afforded to the grieving parent of a dead child when you climb atop that child’s body to flog your political hobby horse free from any possibility of disagreement or criticism. It’s no less classy to pick a fight with a dead soldier’s parents than it was for the parents to turn their dead son’s memory into a campaign commercial.

    1. I agree with everything you say except about “..picking a fight with a dead soldiers parents.”

      Trump didn’t pick the fight.

      The dead soldiers parents picked the time, place and terms of the fight. They just assumed Trump wouldn’t fight back.

      If they truly respected the memory of their dead son, they wouldn’t use and debase it to elect such a pathetic person as Hillary.

  114. Hillary had to go back 12 years to find a token Muslim to attack Trump.

    Remember when FDR banned Germans, Italians, interred Americans of Japanese descent, and blocked Jewish refugees from Hitler? You know because he feared they might help out enemies trying to kill American soldiers and civlians. Those progressives, such kind souls.

    Muslims kill Christian soldiers all the time, but to find where Muslims kill a US Muslim soldier takes some work!

  115. My biggest complaint with Trump on this, is that it was a perfect opportunity to throw it fight back in the DNCs face and he failed to do it.

    “I want to thank Mr. and Mrs. Khan for raising the kind of man who would volunteer for service to our wonderful country. Bravo and my profound sympathies for your loss….our country’s loss. I can’t imagine your grief and wouldn’t presume to. I think it would be improper to address your comments directly.
    But I would like to address the DNC and their misguided platform. Firstly, shame on you for your exploitation of the grief of these wonderful people. It’s disgusting that you would turn such upstanding people into political attack dogs. You diminish them and diminish the memory and honor of their son. Shame on you. Would it now be appropriate to bring the grieving parents of those killed in Orlando and San Bernadino to discuss the wrong kind of immigration to this country? Because that is the critical question. We can all agree that the Khans represent the type of people we want to be our neighbors. But there are plenty whom we do not. And the DNC platform….the Clinton platform…proclaims that we should not be picky. That we should open our doors to all immigration…to even those who hate everything our country stands for. The DNC has become a joke. We know it, our enemies know it. Heck, I’ll bet even the Russians now know it. It’s time to have some adult conversations about immigration.”

    bam…winning.

  116. Screw Khan. This guy’s professionally shilling for the DNC. Haven’t we learned you that you don’t get any credit for being polite and apologetic to these types?

  117. he attacked Trumps patriotism He can attack back

    1. which was the problem with Bush and all other republicans they let the left tell the world what we should think of them and when the right never responds everyone assumes that what they say must be true

    2. The trouble is that Trump attacked back so poorly. He should have used the Khans to make Hillary look manipulative and legally beyond the pale.

      1. it was a crappy rebuttal but far less offensive than what Hillary and the Media claimed about the mother who’s son was killed in bengazzi after she spoke at the RNC

  118. Considering that in Islam women are 2nd class citizens and that in most of the Muslim world a women’s life is probably worse than that of a draft animal whatever his name is should clean up his own religion before lecturing ANYBODY about the US Constitution.

    Oh, and I notice the Dems’ don’t care a dead Americans, unless they’re dead Muslim Americans.

  119. Staying Classy, Trump Impugns Parents of Dead Muslim Soldier

    Hillary’s use of the Khans was offensive, and I don’t have much respect for parents who use the sacrifice their son made in order to score political points.

    Trump’s biggest offense was dealing in such an inept way with an obvious Democratic troll and a ridiculous misinterpretation of the US Constitution.

  120. “the real problem here are [sic] the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him.” Ah, the pedantic [sic]. Without it, do you really think the reader would have thought that you changed is to are?

    [Sic] really should have followed this quote, because it sure looks like a misprint: “”While I feel deeply for the loss of his son,”

  121. at this point, what does it matter? just askin is all…

  122. hyyyy

  123. I’ve made 64,000usd so far this year w0rking online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about my friend JGw and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
    Here’s what I’ve been doing?
    http://www.Highpay90.com

  124. If you’re gonna be a tool of a political campaign you can expect a rebuttal when you attack its oponent

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.