Donald Trump

The As(s)ininty of An Ideological Test That Donald Trump Would Fail

The chief peddler of hate wants to stop hate

|

Earlier this week, Donald Trump proposed to stop Muslims who hate on women and gays from coming to the country through an ideological litmus test. That's a laugh coming from the

Trumvestite
Judith Bicking Dreamstimecon

chief peddler of hate in this country. Indeed he and many of his followers would fail their own test, I note in my column at The Week.

Trump is trying to cloak his neo-reactionary agenda in progressive garb. But the idea of a test raises some rather troubling questions from the standpoint of limited government:

If President Trump can demand that Muslims believe in his version of women's equality — whatever that might be — what's to stop President Hillary Clinton from demanding allegiance to her version of women's rights? She could well make belief in reproductive rights a pre-condition for admitting Catholics. Or demand that prospective immigrants of any faith or persuasion adhere to liberal notions of gender equality and endorse affirmative action and eliminating the wage gap. How about government-funded child care so that women can be truly equal with men?

So why are #NeverTrump conservatarians at the National Review warming up to Trump's test?

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Gary Johnson, Ryan Lochte, Self-Driving Ubers

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. Shikha does alt text now? I don’t even know what to believe anymore.

      1. I believe I can fly.

        1. I can fly – an old woman taught me

          1. +1 muy mal blue duck

      2. After perusing some of the comments, i believe i’ll have a drink.

    1. The worst way to interpret anything Trump says is the truth.

      I guess that’s what we’re supposed to believe?

      I’m so tired of people talking about what Trump says as if it’s more important than what Obama and Hillary Clinton actually do.

      Obama actually subjects refugees to much more intense screening than what Trump is proposing.

      “Every refugee goes through an intensive vetting process, but the precautions are increased for Syrians. Multiple law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies perform “the most rigorous screening of any traveler to the U.S.,” says a senior administration official. Among the agencies involved are the State Department, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS officer conducts in-person interviews with every applicant. Biometric information such as fingerprints are collected and matched against criminal databases. Biographical information such as past visa applications are scrutinized to ensure the applicant’s story coheres.”

      —Time Magazine

      http://tinyurl.com/oa3ctud

      The process takes 18-24 months on average.

      Again, that isn’t what Obama says he might do. That’s what he actually does and has been doing.

      1. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. The current process sounds like its attempting to identify criminals and people with ties to terrorist organizations.

        That’s a lot different than “no Muslims”.

        1. The objectives are exactly the same.

          In his worst rendition of the scheme, Trump was responding to a (bogus) poll that said some 25% of Muslims support using violence against Americans.

          “Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad”. . . .

          Mr. Trump stated, “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.

          —-donaldjtrump.com

          http://tinyurl.com/nbkne73

      2. You know what I’m tired of? I’m tired of people who constantly shout things like “Trump might vs Hillary does”. Who really gives a flying fuck? If you really believe that Trump is better, just say so and own it. They’re all a pack of worthless pieces of shit, your man Gary included, so just deal with it.

        1. It’s a fundamental observation of what’s wrong with progressives.

          Believing that what people say is more important than what they do leads to all manner of evil.

          It’s projected down onto average individuals, too.

          Whether you vote for gay marriage doesn’t really matter; the important thing is that you don’t say “fag”?

          The outrage culture we’re being subjected to a function of what people say being given outrageous significance, too. The war against free speech is a function of people putting far too much importance on what other people say.

          A Canadian comedian was recently fined $42,000 by the Human Rights Commission for making off color jokes about a handicapped kid.

          People thinking that what you say is more important than what you do is a very big problem.

          It also lets Hillary Clinton get away with murder.

          While people are concentrating on Trump’s outrageous statement of the day, Hillary Clinton is still collecting money from foreign governments even as she’s running for President.

          1. Ken, stop trying to be friends with John. It’s not worth it.

            1. It isn’t about John.

              And John doesn’t like my positions on much of anything.

              If I happen to agree with him, it’s usually for different reasons.

              Reasons that often make him wish he disagreed with me on that position.

        2. It doesn’t matter that we disproportionately throw black people in prison as a function of the drug war.

          The important thing is that we say we’re not racists?

        3. It doesn’t matter that ObamaCare destroys the quality can cost of care.

          The important thing is that Obama says he cares about us?

          I could go on all day.

          Get people to stop concentrating so much on the bullshit our leaders say, and America will become a significantly more libertarian place much sooner.

          That may even be a precondition for a more libertarian world.

          1. But when Trump says he’s going to do insane shit, it’s ok because he’s only saying it? If people can’t be taken at their word, especially politicians, then why do all the things Hillary says scare you?

            1. I didn’t say that, and I don’t see anybody taking that stance. If they did, I’m sure I’d go against them–check the conversation below between me and Gilmore, where I’m pointing out that Trump is wrong.

              Meanwhile, everywhere I look in the media, I see people looking past the horrible shit Obama and Hillary actually do to focus on whatever troll comment Trump made yesterday.

              If the real world gives me more opportunities to call one out more than the other, that isn’t my fault.

              1. No, it’s not your fault that you like to run around whining “but what about Hillary?!?!??!!??” You’re in pretty good company here.

                1. I think you missed his point, a bit, DollarparkYen.

                  If it were an eminent domain question, for example, Trump would come out worse – he has actively used it, supports it and says would continue. I am not even aware Clinton has said anything or done anything one way or the other. She wins that point.

                  As for the Syrians coming to the US – Trump overgeneralizes and bloviates… while Teh Lightworker has actively impeded.

                2. It’s Tulpa again.

              2. check the conversation below between me and Gilmore, where I’m pointing out that Trump is wrong.

                For the record, i’ve never said anything about Trump. I’m pointing out Shikha is incorrect about the constitution.

        4. Trump is better.

          Gary Johnson is best.

          Hillary is sub human.

  2. the chief peddler of hate in this country

    … I know Al Sharpton is not looking that great lately, but he’d have to pass away before he could pass the title on.

    1. I think Shikha is just deliberately trolling now. Even she can’t actually be this batshit deranged.

      1. I’ll take that bet and even give you 2 to 1.

        1. *goes back and actually reads the rest of the article*

          Never mind.

          1. Wise move.

  3. Go here to read the whole thing.

    Why start now? I think the teaser-trailer was more than enough.

    1. Where does it go? Autostraddle?

    2. You could Google the name Kurt Metzger and read about that faketroversy before Soave writes about it.

      1. It’s true, some things on the internet are bad.

      2. The issue began when the Upright Citzens Brigade, the renowned improv and sketch-comedy group, quietly banned a male comic from its events after word spread that he had allegedly raped multiple female comics

        *I DJ’d a half-dozen UCB parties in the early 2000s. I had a handful of friends who were on ‘teams’. It was generally a cool crowd. It was pretty much the easiest place to get laid in NY.

        Tho a roomful of improv-kids can be… well, grating after a few hours minutes. they’re constantly trying to out-goof one another and sometimes you wanted to slap them and tell them to relax.

        Mtzger wrote a since-deleted Facebook post, with a screenshot available on the Daily Dot, satirizing what he perceived to be an injustice against that comic. He began, “Guys I have just heard some disturbing news, this guy Jiff Dilfyberg is a rapist! I know because women said it and that’s all I need!” In other Facebook posts to follow, Metzger continued to rail against what he perceives as a lack of due process ? that UCB would ban someone from their shows when that person has not been convicted of a crime.

        I don’t think this merits even Robby’s attention. he’s a serious journalist. this is just tabloid nonsense.

        1. We live in a tabloid world and Robby Soave is a tabloid girl.

          1. Professional tabloider — gender is irrelevant. Our maybe SUPER important, not quite sure anymore.

  4. I’ve heard that the Naturalization test is pretty tough and that new citizens are far more conversant with our founding documents and principles than are natural born citizens.

    1. +1 Apu asked about the Civil War.

    2. If you set the bar any lower, it would be at the bottom of Lake Baikal.

    3. The goal is to get them elected to higher office.

    4. Wait, we expect foreigners to know that slavery was not invented here???

  5. I may be wrong but this kinda reads like pure speculation.

    “Question: If Trump can ban anti-gay Muslims, should other countries be able to ban anti-gay American Christians?”

    Yes, of course.

    1. In fact, some really do just that.

    2. If Trump can ban anti-gay Muslims, should other countries be able to ban ________?”

      Muslim Countries Ban Entry Of Homosexuals Via Medical Testing


      – Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE already outlaw homosexuality, but are toughening their controversial stance
      – Kuwait’s director of public health says ‘gays will be barred’

      A medical test being developed by Kuwait will be used to ‘detect’ homosexuals and prevent them from entering the country ? or any of the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC), according to a Kuwaiti government official.

      GCC member countries ? Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ? already deem homosexual acts unlawful.

      This controversial stance is being toughened, according to Yousouf Mindkar, the director of public health at the Kuwaiti health ministry.

      He told Kuwait newspaper Al Rai: ‘Health centers conduct the routine medical check to assess the health of the expatriates when they come into the GCC countries. However, we will take stricter measures that will help us detect gays who will be then barred from entering…’

      I think her point would have been more effective if she said, “Why does Trump want to make America MORE LIKE a repressive shithole like Kuwait?”

      1. “Why does Trump want to make America MORE LIKE a repressive shithole like Kuwait?”

        Isn’t that more Shilkha’s game?

        1. Make or prevent from becoming?

            1. We’ll disagree on that one.

              1. If 2,000 Somali refugees move en masse to an Iowa town of 6,000 people, does that town become more or less like Somalia?

                1. If 2,000 Kuwaitis or Saudis move to the town, it becomes a lot more like Kuwait.

                  1. Yes, and Dalmia said there are literally no downsides to mass migration from such places. Which makes sense if you subscribe to the delusion that all cultures are equal.

                    1. The modern left, as demonstrated by Shitka, has moved beyond all cultures are equal to culture is an imaginary concept.

                    2. And cannot accept that there are 1 billion barbarians trying to get into Western Europe, Canada, or the U.S. to collect welfare.

        2. Isn’t that more Shilkha’s game?

          I don’t understand your point.

          I think she phrased her original point in a way which *pretended* that other countries – and in particular, Muslim countries – aren’t horrible repressive places which ban entry for a wide variety of politically-incorrect reasons.

          Her rhetorical approach is a little undermined by the actual-reality. If she wanted to make the same point, she *could* do so…. but it would require saying, “Muslim countries already do the shit Trump is proposing”.

          1. His point is that she is trying to dilute pure White America.

            1. Just because your freckled ass doesn’t resemble the snow-capped alpine peaks of Bavaria doesn’t mean real Americans should countenance having our racial purity diluted.

            2. Some of us would prefer not importing millions of homosexual slaughtering Muslims.

            3. His point is that she is trying to dilute pure White America.

              Accusations of racism are the first refuge of dimwit with no argument. The point is that cultures are not equal. Some of them are objectively bad for human well being. So then if you import mass amounts of shitty people from shitty cultures, those cultural mores don’t cease to be relevant factors as soon as a migrant crosses the border and eats a Big Mac.

        3. I’m confused. Trump is saying he wants to filter out the people who want America to be more like a repressive shithole like Kuwait.

          How is that Trump wanting to make America more like a repressive shithole?

          1. Because REASONS.

          2. How is that Trump wanting to make America more like a repressive shithole?

            I suppose the idea is that in order to keep the hateful Kuwaiti-types out, we need to enact immigration policies similar to what hateful-Kuwaiti does.

            I think what it all boils down to is =

            can/should a (sort-of) free-society like the US discriminate between immigrants in order to preserve a (sort-of) free-society“?

            Places like Kuwait/Bahrain, etc. have no such qualms because they make no pretenses to being free-societies.

            But the US pretends to care about such niceties. (*tho – not really, as Ken notes above = we already conduct screening 10X more comprehensive than what Trump proposes…but, for the sake of the media argument, we’ll ignore that)

            Does adopting a discriminatory immigration policy make America “less free”? Or is it a necessity in order to avoid a suicide-pact situation?

            1. That’s well put. We can eloquently square this circle though, “free society for us, fuck all y’all”

              1. We can eloquently square this circle though, “free society for us, fuck all y’all”

                I generally see no problem with that…

                ….tho others seem to think the constitution makes obligations on the US Govt to respect the “rights” of every person on earth. Which i think sometimes makes for complex scenarios.

                1. No society can remain free with a significant minority (who knows what percentage that is) that is fundamentally opposed to freedom.

                  Not importing people fundamentally opposed to freedom strikes me as a legitimate immigration restriction, in principle.

                  Implementing it effectively, OTOH, is likely to prove difficult.

              2. The left, including cosmotarians, think that freedom of association means that excluding anyone from anything for any reason is inherently evil and should be prohibited by government force.

            2. In Shikha’s thinking, the lock on your door to keep people out is morally equivalent to the lock on a jail cell keeping you in.

      2. If you thought the Rio Olympics have been something of an optics problem for the hosts, just you wait for the Qatar World Cup ’22.

        1. You don’t have to wait that long. The World Cup in Russia will happen first, in two years.

      3. A medical test being developed by Kuwait will be used to ‘detect’ homosexuals…

        I’m guessing the test involves having some dude give prospective male immigrants a handy and if they get a chubby then “gay”. Or vice versa for women.

    3. Yeah, it is a dumb question. Who cares what other countries do, or might do.

      There is no constitutional violation if Muslims are subject to extra scrutiny when considered for immigration or visits to the US.

      Some fair-minded people think it is wise to restrict Muslim immigration, no racism or xenophobia involved. Those people think it is foolhardy to blindly accept all comers from countries where Islamic contingents are busy murdering people for various reasons. Those people often point to real-world experience in Europe where politically correct policies are being put to use. Those people also realize that a bunch of truly innocent Muslims will be denied entry into the US, and that is truly regrettable, but collateral damage happens. I am one of those people.

      Pointing at Trump and hissing “racist” because of his statements on Muslims is ridiculous. If racism is your primary worldly concern then your ire should be directed at Hillary and the Democrats. We know that won’t happen, though, because Hillary and her coalition of artificially joined special interest groups practice racism that is embraced and sanctified by the left and by the media.

  6. Look, Dalmia, it’s well-known that Muslims, whatever their moral failings in other aspects of life, cannot lie to immigration officials.

  7. And his objectification of women is only slightly less offensive than the Saudi mullahs whom he lambasts.

    Ok. I made it that far. Anyone care to beat my record?

    1. You win. Damn that is a stupid line.

      1. Shikha is rapidly approaching the singularity of derp.

    2. And his objectification of women

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

      is only slightly less offensive than the Saudi mullahs

      I can’t imagine what Trump has said or done that is even remotely in the same ballpark as forcing schoolgirls to burn to death rather than be seen on the streets without their Muslim bags on.

      1. Look, it’s well known that Trump is misogynist troglodyte, just pretend that he never actually put women in charge of major construction projects in the 1980s when no one else was doing that, and forget that women managers and executives that work for him or have worked for him in the past almost universally adore him.

  8. Trump’s mistake was not staging a series of terrorist attacks like his buddy Putin. I think it’s probably too late now.

    1. Never fear, the Clintons will save us from the Russians… while cashing their checks to the Foundation.

      1. Sorry, I’m shilling for Jill now.

        1. Ah yes, why go quasi-fascist when you can just go full communist?

  9. Chief peddler?

    There is some STIFF competition out there.

    1. I would like actual unambiguous examples of Trump peddling hate. I admit I don’t pay much attention to the MSM, but it seems like a lot of shrieking about Trump’s racism and hate mongering with not much in the way of actual examples.

      1. He hasn’t once mentioned that he wishes he was gay. What more proof do you need that he’s a raging homophobe?

      2. with not much in the way of actual examples.

        Its the Big Lie in action. And his enemies accuse Trump of being the modern day Goebbels.

      3. And you’d be hard pressed to find them, though I think that he has played footsie with too many hateful ideas for my taste, compared to the average day on the left — Trump is an amateur.

        I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but when Michael Moore starts making sense …

        I don’t know what the hell Trump believes and I don’t think he does either.

  10. We don’t have to let them in (though we should), but we must stop bombing them.

    1. Pay your bet, fuckface Dave Weigel.

    2. Oooh, look at anti-Cytotoxic over here.

  11. Recall that this activist against “hateful ideologies” launched his candidacy by calling Hispanics “rapists and criminals,” among other things

    His calling Mexican rapists and criminals rapists and criminals was certainly construed as calling all Hispanics rapists and criminals, and I suppose when the media calls something something long enough it becomes the something the media called it. But it’s still a deeply disingenuous and intellectually insulting argument to make. And let’s not kid ourselves about Saudi mullahs and their respect for the walking carpets they stone to death for social trespasses. Trump is a cantankerous boor and a genuinely stupid man, but he’s not a murderous ideologue.

    1. Why are we bombing Libya and Syria if the real evil is Saudi mullahs? (And I agree it is.) But yes, Trump is a murderous ideologue. He is using all the techniques of previous autocrats and dictators of the past, including cultivating a core band of ardent followers to bully and intimidate the population into compliance (and then proclaim innocence if things go south). How’s that strategy working out for you guys?

      1. Why are we bombing Libya and Syria

        Surely not because of “murderous ideologues” like Obama and Clinton. Definitely Trump’s fault.

      2. Trump is a septuagenarian looking to play politics as a hobby in his old age. He has none of the necessary ground game for a populist uprising, whatever his blinkered supporters think. The Bundies managed to invest a federal wildlife office for a couple weeks; Trump couldn’t manage to take over a post office in Des Moines for a couple hours. He has no brownshirts, no soviet muscle, just a bunch of hopeful voters with bigger fists than brains. Calling him the next Hitler is a massive disservice to Hitler’s victims.

        1. Calling him the next Hitler is a massive disservice to Hitler’s victims.

          I said #NeverAgain and I meant it.

          1. In that case I’d be more worried about the frank contempt for law of a progressive whose party wants to fundamentally reshape the country, Constitution be damned.

        2. Calling him the next Hitler is a massive disservice to Hitler’s victims.

          Especially since Team Blue is the modern home for serious antisemitism.

          1. Hating Israelis and excusing Palestinian terror attacks isn’t antisemitic, because reasons.

      3. He is using all the techniques of previous autocrats and dictators of the past, including cultivating a core band of ardent followers to bully and intimidate the population into compliance

        So democracy then? Typically the ones that cultivate bands of ardent followers are the ones who win elections.

        1. bully and intimidate the population into compliance

          But enough about Democrats.

    2. Witness his response to the problem of sexual assault in the military: “What did these geniuses expect when they put men and women together?”

      Well? What did they expect? Our military taps testosterone-fueled teenage boys for the same reason ISIS does, e.g. not for their intellectual rigor or moral rectitude. It’s not excusing their sins to recognize that they don’t simply evaporate when the light of progressive enlightenment is shone upon it. And since when is a legitimate kvetch about the fallibility of government considered illegitimate by a supposed libertarian?

        1. Yeah, it’s really the fault of the Western Secular Caliphate. And the lizard people.

      1. Sexual assault in the military is a grossly inflated ‘problem’ just like it is on college campuses.

        I have taken the surveys they base those numbers on. 1. No one gives a shit filling them out, 2. They aren’t asking were you raped or sexually assaulted. It isn’t even clear who the hell ‘touched’ you in the last year when you didn’t want them to because it doesn’t ask. Stupid questions like that are then conflated with unreported sexual assaults.

        Same sort of bullshit done on college campuses.

        1. I think I took a similar survey on the phone once when I was feeling indulgent. I honestly answered their questions about unwanted sexual content (pretty much laughing the whole time). Once in high school an inebriated friend stuck his dick in my face. I told him to fuck off and nothing else happens.

          That probably makes me a sexual assault victim in someone’s statistics.

          1. Your friend came out to you and you did nothing to comfort him? Monster!

            1. Let’s just say he was the guy you would have expected to do that. Yet he ended up (mostly at least) not-gay.

              1. I have a buddy like that. Married twice, daughters by both women, serially monogamous all his life with another long-term girlfriend now, but he is really into wrestling and groping other men when he gets drunk.

          2. Once in high school an inebriated friend stuck his dick in my face. I told him to fuck off…

            Sounds like he was trying to…

            1. And I preferred that he do so elsewhere.

    3. It did come off as if he was saying that there are probably a few decent immigrants among all of the criminals and rapists. But he certainly wasn’t saying that all Hispanics are inherent criminals. Just saying things in his usual idiotic manner.

      1. Exactly. I hate coming to his defense, but a lot of critique is leveled at his foolhardy, unpolished, ill-conceived and poorly-delivered remarks. “He’s not speaking like a politician.” Well, no, sweetheart, but that’s why he resonates with so many people. There’s a whole lot to despise about the man and his followers, but these wheedling, overbroad arguments about his dumb thoughts are pretty low-rent. He’s not wrong for wanting to implement an entry questionnaire, he’s mistaken in thinking it will prevent anything. He’s not wrong for wanting to beef up border security or protect national interests, he’s mistaken in thinking that will usher in a new era of American prosperity.

        1. “…that’s why he resonates with so many people.”

          Which also explains why he doesn’t resonate with so many other people – they are objectively pro-status quo.

    4. His calling Mexican rapists and criminals rapists and criminals

      And even that quote is taken out of context.

  12. Charles CW Cooke discussed this with Kevin Wliiamson last night.

  13. Great stuff coming from Dipshit, a hater extraordinaire.

    Some of the things she has said right here about the fairly mild-mannered Bobby Jindal, simply because he considers himself an American and doesn’t share her pathological hatred of patriotic whites, surpasses anything I’ve ever heard from Trump.

    1. So, I guess that makes Shikha the chief peddler of hate in this country.

  14. Last I checked we already have an ‘ideological test’ for citizenship. You are still asked to ‘renounce allegiance to any other country’ and you are pointedly asked ‘whether or not you have ever been associated with communists or other groups that have tried to overthrow the American government’.

    I get that Leftists are hyperventilating over everything Trump says, but this is reached ridiculous proportions. I would heed the alarms of these ‘fair weather civil libertarians’ if they had piped up over the past eight years about the erosion of our constitutional liberties. But, unfortunately, these talking heads stopped talking about ‘civil liberties’ and ‘unending war’ when Bush left office. Therefore, I roll my eyes every time they flail about the lasted Trump faux controversy.

    1. Forget citizenship, a Romanian friend of mine says there are a bunch of questions like that just to get a visa (though in the EU, the US still requires a visa for Romanians).

  15. Some people might think what Obama actually does represents more intense screening than Trump merely saying he’d ask them if they want to kill homosexuals, but what those people don’t realize is that what Trump says if far, far, far more important than what Obama actually does. And do you know why?

    It’s because of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    If you think what Trump says is more important than what Obama does, then you may have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    For instance, if you think Trump saying he would bomb ISIS despite the civilian casualties is somehow more important than Obama actually killing thousands of innocent bystanders and hundreds of children over the years with drone strikes? Then you may have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    If you think Trump saying he’d ask refugees if they wanted to murder homosexuals is somehow more important and more intense than Obama subjecting refugees to a screening process by numerous intelligence agencies that takes an average of 21 months? Then you may have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    1. I predict that Obama will end drone strikes by the end of his term.

      1. It doesn’t matter what Obama does.

        It matters what Trump says. It also matters what Clinton says–especially because she says all the right things.

        The order of operations importance scale works like this:

        Bad Things Trump Says > Good Things Hillary Says > Good Things Obama Says > Bad Things Obama Does

        “Bad Things Hillary Does” isn’t on the chart anywhere because the bad things Hillary actually does are so profoundly unimportant, it can’t be seen with the naked eye.

        1. “Bad Things Hillary Does” isn’t on the chart anywhere

          Neither is “Good Things Trump Says”. I guess to TDSers, thats a null set.

      2. So no drone strikes on January 19th?

      3. I would bet you on that, but you have a track record of welshing.

  16. My optimistic thought for the day:

    If Clinton wins Team D gets another shining example of Team D as the war team.

    If Trump wins Team SJW will lose it provide comic gems as they collectively explode in impotent rage.

    If Johnson wins everyone, even Team Gay Nazi, will get cake. Rainbow swastika cake!

    1. Team Blue won’t care about being shown as the war team. The reactions of those of my acquaintance so far range from willful ignorance to going full neocon. Also, something something Bush.

      1. “… to going full neocon.”

        As if this should be surprising. Neocons are deep down democrats who rejected only the hardcore leftist anti (US/imperialist) war attitude.

        1. HTML fail.

  17. requiring Muslims to prove that they don’t believe in those aspects of their religion that allegedly conflict with liberal values ? would violate the First Amendment rights of prospective immigrant

    The 14th amendment applies equal protection to people already within US jurisdiction. IOW, it *presumes* people have already been admitted.

    That’s a pretty clear line which puts “prospective immigrants” outside of it. Pretending that not-yet-immigrants have 1st amendment protections *before they’ve even been granted entry* is…. begging the question?

    1. “Congress shall make no law”, I would say, applies to any law, not just laws enforced within US territory. Because it’s a limitation on congress, 1A protections apply everywhere to everyone.
      I think the question has to be whether 1A really forbids any religious or ideological test for immigration.

      1. Nice to know what you would say. The Supreme Court has said the opposite.

        1. And the supreme court never gets anything wrong.

          How is what I would say not the clear and obvious meaning of the text? It doesn’t say anything about an immigration law exception in there.

          1. How is what I would say not the clear and obvious meaning of the text?

            Are you a lawyer? Because i’d think anyone using the description “Clear and obvious” in regards to how constitutional law works in practice… well, it would have to be in the context of a joke.

            1. I’m losing interest in what is practical. They are going to do what they are going to do and make up justifications as necessary.

        2. The SCOTUS has ruled on religious tests for immigration?

          1. I see the point that SCOTUS affords wide latitude on immigration matters, but I’m not sure the latitude is quite that wide. Not that a specific test for Islam is the only thing being proposed or considered, but I would imagine SCOTUS would hear the case if such a policy came to be.

        3. SCOTUS has not said “the opposite,” SCOTUS simply does not see such restrictions as being contrary to the text or meaning of the 1st amendment. Failure to grant residency or citizenship not being any sort of impediment to the free practice of religion.

      2. “Congress shall make no law”, I would say, applies to any law, not just laws enforced within US territory.

        I don’t think it works that way.

        Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

        In 1952’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. “In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. “One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court.”

        some immigrants who are suspected terrorists may not be allowed to confront the evidence against them. In 1996, Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a secret tribunal that can examine classified evidence. …

        If your rationale held, congress couldn’t enact any policy which violated “rights” of foreigners. How would “War” work? it would effectively be congress making laws that deprive (foreign non citizens) of due process etc. Its a logical impossibility.

        1. The due process for war is covered by a declaration of war by congress.

          That is the due process process.

          Of course, we havent actually passed one of those in 70+ years.

          1. Totally inconvenient. Congress critters would have to take a position.

          2. Fine, but i still don’t see how we recognized 1st amendment protections of overseas citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki, much less non-citizens.

          3. “The due process for war is covered by a declaration of war by congress.”

            Makes sense. Straight out of Article 1, section 8.

            Although…

            Is there anything else in that section of relevance to this discussion?

        2. I don’t see any exceptions or geographical limitations in the 1st. The 14th explicitly says that equal protection applies within US jurisdiction, so that’s a separate case. I’m just talking about the 1st (and immigration law is federal, so incorporation via the 14th is irrelevant). The “due process” part is a bit less clear as to where it applies, but it also just mentions states, so maybe it doesn’t apply to feds. Or maybe a declaration of war counts as due process.

          1. You’re just repeating your claim without recognizing the above point that “the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review.“”

            Are you saying that immigration officials can’t make determinations about prospective-immigrants own-statements?

            1. Well, there’s the problem. I’m not talking about what the courts say, I’m talking about what the constitution says.

              Are you saying that immigration officials can’t make determinations about prospective-immigrants own-statements?

              No. I’m saying I reject the notion that the first amendment doesn’t apply to immigration law. And that’s really it.

              1. I’m talking about what the constitution says.

                Isn’t this the same sort of approach that leads progs to insist that the 2nd amendment requires people to be in Militias, and carry muskets, etc?

                Case law is what matters. you can appeal to your own personal understanding of bone-simple text, but that’s not how the law is applied.

                1. Isn’t this the same sort of approach that leads progs to insist that the 2nd amendment requires people to be in Militias, and carry muskets, etc?

                  Sure. It’s also what leads many libertarians to insist that the 2nd allows little or no restriction on gun ownership and bearing arms. And every other case where we disagree with what courts have said.

                  Sometimes case law gets it wrong. I’m not denying that that is how it has been interpreted or that it will probably continue to be so.

                  Seems odd for so many here to be all deferential to the wisdom of the federal courts all of a sudden.

                  1. Seems odd for so many here to be all deferential to the wisdom of the federal courts all of a sudden

                    It would be odder if we completely ignored them all the time. When case law support an argument we already happen to think makes a great deal of sense, well so much the better.

        3. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

          Indeed. Congress can refuse to admit, or require quarantine, of any prospective immigrant that has or is suspected of having a communicable disease. It can’t evict citizens with communicable diseases, and its power to require quarantine of citizens is constrained.

      3. But a questionnaire can easily be written after a theologically-neutral fashion: do you believe homosexuals should be executed for their homosexuality?

        Why someone seeking entry, especially someone motivated by an abiding hatred for Westerners and a desire to harm Americans, wouldn’t simply lie about their beliefs is another question. Like, that’s going to be the line they draw? Murdering innocent Americans is fine, lying on a questionnaire is the Muslim equivalent of a mortal sin?

        1. Why someone seeking entry, especially someone motivated by an abiding hatred for Westerners and a desire to harm Americans, wouldn’t simply lie about their beliefs is another question. Like, that’s going to be the line they draw?

          I would fully expect them to lie. I would also fully profile potential immigrants in all the icky common sense ways.

          1. I haven’t read up on it, but Israel seems to have something going for it in that regard. I just don’t trust that either Trump or the federal bureaucracy he envisions would be competent or capable of emulating it.

            1. I think capability is where it would fall short before there was even a chance to do it incompetently. Racial, national and cultural profiling are not exactly in vogue right now.

              1. Dalmia’s is a strange bit of concern trolling on foreigners’ behalves when we can’t get the feds to hew to Constitutional restrictions with regard to its citizens. It’s fine to bankrupt bakers and photographers for their ideological indiscretions, but singling out Muslim travelers for heightened security simply isn’t kosher.

                1. singling out Muslim travelers for heightened security simply isn’t kosher.

                  I see what you did there.

          2. And I would be quite happy to exclude merely the few who are too stupid, or malevolent to lie.

            Win-win.

            1. Lack of five point restraints and an on board fire suppression system not being an argument against seat belts or air bags.

      4. Sorry – the link to the reference = “Do Noncitizens Have Constitutional Rights?” – from back when Slate was “not stupid”

      5. 1A protections apply everywhere to everyone.

        It does not assert universal jurisdiction, and people often forfeit that right by contract or conviction.

        1. It doesn’t have to because it is a limitation on what laws can exist. A contract isn’t congress limiting your speech. And I’m not so sure convicts should lose free speech or religion rights.

          1. The point is that it does not apply everywhere to everyone.

            1. The point is that it does not apply everywhere to everyone.

              The Constitution doesn’t grant rights.

              It prohibits the US government from violating rights that already exist, innately, by virtue of being a person.

              1. Then, given that Article 1 Section 8 charges Congress with establishing a uniform rule of naturalization it is safe to conclude that citizenship is not a right.

                1. it is safe to conclude that citizenship is not a right.

                  I don’t think anyone is saying it is. What I am saying is that congress can’t make immigration laws that restrict free speech or free press or restrict the free exercise of religion. Because that is exactly and unambiguously what the 1st amendment says it can’t do. And the 1st amended the constitution, and so applies Article 1 Section 8.

                  1. So taking a an oath of any kind as a precondition for immigration or residency is a violation of the first amendment?

                    1. So taking a an oath of any kind as a precondition for immigration or residency is a violation of the first amendment?

                      Why do you think he’s saying that?

                      He’s saying Congress isn’t allowed to make laws that use religion as the determining criteria as that’s “an establishment of religion.”

                      (Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, Zeb. Please correct me if I’m wrong)

                    2. Why do you think he’s saying that?

                      Because unlike you I actually respond to what people are arguing, sometimes to disagree, but also sometimes to get clarification before I disagree. Also unlike you, I actually care enough to understand the argument before I bestir myself to attack it. That way I don’t come off as an intellectual cripple that needs to attack strawmen to feel smart.

                      He wrote:

                      What I am saying is that congress can’t make immigration laws that restrict free speech or free press or restrict the free exercise of religion.

                      A mandatory oath certainly stinks of “immigration laws that restrict free speech”.

                      (Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, Zeb. Please correct me if I’m wrong)

                      I doubt he’s offended. It’s just what you do.

              2. “The Constitution doesn’t grant rights”

                Our legal rights in the Constitution are a pale shadow of the real thing.

              3. The Constitution doesn’t grant rights.

                I never said it did. As usual, you would like to imply that I did because it’s easier to respond to arguments that you attribute to to your opponent rather than ones they actually made.

                1. Horseshit!

                  You said:

                  …it does not apply everywhere to everyone

                  You’re saying the Constitution applies to people. Which is the same as saying it grants you rights.

                  It applies to the United States government and in the instance of 1A it applies to Congress specifically. Always and everywhere.

                  It doesn’t apply to ANYONE but government. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. And precluding entry based upon the fact that you belong to a religion that the government doesn’t approve of is making a law establishing approved religions.

                  1. The horseshit here is your semantic game or your inability to read. I was responding to Zeb who said

                    1A protections apply everywhere to everyone.

                    I disagreed with that specific assertion in a very specific way. I never said the constitution “grants rights”. That was your horseshit strawman argument.

                    It doesn’t apply to ANYONE but government.

                    The PROTECTIONS apply to people, they’re discussing people. Unless you’re going to claim that first amendment protections protect government from being told by itself not to say something. Or that the 2A protects the right of government to keep and bear arms. So you can either be a disingenuous cunt who wants to take down strawman arguments or you can admit that you experienced a momentary lapse in reading comprehension. Get a grip.

                    1. I never said the constitution “grants rights”.

                      And you are too fucking stupid to realize you’re saying the same thing by claiming those protections only apply to those under US jurisdiction.

                      If the right to practice the religion of your choosing is inalienable, and because of this the founders saw fit to prohibit the government from creating law based upon religion, how could one claim the power for government to create law based on religion for entry unless you believe Americans have some right that non-Americans don’t?

                      To claim the government has the power to make law respecting the establishment of religion because it applies to furrinerz IS claiming that the right is granted to some and not others.

                    2. Go ahead and move those goal posts if that’s your thing.

                      And you are too fucking stupid to realize you’re saying the same thing by claiming those protections only apply to those under US jurisdiction.

                      Who can forget the famous Wing-Zou vs Akmed, when a Chinese dissident living in Bejing was suing because restrictions of his free speech rights protected under the 1st Amendment to the American Constitution was being infringed by a local Communist Party official. It’s just totally universal! Great insight, Franny.

                      If the right to practice the religion of your choosing is inalienable, and because of this the founders saw fit to prohibit the government from creating law based upon religion, how could one claim the power for government to create law based on religion for entry unless you believe Americans have some right that non-Americans don’t?

                      For one thing, there’s a very reasonable case to be made that Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religion. Secondly, despite the fact that everyone has right to practice whatever religion they want provided that their practice doesn’t actively harm others, the First Amendment doesn’t protect the rights of Wing Zou in Bejing or Akmed in Islamabad. The rights protected by the First Amendment might rightfully belong to everyone in the world, the protection of that right itself by way of the US Constitution does not apply to everyone in the world.

                    3. The goalposts haven’t moved an inch. You are just too fucking stupid to realize where they were first erected.

                      Who can forget the famous Wing-Zou vs Akmed, when a Chinese dissident living in Bejing was suing because restrictions of his free speech rights protected under the 1st Amendment to the American Constitution was being infringed by a local Communist Party official. It’s just totally universal! Great insight, Franny.

                      Non sequitur.

                      He does have the right to free speech and the US government may not write law infringing upon it. The US didn’t infringe on it and is not responsible for others infringing on it.

                      For one thing, there’s a very reasonable case to be made that Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religion.

                      Now who’s moving the goalposts?

                      the First Amendment doesn’t protect the rights of Wing Zou in Bejing or Akmed in Islamabad.

                      It protects his rights from the US government.

                      Look up the word inalienable.

                    4. The goalposts haven’t moved an inch. You are just too fucking stupid to realize where they were first erected.

                      No, you were very insistent that I was claiming that the constitution grants rights. I never claimed this. I very definitively showed you what I was responding to because you don’t have the wherewithal to figure that out without extra help. Then you proceed on like that line of “debate” never happened.

                      Non sequitur.

                      He does have the right to free speech and the US government may not write law infringing upon it. The US didn’t infringe on it and is not responsible for others infringing on it.

                      The Constitution does not represent UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. As I’ve already said. Thus one cannot possibly argue that the constitution protects a Chinese peasant’s free speech rights in China.

                      Now who’s moving the goalposts?

                      Still you. You apparently don’t know what “moving the goal posts” means.

                      It protects his rights from the US government.

                      Look up the word inalienable.

                      A foreign person on foreign soil in a foreign legal jurisdiction has absolutely zero protection from the US Constitution beyond the practical ramifications that the document has on foreign policy. He does not have any standing, as aptly demonstrated by the conspicuous lack of any judicial precedent establishing universal jurisdiction of the Constitution.

                      Look up the word subdermatoglyphic. It also is a non-sequitur.

                    5. A foreign person on foreign soil in a foreign legal jurisdiction has absolutely zero protection from the US Constitution beyond the practical ramifications that the document has on foreign policy.

                      You are fucking smoking crack!

                      He is protected from the United States making laws that limit his speech.

                      He is protected from the US writing laws that limit his free exercise of religion….etc.

                      Do you think the US government has the power to pass a law stating that the US can kill all non-American muslims or kill any non-American that says something Congress happens to disagree with? They certainly MAY NOT. Because…

                      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                      1A is in the fucking Constitution because these rights are inalienable. They apply to every person on the planet, whether they are being exercised or not, and therefore the United States government is specifically prohibited from writing law that impinges upon them. SO…they guy living in Zimbabwe can rest assured that the US government may not write a law saying that the US may kill him because of his religious beliefs. Ergo…he IS protected by the US Constitution against US aggression based upon his religion/speech….

                    6. He is protected from the United States making laws that limit his speech.

                      He is protected from the US writing laws that limit his free exercise of religion….etc.

                      Laws that the US lacks jurisdiction to make in the first place as virtually any federal court would ostensibly strike down.

                      Do you think the US government has the power to pass a law stating that the US can kill all non-American muslims or kill any non-American that says something Congress happens to disagree with? They certainly MAY NOT.

                      That’s what declarations of war and letters of marque and reprisal are for, which also happen to be things that the US government can’t simply declare on it’s own citizens within it’s own legal jurisdiction without martial law, as this would circumvent the judicial system. In fact Congress has on occasion issued letters of marque and reprisal against foreigners despite the fact that summarily attacking and hanging suspected pirates in the Mediterranean WITHOUT READING THEM THEIR RIGHTS or giving them due process.

                      Funny how the gubmint has the power to do those things to foreigners in foreign lands despite your claim that the US Constitution protects me from the feds as much as it does a resident of North Africa. Yet that distinct power exists because there is a categorical difference constitutionally between us.

                    7. 1A is in the fucking Constitution because these rights are inalienable.

                      It’s in there because it was put in there by a mortal human. There are many inalienable rights that don’t make an appearance, which doesn’t mean they aren’t rights. They just don’t necessarily have constitutional protection. Moreover, the fact that a right is inalienable just means it can’t be arbitrarily revoked or repudiated in the absence of a conviction or under the penalty of a lesser law that the person has consented to abide by.

            2. My point is that it does because it is a limitation on what government can do, not a declaration that people have certain rights in the jurisdiction of the USA. Congress couldn’t, for example, make a law criminalizing certain religious practices outside of the US and then arrest people who do such things when they visit the US.

      6. I think the question has to be whether 1A really forbids any religious or ideological test for immigration.

        Well, IF, AND I STRESS IF, saying a prayer in school constitutes Congress establishing religion, I’d have to say that Congress passing a law prohibiting entry into the US based upon religion the same.

        They’d be essentially saying, we don’t want your kind here.

    2. Even if it were technically legal and Constitutional, I still wouldn’t want the government policing what anyone believes.

      The difference between a government that polices people’s beliefs and a totalitarian government is mostly spelling.

      Policing what people believe rather than what people do is probably the key difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism.

      1. I still wouldn’t want the government policing what anyone believes.

        I don’t think that has anything to do with what i actually said.

        The question was whether the constitution protects people outside of US jurisdiction who have not yet been granted admission.

        What you seem to be saying is that you think the govt shouldnt put up any barriers to admission if they amount to any discrimination of “belief”.

        I’m not sure that makes any sense if taken to logical conclusion. Why should we bar anyone that believes the US should be overthrown and replaced with a caliphate? Its just their *opinion*, after all.

        1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          Since the executive restricting entry by certain foreigners based on religious affiliation does nether of those things, the constitution does not prohibit it.

          1. Since the executive restricting entry by certain foreigners based on religious affiliation does nether of those things, the constitution does not prohibit it.

            That’s both narrower and different from what was actually being discussed, which was whether non-citizen, prospective immigrants have “1st amendment protections”.

            1. sorry – that’s not quite right. I mean, the issue isn’t so much whether foreigners can be barred entry for X or Y arbitrary reason, but rather whether they have 1st amendment protections at all… whether or not they’re admitted.

              1. Well, they certainly have 1st amendment protections when under the jurisdiction of the United States. Which they would not be under prior to entry. Otherwise they would be subject to the laws of whatever jurisdiction they are under.

                1. Well, they certainly have 1st amendment protections when under the jurisdiction of the United States. Which they would not be under prior to entry.

                  Yeah, that was exactly the point i was starting with. So i don’t think we have any disagreement.

                  Zeb suggested this was wrong, and that there are no limits to 1st amendment jurisdiction.

                  1. Zeb suggested this was wrong, and that there are no limits to 1st amendment jurisdiction.

                    Strictly speaking, that’s not what I was arguing. The 1st has a very specific jurisdiction: it applies to the federal government, and through the 14th to state and local governments.

            2. Which would be the “1st amendment protections” regarding religion, since the discussion centered on denying entry based on the fact they are Muslim.

        2. Or people who believe that the U.S. government is evil and should be replaced with a dictatorship of the proletariat. We’ve been letting communists come here for decades! OMG, where’s Joseph McCarthy when we need him!!!

          The government has no business screening anybody and discriminating against them because of their beliefs. You want to keep them apart because you can’t distinguish between harmless Syrian refugees and those who are ISIS members and mean to arbitrarily murder civilians, be my guest.

          I have no problem banning immigration on a selective basis from countries that present a distinct threat of terrorism–regardless of what those people believe.

          Remember the First Amendment is a prohibition against government intrusion–if the government is dealing with people from a foreign country, that really doesn’t matter. The prohibition is on the government.

          Meanwhile, advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government is protected by the First Amendment.

          God forbid we ever find ourselves in a situation where the government considers it necessary to protect the public from the beliefs of libertarians. I can see Gilmore called before Congress now. Are you now or have you ever been a libertarian?

          1. “Define ‘libertarian’.”

            *Congress tied up for decades*

          2. Did you know that a majority of libertarians think that our Second Amendment gun rights are there, in part, so that we’ll be prepared if we need to violently overthrow the government?

            Why are we letting libertarians into the country?

            And what are we going to do about the racists? My God. When I think about all the racists that come here.

            Trump is wrong on this.

            He was right in what he said during his nomination acceptance speech.

          3. Or people who believe that the U.S. government is evil and should be replaced with a dictatorship of the proletariat. We’ve been letting communists come here for decades!

            Actually i noted above that the Supreme Court validated that it would be perfectly ok to bar communists from entry, and to kick non-citizen resident communists out.

            The issue wasn’t so much whether it was a good idea to do something like that, or not do something like that, but whether the constitution would *allow* it.

            The government has no business screening anybody and discriminating against them because of their beliefs.

            That’s true if you mean people within the jurisdiction of the govt.

            The entire question is whether its a legitimate basis for allowing people those protections or not. You’re doing what skiha is doing, and just begging the question and assuming its the case.

            1. “The issue wasn’t so much whether it was a good idea to do something like that, or not do something like that, but whether the constitution would *allow* it.”

              And my original contention was that. “Even if it were technically legal and Constitutional, I still wouldn’t want the government policing what anyone believes”.

              I stand behind that.

              There are a world of things that are both Constitutional and wrong.

              Flaking out on grandma for Thanksgiving may be Constitutional, but it’s still wrong.

              1. You can take your moral approbation to court if you want, but i doubt it will get very far.

              2. my original contention was that. “Even if it were technically legal and Constitutional, I still wouldn’t want the government policing what anyone believes”.

                Your contention is not Shikha’s contention, which is that asking immigrants questions about their beliefs was “Unconstitutional”. You seem to be admitting that she’s wrong, but simply adding that you’d prefer that she weren’t.

            2. “The entire question is whether its a legitimate basis for allowing people those protections or not. You’re doing what skiha is doing, and just begging the question and assuming its the case.”

              I’m pointing out that the First Amendment is a prohibition on government discrimination, and so long as the government is being held properly to Constitutional standards, the government must respect the rights of foreign nationals.

              There are a few rights foreigners don’t have. They don’t have the right to vote, to hold certain offices, and I think that’s about it.

              I’m not Tony. I don’t imagine that people only have rights if their government says so.

              1. so long as the government is being held properly to Constitutional standards, the government must respect the rights of foreign nationals.

                yeah, we had this discussion above =

                John Ashcroft wants the power to lock up immigrants suspected of terrorism and hold them indefinitely. Wouldn’t this violate the Constitution?

                Not necessarily.

                True, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This fact sheet from the National Lawyers Guild outlines a host of rights afforded to immigrants and citizens alike….

                But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review.

          4. Perhaps we shouldn’t be selecting among people based on their belief about who is the best holy person from hundreds of years ago, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to exclude people on the basis of their belief in, say, overthrowing the American system of government, or erecting a religious apartheid state in which 99% of the current residents of the US would at best be treated like second-class citizens.

            Forget trying to keep out ISIS and Al Qaeda. Black people didn’t march to stop the KKK from carrying out random lynchings and bombings, they marched to stop legitimate democratic governments from depriving them of their rights. If the world’s superpowers were African, and people were clamoring to get in from poor, fucked up white supremacist countries, they would be absolutely asinine not to vet the shit out of people, and in general to take a negative stance on admissions without a good reason.

          5. banning immigration on a selective basis from countries that present a distinct threat of terrorism

            This is the form I would expect a President Trump’s proposal to take. This flapdoodle about “tests” is just sampling the waters.

            1. + Bonus points for use of “Flapdoodle”

  18. “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

    1. …defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic

      *and domestic* never seems to get the attention it deserves. sadly.

      1. Oh it does. They’re rabidly defending the Constitution from those who would interpret it as written.

  19. http://time.com/4457110/internet-trolls/

    How Trolls are Ruining the Internet

    You can guess the writers slant in this one. Sure, liberals troll, too, but it’s the almost mythical alt-right that goes too far. And the internet didn’t used to be this way, apparently.

    1. Stein is an ends justify the means kind of guy, and an asshole.

      Old people aren’t good at voting. I don’t simply mean that they don’t vote like I do, or I would also say that old people are bad at watching TV, picking restaurants and gauging my interest in stories about their friends’ children.

      No, old people vote shortsightedly, choosing the least progressive outcome. In surveys in the U.S. and the U.K., people over 65?compared with people under 30?were nearly twice as likely to be against gay marriage; twice as likely to be pro-Brexit; half as likely to support legalization of marijuana; nearly five times less likely to want to spend money on education; 60% more likely to vote for Donald Trump; and nearly 50% more likely to say immigrants have a negative impact on society, despite the fact that they are being wheeled around by them. Whether these figures are accurate is irrelevant, since old people are so bad at Googling.
      Their poor choices were always a problem, but it’s become far more acute now that there are so many of them. The over-65 generation does not accurately represent our country, because they are overwhelmingly white and actually vote. So, unfortunately, we’re going to have to bar them from voting.

      1. “Old people are bad at voting. I don’t mean they don’t like I do, I mean they don’t vote like I do.”

        “Unfortunately we are going to have to bar them from voting.”

        Speaking of lefty trolls. Good grief.

        1. This POS would assemble firing squads and build gulags without a second thought if he could.

      2. There’s this gem from the article above:

        “When sites are overrun by trolls, they drown out the voices of women, ethnic and religious minorities, gays?anyone who might feel vulnerable. Young people in these groups assume trolling is a normal part of life online and therefore self-censor. An anonymous poll of the writers at TIME found that 80% had avoided discussing a particular topic because they feared the online response. The same percentage consider online harassment a regular part of their jobs.’

        Places online where you can truly speak openly and honestly are rare. They tend to be the cesspools much maligned in the article. 4chan, 8chan and the like. And, of course, Reason’s idiot peanut gallery. But you will never be able to go any ‘progressive’ site and post freely, and we see stories all the time on people participating in some feminist group online or the like has users fearful of being ostracized by the clan for even the smallest bit of wrongthink or speaking out of turn.

        1. I used to have a list of the sites I was banned from but after about 20 or so I quit keeping count. For all of the idiocy that occurs around here I have to hand it to Reason, when it comes to free speech they put their money where their mouth is. I try to give credit where credit is due, and I will fight for their right to print idiocy. They can keep up the idiocy and I will keep calling them on it.

          1. One Democratic Party-oriented site banned me for politely contradicting the dogma there. I was also banned from Boing Boing for saying that while Pinochet was no sweetheart, if Chile had gone communist it would have been far worse. (Boing Boing later ditched Disqus because it was too easy for anyone not Boing Boing approved to make comments that challenged the hive mind.)

      3. No, old people vote shortsightedly, choosing the least progressive outcome.

        So voting for the immediate gratification promised by socialism is the long view?

        1. ^This is what they actually believe.

    2. Any idea where to find these ultra right wing trolls? I must have a garlic necklace or something because I have never actually seen one. Pinko trolls on the other hand….

      1. There’s plenty of racist assholes on breitbart’s site, but it may be hard to classify them as trolls since they make up the majority of commenters.

        1. Ah, so it isnt the garlic, it’s just that I never go down dark alleys.

          1. Also, local newspaper commenting sections seem to attract the crazies from all ends of the spectrum.

      2. I suspect a lot of alt-right trolls are lefties gaslighting to discredit actual conservatives.

        1. I think this has gone beyond suspicion. There are entire call-center companies which have devoted themselves to shitposting as “conservatives” to provide proof of the virulent hate which the Progosphere can point a finger at as justification for their new Bullying Laws.

          1. I just assumed that feminist bloggers attract a disproportionate amount of rape and death threats because of how much they threaten the patriarchy

      3. Go to any page linked by Drudge with a comments section. Prepare for more horrendous cousinfucking racist sludge than you ever thought possible, with the possible exception of what goes on around your dinner table.

        1. Go to any page linked by Drudge with a comments section

          Like this one?

          http://www.salon.com/writer/camille_paglia/

    3. And the internet didn’t used to be this way, apparently.

      The neighborhood has really gone downhill since I retired and have lots of extra time to notice clouds that anger me
      /old man

  20. Trump is a cantankerous boor and a genuinely stupid man, but he’s not a murderous ideologue.

    Just wait ’til he gets the go code. Then we’ll see who’s a murderous ideologue.

  21. I want to let everyone in so I can hate them to their face.

  22. The over-65 generation does not accurately represent our country, because they are overwhelmingly white and actually vote. So, unfortunately, we’re going to have to bar them from voting.

    Awesome.

    They don’t call it the “dictatorship of the proletariat” for nothing.

    1. What do they call mass-starvation, looting riots, and political murders numbering in the millions?

      Oh, right, utopia.

  23. The nodders on Morning Joke were tut-tutting about that Time cover story about internet trolls. The woman from Time said, “Well, I think we all qualify as First Amendment absolutists, BUT….”

    I was waiting for somebody to start weeping about the infringement of her right to make uncontested assertions on twitter.

  24. Well, Shikha, you can certainly get them all in one place.

    Now if you could only nuke the site from orbit…

  25. Even the mocking alt-text is [assumes facts not in evidence].

    What has Trump said or done that would make you think he’s an anti-gay bigot?

    1. He lies and pretends to oppose states certifying marriage certificates for gays, and that, in the lefty formulation (“if you oppose anything on my wishlist, it’s because you hate me”), is bigoted.

    2. Oh, and he challenges the orthodoxy on minority intersectionality by suggesting that homosexual and Muslim interests do not perfectly align, which to progressives is a sin much like homosexuality is to Muslims.

    3. Here’s what he has said on gay marriage:

      On June 26, 2015, following the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, Trump tweeted, “Once again the Bush appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has let us down. Jeb pushed him hard! Remember!”[12]

      That’s legit. Don’t know what he might have said since, but he probably hasn’t changed.

      On the issue of gay marriage, Donald Trump said during a November 2013 interview on MSNBC, “I think I’m evolving, and I think I’m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage. I am for traditional marriage, I am for a marriage between a man and a woman.”[13]

      In a March 2011 interview with The Des Moines Register, Trump said gay couples should not be allowed to marry or receive the same benefits as married heterosexual couples.[14]

      Of course, these last two are back when Hillary and Obama were still opposed to gay marriage, so he gets a pass on that, right?

      1. “I am for traditional marriage, as many as it takes.”

      2. And he doesn’t say he’s against gay marriage in the second one.

        I very much doubt he give much of a fuck on the issue.

  26. chief peddler of hate in this country.

    Do you check under your bed for Trumps every night?

  27. requiring Muslims to prove that they don’t believe in those aspects of their religion that allegedly conflict with liberal values

    Absurd. Any fair analysis of Islam shows that yes, indeed, it conflicts with liberal values. The Koran contradicts liberal values. The Hadith contradicts liberal values. Islamic clerics preach against liberal values. Muslims everywhere speak out against, and often fight against, liberal values. Everywhere on the planet Islam is in power, it contradicts liberal values. How much proof does anyone need?

    1. Any fair analysis of Islam shows that yes, indeed, it conflicts with liberal values.

      And Christianity and Judaism? Any conflict with “liberal” (whatever that means??) values there?

      1. Sometimes, sure. But the countries best for liberal values are filled with Christians and Jews. This is not a coincidence.

  28. Why is this all not so fucking obvious that it’s unworthy of comment?

    Anyway, how would this be any different than the “Are you a member of a terrorist organization?” “Are you carrying any bombs?” questionaires you get when boarding an airplane? Why would someone not simply lie?

    Anyway, Donald Trump is going to lose. The only question is how badly, and whether #NeverTrump neo-cons can swallow their pride and vote for Johnson instead.

    1. “Why would someone not simply lie?”

      I think the proposal is not just to ask “are you bad”, but sort through social media postings and the like over time to see whether they’re saying things in support of terrorism or oppression. While you could still fool people, it would take a more dedicated effort.

      1. That makes it even more terrifying.
        We’re going have the government monitoring people’s social media posts for signs of wrongthink, officially?

        That idea should horrify anyone who claims to be a libertarian.

        1. Hazel, if you think that its legit to exclude people if they adhere to violent, anti-American ideologies, then I think an investigation into whether someone adheres to violent, anti-American ideologies pretty much follows.

          Naturally, if you have no objection to allowing self-proclaimed violent Islamist jihadis to immigrate, then the investigation is pretty pointless.

          1. To Hazel, we lived in a horrifying anti-libertarian dictatorship when we blocked Communists, Nazis, and polygamists from immigrating.

            1. It probably WAS wrong to block communists Nazis and polygamists from immigrating.

              1. There’s nothing wrong with polygamy. People should be allowed to marry who they want.
              2. There are plenty of homegrown communists, so why discriminate against only the foreign ones. (Nevermind half the people calling themselves communist are the agrarian hippie kind).
              3. Lots of people were members of the Nazi party just because it advanced their careers, and not out of political fanaticism. Also they’re a tiny marginalized minority, so who cares?

              I’m not against ideological filtering on the basis of some uniform standard like advocacy of violence, but extending the governments already-creepy monitoring of social media ought to make libertarians uncomfortable.

              1. The illogic of this astounds me. There are plenty of people who rape and murder and carry contagious diseases, so then why not let more in?

                “Hazel, half the food in the fridge is rotten. Would you go to the store, please?”

                “Sure.”

                An hour later:

                “But Hazel, half the food you bought was rotten!”

                “That’s OK, because half our food was already rotten!”

  29. I see a Trump win fer sure. With enemies like Shikha, who needs friends?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.