MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rand Paul Campaign Will Attack Donald Trump Over Eminent Domain Abuses

Trump is no friend to private property owners.

TrumpTodd KraninVowing to recapture some of the enthusiasm his campaign has lost over the past few weeks, Sen. Rand Paul said he will focus on property issues and eminent domain abuse in order to make the case that Donald Trump is out of step with conservative Republican primary voters.

Earlier today, Paul took questions during a teleconference with reporters while campaigning in the state of Alaska. He noted that people in the western United States are particularly concerned about the government’s lack of respect for the sanctity of private property.

Kelo v. City of New London is probably one of the most egregious Supreme Court cases in the last decade or so,” said Paul, referring to the infamous 2005 ruling in favor of eminent domain.

Paul noted that conservatives across the country agree “you can’t take private property from one property owner” and give it to another.

But the current Republican frontrunner is a serial abuser of the practice, according to Paul.

“Donald Trump has been a big fan of these and has really shown no consideration for private property owners,” said Paul. “I think they are going to begin to wonder whether he is a fake conservative.”

Paul elaborated on his criticisms in a recent op-ed for Breitbart News:

Where was Donald Trump during [the Kelo controversy]? He was busy using eminent domain to take a little old lady’s home and flatten it for a parking lot to park limos at his casino.

When asked about the justice of using this bully force against property owners, Trump replied that he had no problem with it and that he supported the Kelo decision.

Of course Trump did—the Kelo decision allows more crony capitalism. It puts big business and big government more and more in bed together, with ordinary Americans left out.

I ran for office in 2010 after spending my life outside of both big business and politics. I ran as a member of the Tea Party who was sick and tired of it all. Of the politicians. Of the people who sought to buy the politicians. Of the entire Washington machine.

Donald Trump cannot fix our problems because he is an integral part of the problem. From using government to seize property to enrich himself, to hiring lobbyists to get what he wanted, Donald Trump has bought access to government at all levels and exploited that access for personal gain.

Paul’s criticism of Trump is certainly deserved—if anyone needs a refresher on the Donald’s sordid history of using government power to confiscate private property, read this excellent National Review piece from 2011.

Does any of it matter to Trump fans? Perhaps not. But the current leader of the GOP field is not a limited-government conservative by any stretch of the imagination, and that ought to matter to Republican primary voters. Attacking Trump’s abysmal record and policy positions still has to be the best gamble for the Paul campaign, even if it doesn’t ultimately work.

Photo Credit: Todd Kranin

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.

  • ||

    Good luck, Rand. I don't think that the Trump supporters are going to listen to you, though. If they were capable of rational thought, they wouldn't be supporting Trump.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Rand Paul is another bimbo.

  • Hugh Akston||

    He's a classless loser who doesn't want to Make America Great Again.

  • Jerryskids||

    I've seen Rand do surgery, he's not that good.

  • Mr Lizard||

    I suspect you did something there...

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    Why, just because he doesn't wear his merkin on his head?

  • ||

    Is that what that thing is?

  • Pathogen||

    Well.. it's probably not a road-kill possum.. I looked into it..

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Just look at his hair and his slim figure. No way he didn't blow his way to the Senate.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "Just look at his hair and his slim figure. No way he didn't blow his way to the Senate."

    *slow clap*

  • DevilDocNowCiv||

    Hyp,

    If that were true, no Repub would have gotten elected after FDR. Four respected parties, in terms of successful turnout, and/or longevity would be Repubs, Dems, Libertarians and Reform. The last one surprises most people, and the success of Perot's populist opposition to free trade-focused on NAFTA-is still strong for many thousands-at a minimum. Trump is a former Reform supporter who with others persisted with the organization after Perot got almost 20% in Reforms first shot at a President. Trump flirted with running for a NY version of Reform in 2000, quitting the Repubs at that time because they are too conservo!

    Trump has shown the same Reform idiocy that continues to show approx 25% Repub support. I hope Cruz or Rand can dethrone this very good campaigner, because I think that the Reform economic ideas are idiotic. If only Cruz or Rand could command such media attention, and had the flair to go on forever while still entertaining. Trump is foolish enough to be taken down, and Cruz or Rand better get moving.

  • Hank Phillips||

    FDR legalized beer early in 1933. Q.E.D.

  • lap83||

    He shouldn't even be trying to win over Trump supporters. There are still a majority of Republicans that don't support Trump, but they're spread out over the other 50 contenders.

  • Calidissident||

    He might be trying to do that. Perhaps he thinks that by attacking Trump he'll win over the anti-Trump wing of the party. The problem is that Republicans generally seem to hate candidates attacking each other, so I'm not sure if that will work.

  • Pinky||

    Its a new world

  • lap83||

    True, really any approach that sheds a light on Trump's brand of crony capitalism is awesome by me.

  • Flick||

    A large part of the anti-Trump wing is establishment Republicans who despise Rand Paul, even more than they despise Donald Trump. There is literally no way for him to get the nom now.

  • Calidissident||

    That's a good point as well.

  • John Galt||

    That seems about right.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Perhaps he thinks that by attacking Trump he'll win over the anti-Trump wing of the party.

    How would that be any different than what Firorina, Bush, or Walker have done against Trump so far?

  • ant1sthenes||

    I don't think that rule applies to Trump.

  • Pinky||

    I('m not so certain he is trying to win Trump supporters so much as make a name for himself among the Republicans that don't support Trump. Rand taking on Trump is Rand setting himself apart from the other non-Trumps, that is all.

  • John Galt||

    Either that, or he could be making himself into thee ultimate anti Trump candidate he could end up being just another butt trumpet.

  • ant1sthenes||

    He might win some support if he challenges Trump to a one-on-one debate in wrestling match format.

  • John Galt||

    Indeed.

  • pronomian||

    One could say the same thing about Rand Paul supporters. How many articles have been written about Paul about how closely linked to the neo con mindset on some of the issues? But, people write that off as the way to get elected, then they hope he will change, when has that ever happened? Now Paul is being Bushes bitch attacking trump. It's easy to stand out from trump, he needs to stand out from the rest of the GOP, that is if he was that much different like his dad was.

  • SimonJester||

    Eminent Domain.
    Theft, because its good for you.
    By "you" i mean "trump."

  • Hank Phillips||

    What about repealing the individual income tax? Ever seen a fake libertarian come out for that?

  • Rick O'Shay||

    "Paul noted that conservatives across the country agree “you can’t take private property from one property owner” and give it to another."

    That's nonsense. They've got no problem taking people's money to give to those they deem more worthy.

  • Libertymike||

    Asset. Forfeiture.

  • pronomian||

    Bingo, give the man a cigar. Hmmm, wasn't it a "conservative" who started this asset forfeiture ball rolling? A conservative who started the "war on drugs?" A conservative who destabilized the middle east and may it possible for the likes of isis to make inroads? Conservatives have a stellar record.

  • Robert||

    I think it was Bobby Kennedy's Justice Dept. that started the asset forfeiture ball rolling, as a way to weaken the Mafia.

  • pronomian||

    You may be right. From my limited search, it was started in the late 1700s, expanded in the late 70s to seize aircraft, boats, property and other avenues of import of drugs, then in the 80s was extended even more to include cash. It all has to do with the failed war on drugs. Failed only meaning it has done nothing to stop drugs but a massive success in destroying lives and the theft of people's property.

  • Hugh Akston||

    But the current leader of the GOP field is not a limited-government conservative by any stretch of the imagination, and that ought to matter to Republican primary voters.

    That hasn't mattered to Republicans since at least Nixon.

  • Toast88||

    Agree. BUUTTT, I think GOP voters think it matters to them. That's why Paul should stop attacking Trump and instead should align with his "fuck Washington" viewpoint, but with a fiscally conservative addition. That is likely to play a lot better with GOP primary voters than attacking the guy who's a living embodiment of their anger at DC politicians.

  • John Galt||

    Now, that's true.

  • pronomian||

    And it doesn't seem to matter to Paul since the only thing right now we hear from him is how trump isn't a conservative when he should be attacking the whole field, but, if he does he may not be liked by his peers.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    This is cool and all, but what inquiring minds really want to know is how many Ashley Madison and RentBoy accounts Rand Paul maintained prior to the splashy busts.

  • ||

    No one knows for sure. But he was once AquaBuddha.

  • Rick O'Shay||

    I'd register to vote if he was running on the AquaBuddha platform.

  • SugarFree||

    IF ANY OF YOU BETAS WERE REAL MEN YOU SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP.

    REAL MEN LOVE IT IN THE TRUMP!

  • SimonJester||

    Gotta love trump in the rump. Makes it easy to take a dump. Ask him for the extra pump. He'll give you a Danza slap -- whump! Too many mexicans is why the economy is in a slump.

  • SugarFree||

    You put it in The Trump, swirl it around some, and America becomes great again.

  • ||

    I'm so turned on right now. Take me, NutraSweet! With your Trump wig on!

  • Pan Zagloba||

    OK, Rand, fish, barrel, don't FUCK IT UP!
    And go full Reason board on him. Slaver, plunderer, woodchipper, the whole thing. Fuck looking presidential, go full Hulk on him.
    Hulk the Marvel Character, not Hogan!

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm all for Rand hammering the libertarian fundamentals like this, but is there anything he can gain from grappling with a shitclown like Trump besides being smeared with clownshit himself?

  • creech||

    "anything he can gain" ?

    Maybe some "I told you so" when he runs again in 2020?

  • SugarFree||

    "When you put your hand in a pile of goo that a minute ago was your best friends face, you'll know what to do."

  • Hugh Akston||

    Oooh, I'm sorry, the correct Simpsons reference is:

    "Who am I clowning? I have no business being a clown! I'm leaving the clowning business to all the other clowns in the clowning business!"

  • SugarFree||

    Um, no. It's "Forget it, Marge... It's Chinatown."

    By all the gods below, you are disappoint to me and your mother.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's no ignoring Trump away. He has to be dealt with and Rand is focusing on the right place. He's finally doing what's right.

  • Libertymike||

    More lucid comments from you like this would be welcome. John and Papaya SF would agree.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You are the last person (tied with PapayaSF and John) that should be talking about lucidity.

  • Libertymike||

    So, we are below Tony, shrike, and Tulpa? Damn, I better up my intake of lucidity.

  • Zunalter||

    On the bright side, tied with AS and Hihn.

  • PapayaSF||

    Cytotoxic is periodically lucid, and when I agree with him and have something to add, I say so. But of course that earns me no credit, because the instant he disagrees with me, I'm a retarded fascist or something.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You're a retarded fascist 24/7. There's a reason HM blocked you.

  • PapayaSF||

    As discerning and gentlemanly as always.

  • Flick||

    Eminent domain abuse is a complicated, technical wonky issue that Republicans aren't even in total agreement on... not a good choice for trying to "deal with" Trump considering the attacks he's survived thus far that were far simpler and more relatable. What's Rand's plan for how to respond when he's asked how roads and sports stadiums are going to be build without ED?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    This story is not that complicated.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "Donald Trump stole old lady's house" is pretty simple.

  • Flick||

    A lie to which Donald will correctly retort that she got compensated the market value for her house and he gave hundreds of people jobs. Result: Rands look like yet another in the legion of "cuckservatives" in the service of PC.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Fuck off, Tulpa.

  • pronomian||

    She was old, she probably already forgot what happened.

  • Robert||

    Nobody's going to ask how sports stadiums are going to be built. Meanwhile, the "roads" answer is simple: That's not abuse of eminent domain, that's exactly the sort of thing eminent domain is for.

  • wareagle||

    at some point, he has to be grappled with. More than anything else, Trump has drawn the discontented GOP faithful tired of the Boehner/McConnell brand of pussy governance. They're listening to the sizzle right but, eventually, the steak will matter more. Trump is merely a symptom of what plagues the party.

  • ||

    Trump is the front runner so starting a fight with him gets attention

  • Hugh Akston||

    Yeah but the convention is a long way away, and Trump can't hold it in forever. He'll shit his pants eventually and have to drop out.

  • Calidissident||

    At this point, I'm almost convinced that him shitting his pants would only help him among Republican primary voters.

  • Hugh Akston||

    "He's just like us!"

  • ||

    "He shits his pants just like a regular pants-shitter like me!"

  • Flick||

    No. If he had any sense he'd drop out of the race right now.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I had thought that Rand should drop out, but if Tulpa thinks he should drop out, then Rand should probably stay in the race. Tulpa is like a good 'do the opposite of' compass.

  • pronomian||

    I guess you like how he picks and chooses his "libertarian fundamentals" when it seems to suit him?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I don't think that Trump voters are going to be swayed by an eminent domain attack. It's not what they care about. They, as far as I can tell, are all about sticking it to the Republican establishment, the evil Chinese, and the dirty Hispanic horde out to conquer us all. Rand, in particular, is distrusted by that crowd, as they see him as soft on the illegal immigrant issue. Whether or not it helps him garner support at the expense of the other GOP candidates remains to be see, but I'm not hopeful. Trump is currently driving the bus, and so long as he is it'll be Mexicans, Chinese, and RINOs.

  • wareagle||

    no one's voters are going to be swayed by a single attack on anything but you have to start somewhere. Otherwise, the rest of the field can go home or return to Congress. Trump is a symptom of what is wrong with the party; his support comes more from how he says things that from what he actually says.

  • pronomian||

    I wouldn't say he's a symptom, I'd say he was the pinnacle of what is wrong with the party. They are not small gov't, they are pro gov't intervention in our lives and the lives of others outside our country. He is the magnifying glass on a party that is as corrupt and pro big gov't as the democrats are. Sanders is the magnifying glass of the democrat party. We see in trump what the GOP really is. Both parties want the same thing, total gov't control, two sides of the same coin. That is why they will not tolerate a third party.

  • The Hyperbole||

    trigger warning : anecdotal evidence ahead-
    The Trumpsters that I know are people who didn't much cotton to Kelo, I don't know if they will care that their new Messiah was on the wrong side of that, so far it hasn't come up, but I will be sure to interject it next chance i get. I'll let you know if it holds any importance with them.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It won't, because eminent domain is too complicated to understand, even though Kelo should be as simple as it gets.

  • The Hyperbole||

    Most of these people are smart, just old and jaded, they understood Kelo and were against it for all the "right" reasons. I would like to think that Trumps record here will at least give them pause, but they are old and jaded and once they set the hook they hate to cut bait.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Eminent domain is easy to spin. In Manhattan, Columbia (a bastion of Ivy fairness), together with the state of New York, stole a bunch of land to build a satellite campus, and used the "benefits women and minorities" defense to do so. They bought off the right people, with the right sounding programs, and that is pretty much that.

    I assume Trump can and will do the same. His supporters will buy into the spin, and the fact that he stole land to benefit himself will be secondary to the fact that he employed however many people for whatever amount of time.

  • The Hyperbole||

    You may well be correct, however, I'm giving my Trumpster friends the benefit of the doubt, they weren't buying the "Greater good" bullshit back then and I hope they won't do mental and philosophical gymnastics to defend Trump here. I'd wager that the may say "well he's wrong on that but great on these other things so I'll let it pass." which will still be disappointing.

  • Libertymike||

    Kelo is so nauseating, but not nearly the vomitorium of its authors.

  • Jerryskids||

    I happen to know a couple of Trumpsters and they have never heard of Kelo, have no idea what eminent domain means, don't care that they don't have a clue what the takings clause is (or any other clause for that matter) - all they know is they've seen Trump on TV and he's apparently pissing off a lot of richy-rich-type people they don't like with his telling-it-like-it-is. They have no idea what he's saying, they just know the people they don't like (the sort of people who look down their nose at people like us) don't like him so that's good enough for them. Try explaining to them that Trump might be getting bad press because he's saying everybody should be made to go on a diet of stewed prunes and cyanide and they don't care. Ask them who they're planning on voting for next September and they'll tell you Trump. Ask them if Trump is a Democrat or a Republican and they'll ask "Which one is Obama? Trump's the other one, I'm pretty sure." Low-information voters? Try no-information voters.

  • SIV||

    But they're still smarter and more informed than you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No they're you're not.

  • Flick||

    And I thought the real Jerry's Kids were depressing....

  • Mick Kraut||

    Not that Paul is wrong but there is no sizzle to that argument. The illegal immigrant argument is very simple and it is easy to point to where the problems arise from it. Depressed wages...stress on services...higher crime and a general flouting of the rule of law so that one party gets lower cost labor and the other hopes to capture them all as voters (legally or otherwise)...

    As much of an abomination the Kelo decision was/is...it is more of an abstract argument by comparison.

    Any Republican candidate who wants to take wind from Trump's sails needs only to take the same bulldog approach. They need to stop worrying if the WP and NYT will like them. They will never like them so if you already are viewed negatively you might as well use it to knock some bodies down and make some progress...

    It's been said many other places, but Trump isn't ahead because of his ideas or his arguments for the most part. He is ahead because many many conservatives are tired of electing people who have election cojones but not legislative ones. Conservatives gave the Republicans historic gains in the house, senate, governorships and state legislatures yet all of the campaign bluster from 2010, 2012 and 2014 has given way to ZERO results...Making an issue over eminent domain is akin to whispering during a drum solo - only you and the person next to you know what your talking about and the rest of the audience cant hear you...

  • Cytotoxic||

    Depressed wages...stress on services...higher crime and a general flouting of the rule of law so that one party gets lower cost labor and the other hopes to capture them all as voters (legally or otherwise)...

    Illegal immigration doesn't actually cause those things.

    If the GOP base thinks that foreigners coming here without government permission are a problem but ED isn't, then fuck them they suck and they are the problem with their party.

  • Mick Kraut||

    So bringing in massive amounts of unskilled labor into the overall labor supply doesn't depress wages? Because when I took econ in college there was a direct correlation between supply and prices...but hey that was 20 years ago so maybe things changed...

    I didn't say that ED isn't a problem, I am saying that it isn't going to capture people's attention in any meaningful way.

    And yes, foreigners DO need government permission to come here. You and I do not need permission to come and go...

    Your persuasion techniques are top notch "fuck them they suck and they are the problem" should turn those people right around...

  • Cytotoxic||

    You should have paid better attention during class, so allow me to school you.

    Jobs aren't created by demand. They are created by investment, and immigration begets investment. There was a study done when a large number of unskilled Cubans immigrated into a town in Florida. There was no increase in unemployment or drop in wages.

  • Libertymike||

    That's because the study's author was none other than Tony Montana.

  • LynchPin1477||

    While you're right, of course, that all things being equal increased supply leads to lower prices, not everything may be equal with regards to low-skill immigrant labor.

    For example, it may be that the types of jobs additional immigrants would compete for are already almost exclusively occupied by other illegal immigrants. If that were true then increased immigration would not have much of an impact on the wages of citizens.

    Regardless, no one is proposing that we should just fill up buses in Mexico and drop people off in Arizona for no good reason. The idea is to let more immigrants to come here to look for work. If the job market isn't very good, they won't come. In other words, a better immigration system might not lead to much increase in supply in the first place.

  • SIV||

    Regardless, no one is proposing that we should just fill up buses in Mexico and drop people off in Arizona for no good reason.

    That is exactly what legal asylum/refugee immigration is. Only you fill up the bus in the ME or the Horn of Africa. The current trend is to start filling the buses in Guatemala where women and their minor children are oppressed by the culture of machismo and the patriarchy.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yup.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They're oppressed by violence and bad government.

  • PapayaSF||

    And adding bodies to the Democratic Party/welfare/bureaucratic complex to spend money on is resulting in more violence and bad government here.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Because when I took econ in college there was a direct correlation between supply and prices

    Really? Because when I took econ in college it was the interaction of supply and demand that affected prices. Adding workers to the population increases both the supply of labor AND the demand for labor, because workers need all the same goods, services and luxuries as everyone else.

  • PapayaSF||

    Dan, you are ignoring a number of factors: You assume all immigrants are workers, but they aren't. Some are criminals, some are kids, some are disabled, etc. You are ignoring the costs that poor people (and criminals, and the sick) bring to a welfare state. You are ignoring the fact that the demand for low-skilled labor is declining, and will continue to do so.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Some are criminals, some are kids, some are disabled, etc. You are ignoring the costs that poor people (and criminals, and the sick) bring to a welfare state."

    There is no correlation between the number of immigrants welfare monies doled out.

    " You are ignoring the fact that the demand for low-skilled labor is declining, and will continue to do so."

    1) I doubt that 2) If that is true then they will just stop immigrating to America.

  • PapayaSF||

    There is no correlation between the number of immigrants welfare monies doled out.

    False, and I recently posted a link that proved that (again): 71% of immigrants with kids get welfare, vs. a much smaller (but still too high) percentage of native born.

    You honestly don't know that the demand for low-skilled labor declines as a society advances? Is one of the basic facts of the economic history of the 20th century really arguable? There are many fewer stable boys, telephone operators, theater ushers, gas pump attendants, farm hands, maids, and hat check girls than there used be, but a lot more electrical engineers and financial advisors.

    And no, of course they won't stop coming simply because of that. They know they're better off in the US even if they're on the dole. (I'm not saying they all come here solely because of that, but knowing that the US+CA+SF taxpayers will pick up the tab for your kids surely gets taken into account by many.)

  • PapayaSF||

    It's sad but true that their countries suck, but that's in large part because of the "socialists" they vote for. And by and large, they'll vote for "socialists" here, too. I don't know why it's even arguable: if millions of people move from country A to country B, country B is going to become more like country B. People don't leave their language and culture and habits and beliefs at the border when they enter, and they are rarely libertarians moving for ideological reasons.

    So while immigration has many benefits both in theory and in practice, like anything else, there can be downsides. Quantity matters: some is good, but more is not always better. And quality matters: the economy is not suffering because we have too few Guatemalan peasants who don't even speak Spanish, and too few El Salvadoran gangsters, and too few Mexican kids on welfare and in overcrowded schools.

  • pronomian||

    "...they'll vote for "socialists" here, too."

    That's the only reason the democrats want open borders.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I'm not "assuming" they are all workers -- I'm talking about the workers. Mick's argument is that increasing the labor supply drives down wages. If you want me to discuss non-working immigrants, though, I will: they drive wages up, by increasing demand for labor without providing any themselves.

    As for me "ignoring" the costs immigration brings to a welfare state, I "ignored" it for the same reason I "ignored" that it rained in southern California today: it has nothing to do with the question of whether immigration depresses wages. Welfare states in general drive up wages by lowering the marginal benefit of employment, though, if that helps.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well, the full context was immigration in general, pros and cons.

    I am not an economist, but I think the idea that non-working immigration drives up wages is wacky. Unless the "non-working immigrant" is rich, then if they aren't working, they're poor. How does adding more poor, non-working foreigners boost wages? Because there's a greater demand for school teachers and social workers and bail bondsmen and prison guards, and their wages go up? That either increases debt or taxes, so it seems to me that for everyone else, it's a bad deal. Well, landlords are cool with higher rents, so I guess their "wages" increase, but mine sure don't.

  • pronomian||

    "As for me "ignoring" the costs immigration brings to a welfare state..."

    If that is the case why did Milton Freidman say, "... it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing."

    Freidman also talks about illegal immigration being good for everyone since they are illegal they aren't able to get the benefits associated with a welfare state. He is wrong on the latter, they do get benefits, and these benefits put a drain on local resources.

  • Propaganda Czar||

    Also ignoring that a lot of Mexican immigrants send their money back home. Maybe with more open immigration the whole family would move but it can't be said with certainty.

    Also we have a price floor. A minimum wage limits the ability of the market to correct for higher demand. That means higher unskilled unemployment.

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) So what if they send money home? 2) One of the reasons illegal immigration is damn good is that it lets us bypass regulations like min wage.

  • Zaytsev||

    Who is us amigo? Are you an illegal or Clinton?

  • Dan Bongard||

    Also ignoring that a lot of Mexican immigrants send their money back home.

    That doesn't take the money out of the American economy. If you pay someone in dollars, ultimately that money's being used to buy American goods and services.

  • kbolino||

    The exact relationship between supply and demand is variable over time and space. Those lines you drew in econ class, while meant to be representative, were not accurate. The supply curve and the demand curve move and change shape. Also, if the price of inputs goes down, then so does the price of outputs, ceteris paribus.

    The problem with immigration is the interaction with welfare and regulation. But people like those things and want to keep them; that they are ultimately insolvent with or without migrants is a reality few people want to confront.

  • Propaganda Czar||

    This is and minimum wage makes this issue quite complex. Neither choice is particularly palatable.

  • Zaytsev||

    Also, if the price of inputs goes down, then so does the price of outputs, ceteris paribus. Yes but that does not necessarily translate into lower consumer prices, a portion will be captured by businesses as increased margin.

  • kbolino||

    Yes but that does not necessarily translate into lower consumer prices, a portion will be captured by businesses as increased margin.

    That's what competition is for.

  • Zaytsev||

    And killing competition is what the regulatory state does best.

    On the pm links thread people were fantasizing about Trump being a harbinger for fascism in America.

    That worry is about forty years too late. We've been in a fascist nightmare for at least the last fifteen years.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Find a few people who's houses were bulldozed to make way for a strip mall. That should give eminent domain reform (or better, abolition) something concrete to stand on.

    Hell, there is a ready made poster child right now in Virginia (a swing state) regarding a new pipeline that Dominion Power wants to build.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Rand Paul is short, Donald Trump is tall. Point: Trump.

  • lap83||

    Yeah, but Rand Paul has better hair.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Toss up.

  • lap83||

    Also, Trump looks like an albino blowfish. Whereas Rand Paul is cute.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Trump looks like an albino blowfish

    I lol'd.

  • lap83||

    So I was searching Google images for a suitable Donald Trump-esque blowfish, but they are all much cuter than him. Maybe it needs weird blonde eyebrows and a toupee. http://www.fishwallpapers.com/.....ea-pic.jpg

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It needs more class.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Oh yeah, I forgot that the Jezzies wanted to hatefuck Rand Paul because a picture of him getting a shot made him seem vulnerable.

    Those are broken people, aren't they?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    There is nothing "broken" about a person writing on the internet about their strange sexual desires, fella.

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    sexual desires


    fella

    Ah, I seen what ya did...

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Rand Paul is cute.

    Citation needed.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Jezzies would fuck him, so at least we know 327 lb women with bad acne and a propensity for feline companionship find him mighty fine.

  • lap83||

    Also his attractive wife presumably likes him

  • lap83||

    You don't think so? I said cute , not classically handsome.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Rand Paul has hair.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Rand Paul has hair.

  • pronomian||

    Looks like a rug.

  • Slammer||

    What should Rand write on his HAT?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    America's Alpha

    He performs eye surgery. He has a hot wife. C'mon.

  • Rhywun||

    It is baffling to me that "not taking from the poor and giving to the rich" is solely the conservative position.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Headline I did not expect to see today.

    Guest at Jelly Belly chairman’s family reunion killed by WWII-era armored vehicle

  • SIV||

    Why's Rand too chickenshit to take on Bush or Kasich? Attacking Trump isn't going to help his campaign but it will aid the establishment candidates.

  • Calidissident||

    Maybe because Bush and Kasich aren't leading the polls and no one gives a fuck about them at the moment (especially Kasich)?

    "Attacking Trump isn't going to help his campaign but it will aid the establishment candidates."

    I'm curious on what your reasoning is. I also think it probably won't help his campaign, but for the same reason I don't think it will really help anyone else's either.

  • SIV||

    Who's running 2nd?

    Bush nationally. Kasich in N.H.

    Rand was/is running as an outsider. There is no strategic reason for him to attack other "outsiders" until the field is winnowed and primary/caucus voting looms. Cruz is playing it the right way by not attacking Trump and going after the party establishment. Rand is floundering. There is no upside to going after Trump for him.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Trump is still in the lead in the polls, and is stealing the 'outsider' mantle that rightfully belongs to Rand. Of course Rand should attack him. Being a pussy has not helped Rand so far it won't in future.

  • Dan Bongard||

    The only difference between Bush and Trump is that the latter open brags about using politics to enrich himself. Preferring Trump to Bush is like preferring Al Sharpton to Hillary Clinton.

    Not only is there an upside to going after Trump -- there's no downside. Trump is the enemy every bit as much as Obama is. If you don't fight the enemy there's no point in being in the fight at all.

  • Zaytsev||

    Not only is there an upside to going after Trump -- there's no downside.

    Sure, it'll help him lock up the 1/10th of a percent of the vote from doctrinaire libertarians. At the cost of looking like an establishment stooge.

  • Dan Bongard||

    At the cost of looking like an establishment stooge.

    Only to the incurably stupid. Trump's the biggest establishment stooge in the race.

  • Zaytsev||

    Perhaps Paul should figure out how to get stupid people to vote for him instead of thinking that a presidential campaign is either a seminar or a revival meeting.

  • Zaytsev||

    Perhaps Paul should figure out how to get stupid people to vote for him instead of thinking that a presidential campaign is either a seminar or a revival meeting.

  • Calidissident||

    "Who's running 2nd?

    Bush nationally. Kasich in N.H."

    And how much press is that generating them? I think Ricky Bobby had something to say about being second. Cruz probably is setting himself up well if Trump eventually collapses, but he also appeals more to Trump's supporters naturally than Rand does, so I don't know if that strategy would be effective for him.

  • pronomian||

    Or maybe because his is more like bush and kasich than his own father.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Attacking Trump isn't going to help his campaign but it will aid the establishment candidates.

    Trump is as much an establishment candidate as Jeb Bush is.

  • Cytotoxic||

    WHYNOT FAGGOT WANT TO MAKE MERICA GRATE?

  • Flick||

    The supporters of those guys are establishment GOP and neocons, and are not going to switch to Rand Paul.

  • Zunalter||

    "neocons"

    DRINK!

  • SIV||

    You don't attack the establishment candidates to get their voters. You attack them to get the voters who want to see the establishment lose. Why is Trump winning and Cruz on the ascent?

  • Flick||

    Trump's attacks on Bush have really tapered off; I don't think he's ever attacked Kasich. What's driving his poll numbers is his giving voice to unfiltered caricatures of conservative positions. That's why conservative talk radio loves him, he's a blowhard who doesn't have to deal with the tactfulness needed for actually governing or getting things done in a legislature.

    Cruz is slowly rising, but I don't see what conservative positions Rand Paul can offer most conservatives that Cruz doesn't already hold more intensely. If he's going to win he needs to beat Ted Cruz too.

  • SIV||

    I don't think he's ever attacked Kasich.

    All the more reason Rand should jump on it.

  • pronomian||

    Cruz is smart. He's waiting, not attacking trump in the hopes that trump tanks and he can pick up his supporters, or the majority of them, maybe even get trump's endorsement. That's a big if. If you hate trump, you also should hate cruz since cruz is setting himself up as trump's heir apparent.

  • Pinky||

    Right now the only thing Trump has to do to defeat Rand is ignore him. No one is paying the least bit of attention to Rand, nor will they, until or if Trump turns on him. Right now Megan Kelly has a better chance of being the Republican nominee than does Rand.

  • Flick||

    I don't think Trump is capable of ignoring someone who pricks his ego.

  • Dan Bongard||

    It isn't going to matter to Trump supporters. They support him for emotional reasons, not rational or ideological ones.

  • ||

    Ding ding ding, we have a winner. They are basically the TEAM RED version of the crying Obama supporters and the ones who would organize children to sing paeans to him.

  • SIV||

    Trump supporters are rejecting TEAM RED. Your oversimplified TEAM analysis isn't working here.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Pffft. Way to miss the point by a country mile. They're still TEAM idiots.

  • pronomian||

    Kinda like Paul supporters. Those who "hope" he's towing the party line on some major i issues just to get elected. Paul is not a libertarian, he's a neocon with some libertarian i ideas, but apparently not so ingrained as to stick with them.

  • Agammamon||

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po.....ed-people/

    Heh - looks like the cops convicted of the Danziger Bridge shootings are going to walk free after all.

    Its simply amazing that a) the prosecution does this sort of shit and b) that the conviction was reversed for these cops - how likely do you think this would be to happen if they hadn't been cops?

  • Agammamon||

    What's that word courts like to use at other times when prosecutors are found to be acting illegally?

    Oh Yeah, 'de minimus'.

  • John Titor||

    OT, but after the Hugos article yesterday I checked out John C Wright's blog, because I dig his work and didn't know he was involved with it, and found Mthis:

    Allow me to state before the ears of the world that I salute libertarians and see them as allies.

    To be sure, once the Pope and his army of Ape Clones, Ghosts, Vampire Samurai and Jesuit Dacoits takes over the world using the secret, Martian war-machinery buried under the Vatican since the Triassic period (when the Martian invaders exterminated the dinosaurs but were wiped out by smallpox) we Catholics will burn all libertarians at the stake as heretics, and then eat their burnt flesh in a horrific cannibal orgy. And we never read the Bible.

    But until D-Day and H-Hour, the libertarians are kind enough to let all civilized men the heck alone and leave us in peace, and I would be honored to share a foxhole with any of them during these culture wars.

    No libertarian ever donned the condescending mantle of thought policeman in dealing with me, and no leftwing has ever failed to do so.

    The Lefties want to control our minds, destroy our minds, destroy our lives, and die, and the Libertarians want to live and let live, to leave us alone and to be left alone. Life and death. The choice is that stark. I choose life.

  • John Titor||

    So, to all libertarians wherever you are, let me say this: I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death the right of the Inquisition to torture you into a bogus forced confession for saying it, before turning you over to the secular arm for a slow and barbaric public burning.

    Think we can convince Wright to come over here and replace Eddie as the local ultramontanist/caesaropapist? Because he seems more fun.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Seconded.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Wright is, and I mean it in a nicest possible way, poor man's Gene Wolfe*. Which is why I can comprehend this essays, and enjoy reading them even though I don't agree with him on almost anything. He also fascinates me, since he's one of the few people I heard of who was an atheist (and a libertarian), then converted because of both personal revelation and research. So I know when he starts talking about atheism, he at least has an idea what he speaks of.
    And as I said, his review of Hobbit 2 was one of the greatest, funniest things ever.

    *Gene Wolfe is just an amazing writer, so much layer and meaning in his works done with deceptive ease, but by god, he makes me feel like I have an IQ of 40 when I read his stuff. And only stuff I read was New Sun cycle, which is supposedly his most approachable.

  • Rhywun||

    [Wolfe's] most famous professional engineering achievement is a contribution to the machine used to make Pringles potato chips.

    That is - excellent.

    I've been trying to get into the first New Sun book for awhile but it takes effort. Previously the only thing I read was "The Fifth Head of Cerberus" which impressed the living hell out of me.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I read it and though it was easy (in translation, granted), only later realizing that it was like the first time I read Lord of the Rings, only more so. Should gird myself and reread the whole thing, if for no other reason than to bask in the original language.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Pic of Skeletor at her manliest and Trump as William Shatner look-alike.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    There are like 3000 comments on that Breitbart article and it looks like the vast majority are positive of Paul's argument.

    While I do not think Rand can really salvage his campaign, I still think he can at least create a meaningful contrast on obscure issues like this one. And without any risk to his Senate seat since he managed to ensure he can't be disqualified from that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I saw that too and was very surprised. Maybe the normal Breittard commentariat is at some Klan convention or something.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Here, these should get that weird taste out of your mouth.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Interesting. I'll have to visit Spiked some time.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    There's a comment section on an Ann Coulter/Donald Trump meeting that has comments like this:

    "My new term for anchor babies from Mexico: Beanie Babies"

    "Concerned citizen • 17 minutes ago
    Trump is too macho for the libtards. They can't handle it."

    Oh my God, it's like one of Warty's satirical comments: WHY YOU LIBTARDS NOT LIKE MACHO FAT MAN WITH BAD COMBOVER

    "Robert Vance • 11 minutes ago
    At this point, Trump could tell me I'm a fat, drunk Indian and I would vote for him. This election isn't about me. It isn't about gay marriage. It isn't about Megyn Kelly. It is about saving America and making her great again."

    "LookUp • 6 minutes ago
    This is what I like about Trump, he has a much needed honest conversation with us. Yes, we can handle the Truth. Trump seems to believe we know our problems, he knows we need to hear the truth and the solutions. It will take work but this is American!"

    And one guy with an accurate statement on Trump supporters:

    "hot civillian • 5 minutes ago
    Bring back our jobs...Trump 2016~
    1 • Reply•Share ›

    Ling hot civillian • 4 minutes ago
    Try getting an education. Then a work ethic.
    1 • Reply•Share › "

    DAYUM

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Warty's satire is spot on. It is also why I like to use the #cuckservative line a lot. Those people exist, and there is a lot of them, and they are vocal.

    Vocal Trump supporters are like what would happen if @pftcommenter was cloned and cared about politics.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You want vocal Trump supporters?

    You got it!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I want those two off the wine train!

  • Rhywun||

    I want them to be co-Presidents. I have no idea what they're talking about and I don't care.

  • PH2050||

    WTF, where da white wimmin at?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Rhywun||

    Where she get all that junk?!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm guessing "her momma".

  • Sudden||

    The correct answer is McDonald's

  • Cytotoxic||

    These people are very stupid and very dangerous. We need to treat them as being as evil and dangerous as proggies.

  • ||

    Irish, just read the comments on WaPo, I post there all of the time. You'll know who I am by my posting name.

    Seems like about 30% or so of the people who post there are xenophobe racists to say the least. And another 30% are totalitarian leftist. We are really screwed.

    It's strange for me over there, because depending on the topic, I'm either accused of being a Teahadist Republican or a liberal communist.

    Most people are totally incapable of thinking outside of the the box.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    "LookUp • 6 minutes ago
    This is what I like about Trump, he has a much needed honest conversation with us. Yes, we can handle the Truth. Trump seems to believe we know our problems, he knows we need to hear the truth and the solutions. It will take work but this is American!"

    And I know it's the truth because it happens to be exactly what I want to hear!

  • John Titor||

    Most of these people would probably also complain that Barack Obama has a cult of personality.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Don't say that! They haven't bought into a cult of personality! They're rational voters who would totally be voting for someone better if only we'd been nicer to them!

    Truly, our unwillingness to pander to anti-intellectual simpletons is our own fault, rather than the anti-intellectual simpletons themselves.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Truly, our unwillingness to pander to anti-intellectual simpletons is our own fault, rather than the anti-intellectual simpletons themselves."

    Wait...I'm confused...are you John?

  • Mr Lizard||

    Listen mammals, on your hatching day you signed a contract of some sort in your own blood. Your resistance to the idea of meeting your society's needs by allowing top mammals to appropriate the necessary materials to build your contractually obligated utopia is downright atrocious.

    No wonder you entertain a proclivity to employ hatchling labor, and obsess over small circular concave pieces of fashion glass.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

  • ||

    I lost 5k yesterday and it would have been a lot worse if I didn't have most of my investments, getting close to retirement, in more low risk. Any advice?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    GTFO now.

  • ||

    Into what?

  • SIV||

    Stone knives and bear skins.

  • ||

    Oh, gee thanks. Should I stock up on wooden clubs as well?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    If I was you, and hear me out on this one, I would find the nearest bridge and just jump off. That is my financial advice, but I am pessimist Pete, so make of that what you will.

  • Agammamon||

    Only if you live in the desert where wood is hard to find. Then you can corner the wood club market once imports drop off.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Cash

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Treasurys are okay if that's where you already are.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Gold.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Ammo.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Buy women to pimp out later. The prices ISIS is offering are unbelievably reasonable by Western standards, especially on the post-pubescent ones, though on the downside pretty much anything you get is going to be noticeably used. But if you're just renting them out, it's probably not as much of a concern.

  • Bill Braski||

    There's a lot of noise being made when all you really need to do is say one obvious truth about this whole deal:

    Donald Trump is a racist, and his supporters are racists.

    There, see how easy that was?

    If you like you could go on to elaborate how his polling shows that a not-insignificant chunk of the republican electorate are essentially openly quasi-fascists, but best to keep things short and simple.

  • ||

    Well, it's obvious why he's so popular. Because he doesn't act like a gigantic pussy and won't apologize for everything he says.

    I'm a Rand supporter and really cannot stand the Donald. But you'd better come up with something better than the race card to derail this guy, or he's going to wind up being president.

  • SIV||

    Don't forget "War on Wimmenz".

  • John||

    That is what I keep saying Hyperion. And all of these clowns think I am a Trump supporter. I am not. But his opponents better win over his supporters if they want to beat him. And the whinny he is a racist butt hurt isn't going to do that.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    If the only way to win over Trump supporters is to turn into a nativist Know-Nothing, then what's the point from a libertarian perspective?

    You do know that this is a libertarian blog, right John? And that unlike the RedStaters or the people at Free Republic we do not think it is acceptable to jettison all notions of fiscal responsibility and respect for civil liberties in order to appease a rabble of simpletons?

  • John||

    It's a libertarian blog. That means you insult millions of people and the. Act shocked when they won't vote for you or vote for someone you hate. But they are the simpletons. The geniuses are the libertarians who play three d chess and get 2% every election.

    Has it ever occurred to you that you are just a loser political movement that uses "principle " as a rationalization for losing?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    So to recap: Libertarians are going to be losers until the day they wake up and stop being libertarians.

    Such profound insights as we've all come to expect from you, John.

  • ||

    To be fair, I think you're both right.

    The people who would vote for Trump are retards, AND they make up enough of the electorate that libertarianism, the theory of the rational man, will never appeal enough to them for libertarians to win on a wide scale.

    Splitting that baby.

  • JW||

    The Trumpelos are little more than Pakleds with less stolen technology.

    "Trump make us strong. Strong is good."

  • ||

    Trumpelos

    Every time I hear this my mental imagery is split between lumbering megafauna and Juggalos.

  • John Titor||

    Libertarians are going to be losers until the day they wake up and stop being libertarians

    Or, and hear me out here, we openly admit that democracy is a utterly horrible system that favours the worst emotional impulses that politicians can gin up in voters, and that libertarianism will never achieve substantial political power when the population is incentivized in such a way. We quietly start focusing on creating a libertarian timocracy or constitutional monarchy or something.

    /Cynic

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No Gods Or Kings.

    Only Man.

  • 3||

    Anarchy

  • PapayaSF||

    So to recap: Libertarians are going to be losers until the day they wake up and stop being libertarians.

    I don't think that's exactly what John's saying. I think he's arguing for less ideological purism and more compromise and pragmatism. The Socialist Party doesn't win elections, but the socialists in the very-imperfectly-socialist Democratic Party do. Socialists and even Communists often hold their nose, vote D, get part of what they want, and it adds up over time.

  • 3||

    We use principle as a reason for existing. That we lose doesn't matter (as far as our principles are concerned) for our principles are the reason we fight. If we abandon them, we abandon the fight. If we do not fight for liberty who will? We should not sell out to gain the support of morons. Educate the morons, help them see the light absolutely! Never compromise principle for the sake of a few votes.

  • PapayaSF||

    3, principles are fine, but they are often in conflict with one another and with the real world. Knowing how and when to compromise is crucial to success. To say "never compromise principle for the sake of a few votes" often means "let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That means you don't get even an incremental, partial victory. Well, many of the reasons our country is currently fucked are because the left has had generations of incremental, partial victories. Fabian Socialism won. Pure Libertarianism probably can't defeat it, but Fabian Libertarianism could.

  • SIV||

    Are you really that unaware? Do you think the overwhelming majority of Trump supporters are backing him on "substance" and "issues"? If so you're dumber than the minority who do.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We're still interested in pandering to racist retards.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Donald Trump is a racist, and his supporters are racists.

    Donald Trump supporters: "Fuck you, twerp, what are you going to do about it?"

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I don't think Trump is a racist himself, instead he has just enough low cunning to understand that a ton of white working class Americans respond positively to racially-charged language against Mexicans and blacks.

    After all, working class whites are still a majority of voters in the Republican Party and they have three important characteristics:

    1. They love America

    2. They know America is in the shitter and understand that both parties in Washington are at fault

    3. They are receptive to outsiders who have a reputation for honesty and 'straight-talking'

    Trump is running against Washington and is scapegoating immigrants, of course it's catnip for a certain segment of Republicans.

  • straffinrun||

    OT: Did this kamikaze pilot love his wife or hate her?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Well, depends on if he thought they'd be spending eternity together in the next life.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I thought the Japanese were reincarnationists.

  • straffinrun||

    If our skwerlz had any sense of timing....

  • straffinrun||

    Sorry, GMSM. This shouldn't go here. I agree with your post though.

  • John||

    More than that he is attacking the media. That is helping him as much as anything. The fact is the entire political establishment left and right hate the white working class and would be happy to see them die or stop voting or be replaced by immigrants. All Trump or anyone had to do to get their vote is not treat them with the kind of contempt and condescension people like you do. It wasn't hard.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    All Trump or anyone had to do to get their vote is not treat them with the kind of contempt and condescension people like you do. It wasn't hard.

    Trump spews nothing but bile and incoherent nonsense. It is an insult to think that any intelligent person could listen to him and be impressed.

    And yet here we are, with thousands of people cheering because he's going to deport all the beaners and make the chinks stop stealing our jerbzzz.

  • John||

    Maybe they don't like Trump as much as they can't stand you and assholes like you? it is not about politics. It is about telling people like you to go fuck yourselves. And the more you act like a smug douche the more popular he is going to get. If we are not careful smug douche bags like you are going to get the fucker elected. If makes you feel good to insult his supporters but it just makes things worse.

    I don't want Trump to win. But I fear he might win the nomination or even the election because smug know nothing douche bags like you won't fucking listen.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Sure John. Mr and Mrs. John Q. Republican in Bumfuck, Alabama reads comments like mine on libertarian blogs every night and go "Those elitist fucks! I'm voting for the guy promising to deport all the Mexicans and pull out of Korea until they stop beating us at making televisions!"

    You are beyond a parody of an angry, befuddle white guy freaking the fuck out that changing times are eroding away the "traditional" America you cherish.

  • John||

    Not you in particular but smug douche bags like you in the media and GOP. Your attitude and other douche bags who share it is what is driving Trump's popularity.

    His supporters are not racists. They don't hate Mexicans. They hate people like you.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    His supporters are not racists. They don't hate Mexicans.

    No, they just think they're paradoxically both lazy and conspiring to terk their jerbs and are willing to spend a fuck ton of money to build a wall and militarize the border to keep them out.

    But I'm sure, just like you, the majority has enough social acumen to not scream racial slurs at their Hispanic immigrant coworker.

    Don't bullshit us John. We all have racist relatives and acquaintances that think Mexicans are blight upon our society. Same goes for queers and their agenda to destroy Christianity. No one who is honest with themselves can argue that they aren't bigoted against outsiders.

  • John||

    Sure. And you are bigoted against the white working class. You call them lazy and stupid and say all the things you say they say about Mexicans. But they are the bigots. Not you. You are wonderful and tolerant and only hate people that the mass culture says it's okay to hate

    You hate these people yet are so smug you are shocked the feeling is mutual.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Sure. And you are bigoted against the white working class.

    WHYCOME THERE ISN'T A WHITE HISTORY MONTH????

    You are wonderful and tolerant and only hate people that the mass culture says it's okay to hate

    GAY MAFIA! LIBRUL ATHEIST AGENDA!

    Where oh where would conservatism be today without their persecution fantasies?

    In all seriousness John, this is fundamentally about white America freaking out over their loss of privilege.

    Things they were raised to not like (such as gays or drugs or atheists) are being embraced by culture and in turn reflected in other aspects of society.

    As a libertarian I'm not going to weep over that, only stand against stupidity. SJWs are stupid and harmful when they try to police discourse and sex on college campuses.

    Conservatives are stupid and harmful when they want to militarize the border because they think Mexicans are going to take their jobs and put those liberal atheist queers from the Democratic Party into office.

    I'm not bigoted against white working class people, I'm bigoted against morons. And I refuse to apologize to that just so people like you will like me.

  • John||

    If you are bigoted against morons you must hate yourself most of all Geoff.

  • JW||

    But I fear he might win the nomination or even the election because smug know nothing douche bags like you won't fucking listen.

    Donald Trump: The Official Candidate of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I fear he might win the nomination or even the election because smug know nothing douche bags like you won't fucking listen.

    Listen to what? This and other threads are full of complaints from you that nobody will listen, but you're not actually SAYING anything.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Listen to the FEELZ

  • SIV||

    It is an insult to think that any intelligent person could listen to him and be impressed.

    You're not looking at the demographics of his supporters. They pretty much match up with Republican voters as a whole. Trump isn't drawing his support from anymore a of a "yokel" contingent than any other Republican candidate.

  • JW||

    Trump isn't drawing his support from anymore a of a "yokel" contingent than any other Republican candidate.

    100% YOKEL.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Well all they had to do to not earn my contempt was cease being contemptible, but that was apparently beyond their inbred toothless capabilities.

    I'm sick of this argument from populists. "Well, you shouldn't have treated these good Americans like they don't matter!"

    Well, if they mattered they'd be able to string words together into something a bit more meaningful than a belch or a grunt, and based on the comments I've been seeing from Trump supporters, they can't quite manage it.

    This entire line of thinking that idiots are the 'real America' and that we should respect the willfully ignorant and moronic is repulsive - furthermore, it is opposed to the actual ideals of the men who founded this country, who mouthbreathing conservatives claim to revere, but if they met in real life probably would have called them librul atheist queers. This country was founded by scientists, free-thinkers, political philosophers, and enlightened men of reason and now the people claiming to be their heirs are slack jawed semi-literate rubes drooling all over the floor at a Trump speech while burbling through their saliva about dem damn Chinamen. Fuck these people - they offend me and they're an insult to the free-thinking ideals on which this country was founded.

  • John||

    Then hate them. And when they win the election or get Hillary elected have fun with that. Who told you people anyone has to give a fuck what you think?

  • Dan Bongard||

    You think we'll be furious if Hillary wins? Heh. We're libertarians, John. There hasn't been a President you could plausibly call libertarian since Calvin Coolidge.

    You know what President Hillary means? It means four more years of gridlock. In contrast, who knows WHAT kind of retardation Trump will manage with a Republican Congress behind him.

    No, if we can't have someone who is serious about reigning in the government, President Hillary's just fine. It is always about the least-bad option when you're a libertarian, sadly.

  • John||

    And when she replaces Kennedy and both Heller and Citzens United get reversed it won't be just fine. And that is exactly what will happen.

    And if you think Pbama weaponized the government, he is an amateur compared to Hillary. And with the media covering for her and without the votes needed to impeach her there will be no stopping her. Congress will become completely irrelevant.

    Yeah that will work just fine. Are you on here to be a parody of the Libertarian ignoramus? You sure look like it.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Better than Trump.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Unless Trump gets thrown out by impeachment 6 months after swearing in, this is still better than Trump. Also, I am sure the SC justices Trump nominates will be horrible.

  • Dan Bongard||

    John, Trump is running on a platform that consists solely of rights he wants to revoke or curtail.

    Your paranoid babbling about Hillary is just pathetic.

  • John||

    Dan you are as dumb as cytoxic. Both heller and citizens were 5-4 decisions. And the only right Trump claims to want to curtail is the right to hire illegal aliens. There is more to life than immigration. Jesus you people are stupid.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "And the only right Trump claims to want to curtail is the right to hire illegal aliens."

    And the right to import stuff without ridiculous taxation, the right to keep your private property intact. Then there's all the rights that will be crushed by his War on Illegals. Just shut up John you have nothing to contribute here and haven't for years.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Keep up the delusions, John, they keep getting funnier.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Fuck these people - they offend me and they're an insult to the free-thinking ideals on which this country was founded.

    Funny, the same things were said about Andrew Jackson's supporters right before they put him in the Presidency for two terms, and essentially made him the centerpiece of national politics for a full generation.

    You can turn your nose up at them all you want (Lord knows it's been going on for roughly 200 years), but you dismiss them at your peril. And given that they'll be just as happy to tell you to fuck off at this point as you are to them, well, good luck making a convincing case for any candidate you might actually support.

    When the establishment is viewed as being completely out of touch with most of it's society's citizens, you get demagogues and potential tyrants who will be more than happy to give them what they want.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Yeah! Stop badmouthing the citizens who are... supporting the demagogue and potential tyrant. It's your lack of respect that is making them make unrespectable choices.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Thanks for proving my point.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    You're the one who called Trump a demagogue and potential tyrant.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And not recognizing the conditions that lead to that, and what draws people to someone like that and learning how to divert that passion towards your own cause is why libertarians remain mostly irrelevant politically.

    If you don't want Hitler, don't create Weimar.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    By your admission, we have Hitler, but we're doing something wrong when we badmouth his supporters behind their backs. What makes you think that we don't recognize some of the major conditions that got us here?

    We're on a little-seen part of the god damn Internet. If I met a Trumpman tomorrow, I would treat him with as much respect as anyone else and try to convince him of some more liberty-friendly positions. But we're on the Internet, where some written persuasion (if it's even seen) is almost certainly not going to work. We're venting, just as almost everyone here LOVES to vent about how stupid and pathological progressives are. Change Trump to Sanders, and John would start regaling us with why leftists are deranged, envious tyrants who will forever try to fuck us over.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "Change Trump to Sanders, and John would start regaling us with why leftists are deranged, envious tyrants who will forever try to fuck us over."

    Ding ding ding! Or how about 7 years ago when Obama was running and his idiot supporters were engaged in the same cult of personality we now see out of Trump? If I went back and looked at those threads, would I see commenters complaining about how mean people were being to Obama-cultists, or would everyone just be insulting them?

    What's really going on here is that John is letting his own biases out. John likes the right-wingers and doesn't like the hipster leftists, so the right-wingers are just in righteous rebellion against meanies like us, while the leftists were irremediably evil and worthy of scorn.

    That tells us a lot about John, but not about the Trumptards.

  • John||

    Yes Irish and you love the hipsters and hate the righties. Big fucking deal. I admit my cultural biases. You choke yours in bullshit.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    By your admission, we have Hitler,

    I'm trying to put it in terms that fall within the purview of your extended diaper blast. If Trump can't get more than 1/3 of the GOP electorate, you don't have shit to worry about, do you?

    If I met a Trumpman tomorrow, I would treat him with as much respect as anyone else and try to convince him of some more liberty-friendly positions.

    But do you actually have the ability to relate to whatever is driving their support of him and turn it towards libertarianism?

    But we're on the Internet, where some written persuasion (if it's even seen) is almost certainly not going to work.

    Yeah, we are on a relatively small part of the internet, and yes, a lot of this is just venting. But collectively, Trump supporters read things like this across the internet and learn that nominal libertarians don't give a shit about things they think are genuine issues. That they're viewed as yokels who don't have legitimate reasons to be pissed about current national policies and the impact it might have on their families or communities. And then libertarians either 1) lament about not getting respect from either the left or the right, or 2) feel smug about it because they feel as if they're a part of some special No Homers club that won't be tainted by wrongthink.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    When the establishment is viewed as being completely out of touch with most of it's society's citizens, you get demagogues and potential tyrants who will be more than happy to give them what they want.

    This is true; it's also why so many libertarians realize that democracy is a complete waste of time.

    Because you can't convince angry, pissed off people that don't want to think to accept a libertarian ideology that requires restraining one's passions and prejudices.

    You can tell them to don't hurt people or take their stuff but that shit flies out the window when they think of all the people they hate like immigrants, queers, and drug users.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Because you can't convince angry, pissed off people that don't want to think to accept a libertarian ideology that requires restraining one's passions and prejudices.

    You can tell them to don't hurt people or take their stuff but that shit flies out the window when they think of all the people they hate like immigrants, queers, and drug users.

    "What's the Matter With Kansas?: Libertarian Edition."

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Okay, new tact: how would you, RRR, convince the average Drug Warrior and cop fellator to not approve of or, at the very least, not be indifferent to, the cops bashing the head in of a black guy suspected of dealing marijuana?

    God knows Reason and Radley Balko gives us plenty of examples of this and God knows the average Fox viewer either whole-heartedly agrees or thinks they should have just complied with whatever the cop said.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    how would you, RRR, convince the average Drug Warrior and cop fellator to not approve of or, at the very least, not be indifferent to, the cops bashing the head in of a black guy suspected of dealing marijuana?

    Not calling them Drug Warriors and cop fellators to their face would be a good start. Then appeal to their sense of community and personal safety by emphasizing that cops can be just as subversive to community stability as a large criminal element can. And hammer on it, time after time after time, in your day-to-day activities.

    I've gotten more traction on persuading these people by citing the Baby Bou case than I have by anything else, because they begin to see how their own kids could be affected by these things.

    Hell, when I met my wife, she was a fire-breathing progressive--now she's more of a liberaltarian because I've spent time discussing political issues in a way that I know will appeal to her sense of fairness, rather than just dismissing her views as being overly emotional and not worthy of consideration.

  • SIV||

    average Fox viewer

    Funny watching you collectively class-bash people who are mostly smarter, more educated and earn substantially more money than you.

    You sound like a fucking progtard. Criticizing all those dumb Faux News-watchers watching Stossel, Gutfeld, and Judge Napolitano.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Funny watching you collectively class-bash people who are mostly smarter, more educated and earn substantially more money than you.

    Smart and successful people can still fall into holes of stupidity when blinded by prejudice and bigotry.

    You sound like a fucking progtard. Criticizing all those dumb Faux News-watchers watching Stossel, Gutfeld, and Judge Napolitano.

    Stossel, Gutfeld and Napolitaono make up a minuscule number of Fox News' viewership. The majority watch O'Reilly and Hannity and we all know what bile and hot air they blow.

  • SIV||

    Gutfeld is the primary host of their most popular non-primetime show. His co-host Eric Bolling is actually more libertarian. Napolitano is their go-to constitutional law analyst across the whole schedule.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Funny watching you collectively class-bash people who are mostly smarter, more educated and earn substantially more money than you."

    There you go again, talking bullshit.

  • ||

    Check out all the classy comments against SE Cupp for not supporting Donald.

    I read through half the comments and "atheist" was used as a perjorative multiple times. She is also accused of being a rapid left-winger...solely for the fact that she doesn't support Trump.

    Mostly they made fun of her name. Classy guys.

    http://www.breitbart.com/video.....-behavior/

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I would fight all of Breitbart to defend her honor.

  • ||

    My favorite was the, "Every atheist I've ever met was also a communist" guy.

    He sure got my number!

  • John||

    Cupp now finds out that most of America hates all journalists. Being on the right doesn't save her.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Again, you project yourself onto America. I would think the guy who thought Romney would be president would be more cautious but Red Toney doesn't do 'measured'.

  • Lord at War||

    Again, you project yourself onto America.

    Says the Canadian chickenshit who has said "we", "us", or "here" multiple times in just this thread when talking about America, Americans, or it's policies.

    "If the GOP base thinks that foreigners coming here..."

    "We need to treat them as being as evil and dangerous as proggies."

  • Lord at War||

    More Canadian chickenshit projecting himself as American...

    "We're still interested in pandering to racist retards."

    "We have nothing to learn from Trump"

  • Lord at War||

    Even MORE Canadian chickenshit projecting himself as American...

    "We already have tons of restriction on immigration."

    "One of the reasons illegal immigration is damn good is that it lets us bypass regulations like min wage"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Illum populi favor attonitum
    fluctuque magis mobile vulgus
    aura tumidum tollit inani;
    hic clamosi rabiosa fori
    iurgia vendens
    improbus iras et. verba locat.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THIS

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The best part was that not only did Trump put the guy in timeout, he later allowed him back in and had an extensive conversation with him. That's demonstrating total control over a situation that a hostile journalist was working to hijack.

    I'm becoming more convinced that Rand Paul's biggest strategic mistake was thinking the people at Fox and other beltway media actually respected him, instead of viewing him as a strange talking animal that they indulged as long as he wasn't a threat to be in charge of anything. If he had gone after the media the way Trump has, maybe he'd be getting more traction with Republican voters. As you've pointed out, most of these guys don't realize just how much people outside the NYC-DC MegaCity 1 actually hate their guts.

  • John||

    Bingo. If Paul had gone after the media like Trump did he would be walking away with the nomination right now. Instead of whining about Trump Libertarians should be learning from him.

  • Dan Bongard||

    The only thing to learn from Trump is that voters prefer emotion to reason, and there isn't a libertarian in America who didn't know that already. :)

  • John||

    There is a lot more than that. But like every libertarian you would rather lose than give up being smug.

  • Dan Bongard||

    John -- if you win, we lose.

    If Hillary wins, we lose.

    Basically, yes, we're going to lose. So we take what satisfaction we can in being right. If we wanted to be victorious and wrong, we'd be Democrats or Republicans.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The only thing to learn from Trump is that voters prefer emotion to reason

    And smart politicians learn how to use that to their advantage. The ones who don't end up like Adlai Stevenson, who actually had a nice career but is most remembered for being an out-of-touch egghead who appealed more to the left-wing overclass than the blue-collar workers he needed to court.

  • lap83||

    Right, and besides...libertarians are deluding themselves if they think they're immune to appeals to emotion. Acknowledging that it might help is not selling out.

  • Dan Bongard||

    And smart politicians learn how to use that to their advantage.

    Spoken like a true supporter of the establishment.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    I'm gonna give you a classic Rand Paul shush on this one.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'm sure that will comfort you as Rand Paul is basically ignored by the very people he needs to win.

  • Dan Bongard||

    That politicians can win by selling out everything they believe in is not news, Red.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    not only did Trump put the guy in timeout, he later allowed him back in and had an extensive conversation with him. That's demonstrating total control over a situation

    A total alpha

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I guess. But it's telling that Trump actually allowed him to come back and ask questions, as opposed to banning him from the press conference entirely.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Please. That isn't how Reagan won the nomination. We have nothing to learn from Trump aside from the fact that many conservatives, including you, are as bad as the caricatures.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Contempt and condescension: two words no one would use to describe Trump's rhetoric. NO ONE

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    That's another thing - these Trump supporters spend enormous amounts of time expressing contempt towards virtually everyone and then demand respect for themselves and their third chromosomes. They really are extensions of Donald Trump - only they are deserving of respect, any criticism of them is illegitimate, and everyone else in the world is evil and deserving only of scorn.

    It's narcissistic selfishness masquerading as a desire for respect. It's basically Yokel Nationalism where everyone with more than 7 teeth is a member of the outgroup.

  • ||

    See that link I just posted upthread a little. Gaze into the abyss.

  • John||

    It will pass. No matter who wins you are going to see some real restrictions on immigration and some real shakeout in the political establishment. Then things will calm down.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We already have tons of restriction on immigration.

  • John||

    Are you talking about Trump supporters or Reason?

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    It's all a fucking joke. Trump won't condescend to you - so long as you agree with whatever nonsense he clearly makes up on the spot (see: we need a flat tax, but maybe the rich should pay a higher flat tax). The moment you stop and think about it and ask a question or two, Trump and his supporters will bash you with more contempt and condescension than even the smuggest Marxist prof. Or the smuggest (and correct) libertarian.

    Just as Trump's "honesty" is nothing more than saying what a portion of the electorate wants to hear. He's not "honest" or "brave," he's just pandering to them. But because it's different and not PC, it's called "honest," even by the people here claiming that they're not Trump supporters.

    Plus, c'mon, his entire schtick shows huge contempt for the electorate.

  • ||

    "He's just saying what people secretly think!"

    I really don't believe that. He's saying what a moderate-sized group of retards think. They are no more "the people" than the relatively tightly-defined groups that Marxists claim are "the people" (which always conveniently excludes anybody that disagrees with them).

  • John Titor||

    demand respect for themselves and their third chromosomes

    Whoa, what the fuck Irish? I won't have Down syndrome patients compared to Trumpites. They at least have an excuse for their limited mental faculties.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Hey, there are multiple different things that can occur because of your third chromosome, not just down syndrome. I left what disorder the Trumpistas might have undefined to avoid offending anyone in particular.

  • PH2050||

    Trisomy Trumpistas...

    My new band name.

  • Cytotoxic||

    A lot of Kultur Kons like John are finally realizing that Olde America is gone and not coming back. Gay marriage, gay acceptance, Caitlyn Jenner, the rise of Atheism, all these things have freaked them out beyond the edge and now they are having a melt-down.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yeah, what virtues did "Olde America" have, anyway? What did they ever accomplish? Clearly New America is just as accomplished and has no faults whatsoever!

    (I don't consider myself a social conservative, but I think they have a number of valid points.)

  • John Titor||

    Screaming that Trump is a racist and a fascist will make him more popular, not less. You really don't understand Trump's game. He feeds on negative attention, and flips it. You call him a racist and fascist? He says you're only calling him that because he's telling the truth and trying to 'make America great again'. He also points out that the only reason why you'd try to stand in his way is because of your anti-American political correctness. Congratulations, you come off having a hundred Trumpites screaming 'SJW' on twitter at you while Trump drapes himself in the flag and gets to pump more points into his charisma stat.

    Sorry, but if Trump keeps out-maneuvering the idiots who think this tactic is effective, we may have to actually deal with him as President.

  • John||

    Yup. I don't understand why people can't figure that out.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So what do you suggest? There is no reasoning with his retarded supporters. They can only be ridiculed into silence and marginalization.

  • John||

    There is no reasoning with these people says the most ignorant fanatic on here. If you were not so sad, you would be funny.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The guy who thinks the Scopes trial was all a mirage or something calling others 'ignorant fanatics'. Delightful.

  • John||

    The town wanted the trial. The defense t volunteered to be tried. Everything Menkin wrote about it was a lie. Read a book sometime you idiot. Seriously. I game you the Amazon link. How fucking stupid are you? Even though I have explained my point to you three times now you keep yammering about it

    I think I am kidding but you really are retarded aren't you?

  • John Titor||

    They can only be ridiculed into silence and marginalization.

    And again, you're falling into the 'Trump out-maneuvering idiots who think this is a good idea' trap again. Ridicule will not work because Trump turns it to his advantage. He presents your position as cynical and negative and his as positive. Shockingly, voters like a positive guy who says they can do great things, not negative people who tear them down and expect them to shut up.

    And expecting these people to shut up and sit down because you mock them is moronic. Their entire worldview is based on the belief that the media/government/cuckservatives/whatever are withholding the real truth of immigration and free trade through insulting and ridiculing them. They're already mocked, and it's not like they'd care if someone like you mocked them more. "Oh, some elitist Canadian faggot is insulting us? Well he's just an anti-American piece of shit anyway, just wants to destroy America by letting the beaners in." They don't care what you think Cytotoxic, your ridicule is worthless.

    You are playing by the rules that benefit Trump. Don't do that, it's stupid. One trick that would be better is to actually get him to make some extremely anti-conservative comment, like support for public healthcare. It wouldn't stop his campaign in its tracks but it'd might kill at least some of his support.

  • John||

    John that is the smartest thing you have ever wrote on here. My compliments. That is what I have been saying only said better.

  • PapayaSF||

    I agree. Well said. But:

    They don't care what you think Cytotoxic, your ridicule is worthless.

    Don't forget that ridicule is Cytotoxic's hammer, and so to him all problems look like nails. The fact that he's recommending ridicule as a political tactic tells us more about him than it does anything else. Cytotoxic only has four settings:

    0 - Off
    1 - Praise (rarely used)
    2 - Ridicule
    3 - Bomb

    And as we all know, 2 and 3 are his favorite settings.

  • U+1F4A9||

    AFAICT, Cytoxic judges the worth of a post by the conclusions it reaches, rather than by the reasoning by which the poster arrives at those conclusions. Every conclusion with which cytoxic disagrees is the result of stupidity, since, by this methodology, "stupid" means "believes wrong things". This is, of course, fundamentally anti-intellectual.

    Which explains why his numerous posts are almost completely devoid of any useful positive contribution to the discussion.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I say that Trump's a racist because he's a racist, not because I think it is an effective tactic.

    A decent chunk of the Republican base loathes anyone who isn't white and Christian, just like a good chunk of the Democratic base loathes anyone who IS white or Christian. I'm happy to let all of these idiots self-identify.

  • John||

    Way to set the example by doing it first.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I need a beer, and someplace to escape to.

  • straffinrun||

    Escape to equities.
    /Shreek

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • LynchPin1477||

  • LynchPin1477||

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Similar, and not by a guy named Rupert.

  • LynchPin1477||

    That's some good shit. And they're playing in town October 28th!

    Got a recommendation on one of their albums to get?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am new to them, so no. But, I really dig that song.

  • LynchPin1477||

    No worries. I just bought the album that song is on. I'll let you know how it is.

  • Rhywun||

    Me too. Good stuff.

  • LynchPin1477||

    You familiar with these guys?

  • Rhywun||

    That was... well, I'm not quite sure what the hell that was.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am not. That one I did not like as much. I have particular taste.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    This is off an older album, but I am listening to it so I figured I would post.

  • Rhywun||

    "I done told you once, you son of a bitch, I'm the best that's ever been!"

    I like this.

  • LynchPin1477||

  • John||

    If Trump continues to do things like this, it won't matter.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015.....onference/

    The Univision guy is a first rate asshole. Why did it take Trump for a Republican to finally kick his sorry ass out of a press conference?

    I have always thought Trump was a stalking horse for Hillary. I am starting to think the crazy bastard might win.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    He is a stalking horse for an Obama third term.

    " We need SOMEONE to defeat this monster!"

  • John||

    We do. But no one seems to have any balls. You can't defeat him with the kind of condescending butt hurt put out by his detractors.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I'm not worried about defeating Trump. Either he'll lose the nomination, or he'll lose the Presidential race. He's not going to win with nothing but the support of the most retarded 1/3 of the Republican base.

    I am, however, a bit worried about defeating Clinton or Sanders. It would be nice if the Republicans ran somebody who was both capable of beating them and actually preferable to them. None of the top 3 people in the Republican race fit that bill.

  • John||

    You hate the GOP and all of its supporters. Shockingly, they really don't give a fuck if you like their candidate. If Trump wins the nomination, he likely wins the election. Remember Sanders wants to close the border too. Screaming about how Trump hates Mexicans won't beat him.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    " If Trump wins the nomination, he likely wins the election. "

    LOLOLOLOLOL

    Donald Trump would get obliterated by Bernie Sanders. I don't think Donald Trump could beat any candidate the Democrats might reasonably run.

    And you'd better hope he doesn't, John, because despite the fact that your brand of pseudo-populism is based on the idea that not being PC is the most important thing on Earth, Donald Trump would be an unmitigated catastrophe in every possible way. His immigration plan is basically designed to turn American into a police state, the entire planet would laugh in his face when he tried to negotiate with them, and he's such a childish narcissist that his answer to every minor slight would be a bombing campaign.

    But hey, you'll have shown those elitists like me what's what with your yokel brethren, so who really cares about such bourgeoisie niceties as actually governing after the election.

    Donald Trump is not going to win with nothing but, as Dan put it, the most retarded third of the Republican base. If Trump is on the ticket, I'm voting Sanders, the entire Republican establishment is voting Sanders. The Republicans would lose voters they have never lost before and would gain not nearly enough to make it up.

  • PapayaSF||

    the entire planet would laugh in his face when he tried to negotiate with them

    So then, no change from what we have now?

  • John||

    I don't support Trump. But you people are delusional if you think open borders and screaming racism will beat him. You have read too much Nick and have drank the Yutes ass sex Mexicans and uber kool aide.

    The republican 45% will vote for him. And the Democrats are just as divided as the republicans. It's not 2012 The Obama coalition is dead.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "The republican 45% will vote for him."

    Doubt it.

    "And the Democrats are just as divided as the republicans. "

    Not in evidence.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    His immigration plan is basically designed to turn American into a police state

    Based on the rhetoric on this site the past few years, we're already there.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If I was required to choose between Trump and Clinton, I'd vote Clinton, hands down.

  • ||

    Ditto.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Ditto.

  • John Titor||

    President Donald Trump would basically be what happens if you gave a populist version of Cytotoxic political power. Do we really, really need more thin-skinned narcissists in the political realm?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah, because I love me immigration restrictionism and import tariffs and Kelo. Not all retards support Trump, apparently.

  • John||

    Woosh did that go right over your head. Cytoxic you really are that stupid aren't you?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Is taking 'John' as part of your handle some kind of red flag for stupid?

  • John Titor||

    Little late but:

    President Donald Trump would basically be what happens if you gave a populist version of Cytotoxic political power. Do we really, really need more thin-skinned narcissists in the political realm?

    I've highlighted the relevant parts to help with your reading comprehension. The comparison to you and Trump was not political, but psychological. And you continue to validate my hypothesis.

  • Cytotoxic||

    John your political insights are about as good as Tulpa's.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I like how Trump suddenly transmogrified from "the candidate of conservatives fed up with the GOP" to "the official GOP choice".

  • Dan Bongard||

    I love when people seek out libertarian forums to tell libertarians that they don't give a shit what libertarians think and that libertarians are just generally beneath their notice.

    Especially when they do it around fifty times a day.

  • ||

    he might also get a retarded third of of the 3/3rds of democrats that are retards

  • Flick||

    You defeat him by ignoring him and catering to the majority of Republicans who despise him.

    People are acting like his support is at 60% of the party. Nowhere near.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You defeat him by ignoring him and catering to the majority of Republicans who despise him.

    What exactly gets those voters excited though, that the GOP hasn't fucked them over on the last 35 years? Any candidate who doesn't recognize this trust deficit and overtly acknowledge it might as well pack it in.

  • ||

    I thought the same thing, but it is looking more and more like The Hildebeast is going to be out of the race, so it doesn't matter.

    Do I remember correctly that Bill Clinton campaigned for Obumbles during his last election? Now The big O has essentially endorsed Biden. I think she looks great with that knife sticking out of her back.

  • Flick||

    How in the world will Hillary wind up out of the race? She knows this is her last chance. She still has a lot of support, a lethal political machine, and a billion dollars plus another billion whenever she needs it.

    She's not going down unless she takes the whole party with her.

  • PapayaSF||

    If she bows out early she can legally keep her campaign donations. Oh, not for herself, of course, but they could go to a non-profit organization that coincidentally employs friends and family and cronies....

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    ...who could then reroute it to her and Bill's foundation.

  • John||

    The only thing keeping her out of prison is the possibility she might be President. She won't bow out.

  • Zaytsev||

    What if Obama promised a pardon if she stays out of the race.

    Would she trust him to hold up his end of the deal? Would anyone?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Biden will not put her in prison.

  • Zaytsev||

    Of course not.
    Biden is neither a federal prosecutor nor a judge.

    Will he political intervene in a criminal case to keep her out of prison? She shouldn't hold her breath - he's not that big of an idiot.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Nobody is putting her in prison. It isn't worth the backlash. Whoever prosecuted her would spend the rest of his life being hauled into court by Democratic prosecutors on felony charges of his own. Everybody's guilty of something -- you can't live in America without committing felonies.

  • straffinrun||

    Thing about Godzilla is he trashed not only Sodom, but also Gomorrah.

  • ||

    ...correct.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    V'Godzilla himtir al-Sedom ve'al-Amorah gofrit va'esh me'et Godzilla min-peho.
    Vayahafoch et-he'arim ha'El ve'et kol-hakikar ve'et kol-yoshvey he'arim vetsemach ha'adamah.

  • ||

    At least get my name right. Don't use that hideous Anglicization.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for these fora.

  • Rhywun||

    Qapla'!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    je tlhIngan Hol wIjatlhaH

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *wIjatlhlaH

  • straffinrun||

    tlhlngan?

    I'm suspecting that means teathuglican in nonAmerican.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

  • straffinrun||

    Trying to talk about trump and all I git is load of forign jibberish.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    'amerI'qa' yIchenmoHqa'!

  • ant1sthenes||

    So, is it just a coincidence that the guy who's completely upended the conventional rules of politics is named Trump? Or that the woman who went to Congress to demand free shit for her ladybits was named after a parasite? Or that the guy who thinks American military might is the key to all problems is named Max Boot? Or that the scammer who made off with a bunch of famous people's money was named Madoff? That the politician whose appeal lies in the intersection of paleocon evangelicals and libertarians is named after a noted saint of each movement?

    I guess what I'm asking is, do you think this style of naming characters is dead serious and utterly devoid of subtlety or humor, like Rand and Wesley Mouch, or is it just irreverent and cheeky, like Stephenson and Hiro Protagonist? I'm trying to determine whether to be optimistic or pessimistic about our future. And how should one feel about the idea that reality isn't actually real?

  • Quincy.||

    As real as Deez Nuts!

    *grabs crotch*

  • ||

    The genius behind the matrix is giving us hints. We aren't too bright so he has to give more and more obvious ones until we catch on.

  • PapayaSF||

    They're just messing with us.

  • Dan Bongard||

    So, is it just a coincidence that the guy who's completely upended the conventional rules of politics is named Trump?

    The name's even better if the author happens to the British.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    So where were all these Trumpistas during the 2008 election telling us how we should have just been nicer to Obama supporters and then they would have totally been libertarians?

    Or are incredibly stupid authoritarian conservatives somehow different than incredibly stupid authoritarian leftists?

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Look, leftists are total psychopaths consumed by envy, brainwashed by books and colleges. They're gawking idiots who get wrapped up in cults of personality because they have no real ideas of their own. They hate, they spread hate, their concerns are selfish and they will always side with the most punitive solution available. They're good for nothing but mockery and frequent psychological analysis via the latest Salon clickbait.

    But we're here talking about wall-building, protectionist conservatives who are clever enough to come up with a term like "cuckservative." I'm not a Trump supporter or anything, but maybe we should be listening to their concerns and regard them as intelligent but frustrated people just looking for a solution. Not like those goddamn leftists the cocksuckers I hate those bastards.

  • ||

    My name is John, and I approve this message.

  • John||

    I just don't hate the white trash like I should.

  • ||

    Correct. People who enthusiastically support Trump are nativist economic ignoramuses who confuse political correctness with basic civility and are every bit as bad as the lefties they purport to oppose. If you don't hate these people as well, you're just as biased as the "lamestream" media.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Trump's supporters are at least as bad as the Obama-phone lady and the woman who thought Obama would pay her mortgage.

    Weird. I don't remember John telling us to be nice to those women on the grounds that they were really just good people who could be won over if we didn't drive them away with our cruelty.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • John||

    No one is perfect. And fuck civility. The left isn't civil. Frankly I hate the powers at reason as much as anyone these days. They are dishonest phonies more interested in posing and sucking up for their big break in the lefty media than they are in accomplishing anything. I literally only read the comments these days. The comments are at least entertaining and sometimes smart. The articles are at best a waste of time and often stomach churning.

  • ||

    I would comment on how strange that is, but I sometimes do the same thing with Slate, Salon, and Jezebel, so I'm certainly can't throw stones from my glass house.

    That being said, "Nobody's perfect, fuck civility, fuck it if the people I'm supporting are actually just as vile as the people I don't like, I'm just so fucking full of hate that I'm going to support the proto-fascist anyway. At least he sticks it to the lefties!" was probably a sentiment very much in vogue in Germany in the late 20s/early 30s.

    There, I finally went there.

  • Winston||

    Well Germany in 1932 had a choice between bankrupt incompetent democrats, Communism, Nazism or a military dictatorship. None of those choices are very palatable. And I fear that the US will end up in a similar situation soon.

  • ||

    Your entire statement is 100% accurate, and that's terrifying.

  • Winston||

    Fun little comments about Weimar's Collapse:

    The last democratic cabinet fell because the Social Democrats rejected an increase to unemployment benefits for being too low.

    For the next three years the cabinets ruled by Presidential decree totally ignoring the Reichstag.

    Using a street battle between Nazis and Communists as a pretext the German federal government took over the Prussian state government, including its police force. When Hitler came to power in what was supposed to just a figurehead cabinet he had Hermann Goering appointed Interior minister of Prussia. This gave Goering control of the largest police force in Germany and he filled with Nazis.

    I'm sure none of those scenarios can possibly have relevance to America!

  • Zaytsev||

    Frankly I hate the powers at reason as much as anyone these days. They are dishonest phonies more interested in posing and sucking up for their big break in the lefty media than they are in accomplishing anything.

    Yep.

    It's the way of the Cosmo.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Maintaining civility and not indulging John's neurosis = way of the Cosmo

  • Winston||

    basic civility

    When did Reason care about civility? The commenters don't and their writers write about however should do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone physically and how self-censoring is bad.

  • ||

    The commenters aren't running for office.

    If they were, I would strongly advise them to drop the pedophile jokes, and if they didn't, I would probably condemn them for it.

  • John Titor||

    When did Reason care about civility? The commenters don't

    You mean people may act unprofessional on the internet but expect a man running for the most powerful position in the world to display at least a degree of professionalism? Or the self-awareness not to complain about FOX's lack of professionalism while spending the next week badmouthing people on twitter?

  • Winston||

    Civility and professionalism aren't the same thing you know. That said Trump's unprofessionalism is terrible.

  • John||

    They were writing for Reason saying how they always wanted to vote for a black man and how fabulous it was for the youth to be involved in politics and how Obama was a libertarian choice.

    The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama was supported by people the writers and commentators on this board like and want to be accepted by and Trump is supported by people that reason writers social signal by hating.

  • Winston||

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....-libertari

    It's a pathetic statement about contemporary American politics that a few short years from now, libertarians may start to feel nostalgic for the guy.

    Libertarian moment!

  • Winston||

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....n-powers/1

    I, too, was impressed enough with Obama's economic advisers and campaign language that I pegged fiscal restraint and honesty as the only "glimmer of possibility" for his presidency

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....as-numbers

    But you should listen to what he campaigns on day after day, especially if he goes on to win big. Amid Obama’s host of illiberal campaign ideas—“fair” trade, centralized energy policy, New Deal–style infrastructure projects, more federal dollars into the sinkhole of public schools—the Democratic candidate also spiced his daily stump speech with a firm-sounding nod to fiscal responsibility. Coupled with a sorry budget situation that’s certain to get worse as a result of massive income tax losses from Wall Street, this commitment to fiscal sobriety may strangle many of Obama’s more expensive fantasies in the crib and crack open the door for ending or privatizing any number of inefficient federal programs.

  • PapayaSF||

    the Democratic candidate also spiced his daily stump speech with a firm-sounding nod to fiscal responsibility

    As did FDR in 1932, by the way, and we know how that worked out.

  • Winston||

    Or Gillespie's statement that Obama will end America's "odious" racial discourse.

  • John||

    Trump is the right's Obama. Of course the leftists at Reason hate him no one ever likes looking in the mirror.

  • SIV||

    Balko still wins the Obama cock-sucking award.

    Weigel and Nick must have gagged.

  • PapayaSF||

    I hardly think that "let him have his free-market-leaning advisor" amounts to "cock-sucking."

  • SIV||

    Goolsbee was never a "free market" economist, despite his association with a freshwater institution. He was( and is)a fucking state-socialist toady.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "They were writing for Reason saying how they always wanted to vote for a black man and how fabulous it was for the youth to be involved in politics and how Obama was a libertarian choice."

    That's mostly lies, and Irish was referring to the commentariat.

  • John||

    Yeah those links Winston put up were all fake. You were not even on here in 08. Stop fucking lying. Stick to being stupid. It is the only thing you are good at.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The irony...it burns.

  • John||

    It only burns because you don't know what the word means Frank. And you might be the one person on here dumber than cytoxic. It is a close cal you are as dense as a brick wall. I have literally never seen you understand anything beyond the most crude logic.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Yeah, asshole. Shitting up thread after thread with the same inane butt-hurt for months on end makes you the poster child for logical intelligent discussion.

    John, you are a fucking moronic troll. You've completely lost any credibility you once had, which wasn't fucking much to begin with. Now you are on par with Tony and Buttplug, only worthy of scorn and ridicule.

    Yes, irony wasn't the right word. Projection was what I was looking for. I'll take that hit. For future reference, this is how one admits to being wrong.

  • PapayaSF||

    Boys, boys, settle down and play nice.

  • lap83||

    "Or are incredibly stupid authoritarian conservatives somehow different than incredibly stupid authoritarian leftists?"

    Like John and Winston pointed out, not everyone who supported Obama was an incredibly stupid authoritarian leftist. Therefore, maybe not everyone who supports Trump is the right-wing equivalent. Ill-informed, sure.

    Yes, there are stupid people whose minds you're never going to change. But you're never going to persuade anyone unless you acknowledge that there is an art to persuasion and part of it requires that you don't hate humanity. It requires a certain optimism that maybe you can find some common ground or a new angle to present to people who disagree with you and they're not all vile demon creatures.

  • lap83||

    That said, I still don't think any of the other candidates need Trump's supporters, per se. He doesn't have a majority of the support. But it doesn't hurt for the other candidates to work on their persuasion skills. They pretty much all suck at it and it would just take one of them to improve on it to set themselves apart from the pack. Of course, I would love it to be Rand Paul that does this. But, objectively, this is what needs to happen to beat Trump.

  • PapayaSF||

    lap83, I agree with your first post, but not the second. Any GOP candidate needs the supporters that Trump is getting. Lack of enthusiasm for McCain and Romney got us Obama. Not that I'm saying we should have been enthusiastic for either of them, or should be for Trump. But he's doing a lot of what Obama did in 2008: getting people enthused and talking.

    Take on Trump by stealing some of his thunder. Promise to at least attempt to enforce immigration law, starting with the obvious: let's stop importing dangerous criminals and welfare cases, and try to send back some of the ones here now. So no, that's not advocating that ICE busts down the door to drag away Nanny Isabella. It's saying that every illegal alien robber, rapist, drunk driver, and gang member who gets caught in the system (federal or state or local) gets deported (sooner or later) and stays deported.

    I've heard the blab: "immigrants don't commit other crimes/use welfare at greater rates." False, but the rate is beside the point, because it happens frequently. It ticks off vast numbers of people to see the catch-and-release backstories to gory crimes. They see schools and freeways and jails clogged with immigrants. They see people who don't speak English in the grocery store line ahead of them, sorting their groceries to pay with WIC/EBT for most and paying cash for the gallons of cheap wine. (As I saw this week, but they were speaking Chinese and not Spanish.)

  • GamerFromJump||

    This. Most people are not keep-everyone-out rabid. They have no problem with people doing work or going to school, as long as said people follow the rules like everyone else the world has (though those rules are in desperate need of fixing, make no mistake). What they DO have a problem with is:

    1 - Being strangled by Regulaviathan when following the law, while those who don't laugh their way past to the bank.

    2 - Having their "fair share" of ever-higher taxation going, even in part to support people whose only action to get such remuneration was to get here.

    3 - Seeing the importation of third-world basketcasery, and politicians response being to court it in an effort to elect a new people.

    4 - Being told, in the face of brutal criminality, that "making sure that people aren't afraid to talk to the police" (which doesn't happen anyway) is more important than actually keeping said brutal criminals locked up.

    5 - Being told that any objection to any of the above is evil-racist-yokel-badthink.

    Under the theory that, as Jeff Foxworthy put it in another context, "If they're going to call you a pervert, you ought to act like one", people who hold a fairly reasonable position but feel they are getting absolutely no traction with it, will start to harden towards the UNreasonable position.

  • GamerFromJump||

    To summarize: Most people are not "took-our-jerbs-build-a-wall"-types, but they are finding a lot more common cause with such than they are the Cytotoxicesque "let everyone in-no controls at all"-crowd. Trump is taking advantage of that, and Paul fails to realize this at his peril.

    You're right that he would be well-served by putting forth a reasonable reform plan, and maybe not maligning people while doing it.

  • PapayaSF||

    Thanks, yes.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "Yes, there are stupid people whose minds you're never going to change. But you're never going to persuade anyone unless you acknowledge that there is an art to persuasion and part of it requires that you don't hate humanity. It requires a certain optimism that maybe you can find some common ground or a new angle to present to people who disagree with you and they're not all vile demon creatures."

    Counterpoint:

    ""“He’s not afraid,” said a woman who voted twice for Obama. “He keeps prodding on even if people give him negative press. He doesn’t change and apologize.”""

    ^^^^ What do you think of people like this? They are legion. Furthermore:

    ""When the group listened to a clip of Trump claiming that as president “the military is going to be so strong” that “nobody is going to mess around with the United States,” nearly everyone registered approval on their dial meters of 100—a seldom occurrence among focus groups.""

    So Trump supporters like that he doesn't change or apologize and that he says thinks like 'nobody is going to mess around with the United States' without bothering to explain what that means.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Look at who is voting for him. Look at them. Look at the focus groups of his supporters that are starting to come out. They are morons. I'm sorry if I'm not polite enough for you. Normally I get along with you and we agree on most issues. But I think you're being too nice here. These people aren't being 'persuaded' by having a 'new angle' presented to them, they're being told that there are Mexicans and Chinese people who are destroying their lives, that Trump will magically make the military SUPER AWESOME and that Trump likes talking shit to people, and that's why they support him.

    Then there's this shit:

    ""“We know his goal is to make America great again,” a woman said. “It’s on his hat. And we see it every time it’s on TV. Everything that he’s doing, there’s no doubt why he’s doing it: it’s to make America great again.”""

    This is all from a focus group of Trumpites that Frank Luntz took. They give him flying colors for platitudes about AMERICA BE STRONG, YAY, they like the fact that he's just an asshole who won't apologize for anything, and one woman approves of his hat messages.

    Tell me where the hope is. Where is the optimism. Where is the art of persuasion that someone like me, who isn't willing to debase himself with utter idiocy like this, could possible practice?

  • PapayaSF||

    I get where you're coming from, but to me that is just the flip side of the 2008 voters who thought Obama would make the world love us, end racism, stop the rise of the oceans, and/or pay for their mortgage. if I have to let a group of deluded morons choose a President, I'll take the "He'll make America strong" morons over the "He'll soak the rich and end poverty and racism" morons.

    Plus, as terrible as Trump is on many economic issues, he at least has a certain degree of comprehension of how markets work. Yes, he exploits them in crony-ish ways, but he doesn't hate them, the way Obama or Sanders do.

  • Winston||

    So how's that libertarian moment going? When I think of "libertarian moment" I think "Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders/Joe Biden are the lesser evil".

  • SIV||

    Jeb! is the lesser evil. Expect a "libertarian case for" endorsement from reason as soon as Rand Paul drops to 1% territory.

  • John||

    No. It will be the libertarian case for Joe Biden. Doherty has always wanted to vote for a complete idiot.

  • SIV||

    It will be the libertarian case for Joe Biden

    lol

    That would be a tough one. I think there's more to work with on a "libertarian case for" Huckabee or Christie and that's some thin ground, so to speak.

  • John||

    See Winston's links above. They made it for Obama.

  • ||

    Jeb!
    At least I'm not Hillary!

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, I guess hard times flush the chump. Everybody's lookin' for answers.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kj5YNBPKzg

    Okay, let's all calm down and discuss something we can agree with.

    Milo Yiannopolous making fun of feminists for complaining about fat-shaming.

  • John Titor||

    Somewhat OT, but fat relevant: I don't read many DC comics anymore, but when the fuck did Amanda Waller get skinny? The Wall was badass because she didn't give a fuck, she was just some ordinary middle aged woman who could intimidate people who could punch her head off. She's goddamn fat Nick Fury with less morals. Why the hell would you ruin that?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    but when the fuck did Amanda Waller get skinny?

    The New 52 reboot. The premise was that in the new universe this was a younger Waller who had just left the military, so was still in shape.

  • John Titor||

    Waller's ex military? Has that always been a thing? Batman told me she was a Rhodes scholar with a PhD in political science.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Has that always been a thing?

    No, but with Jim Lee as co-publisher, he found it necessary to stick Wildstorm's dick into every pie he could find. So you have Waller serving on a black ops team with the future Grifter and two-eyed Deathstroke.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A better question is why the fuck is Katana part of the Suicide Squad in the upcoming movie?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Arrow tie-ins?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Arrow tie-ins?

    More polite than my theory of tokenism.

  • John Titor||

    DC's intellectual property is run by idiots to think things like the Joker saying "I'm here bitches' is a good idea?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    DC's intellectual property is run by idiots to think things like the Joker saying "I'm here bitches' is a good idea?

    Perhaps because it's getting close to my bedtime, but I'd wager that had it been Hamill's Joker, as opposed to Baker, Hamill could have pulled that line off.

  • John Titor||

    I know that sounds weird when I'm talking about a homicidal clown with a bunch of different interpretations, but it just seems really, really out of character. Of course he would enter the room with a bit of flair, I just think it'd be more 'circus showman' than 'frat boy'. I don't think even Hamill could pull it off.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't think even Hamill could pull it off.

    There is only one way to know.

    Off to change.org!

  • John Titor||

    Hamill's Joker is retired/dead, and I doubt it's coming back, unless he wants to get Tara Strong on his lap again. They killed him off pretty well in Arkham City.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • GamerFromJump||

    "Hamill's Joker is retired/dead, and I doubt it's coming back, unless he wants to get Tara Strong on his lap again."

    Who wouldn't?

  • GamerFromJump||

    Hamill and Conroy were the definitive Joker and Batman.

    Yeah, I said it.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They want to be Marvel, bless their little hearts.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But they can't be, because Marvel is better than DC.

    The only hero they have that I'm excited for is Deadpool. I like Batman but he's done.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The only hero they have that I'm excited for is Deadpool.

    Who is the "they" in that sentence?

  • John Titor||

    Cytotoxic not a fan of The Question, confirmed as fake Objectivist.

  • Cytotoxic||

    OH SHIT COVER BLOWN COVER BLOWN

    *Swallows cyanide pill*

    Damn. That has no effect. Objectivism is so good, that even faking it makes you invincible. INVINCIBLE

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "But they can't be, because Marvel is better than DC."

    But DC has easily the best comic series - Batman and his rogue's gallery. DC also owns Vertigo so even though they don't have as many great superheroes, they have the best mini-series and adult comics due to stuff like Y: The Last Man.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Batman and Deadpool are all they have.

    They = DC

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Deadpool is a Marvel character.

  • Cytotoxic||

    OOPS. Well uh that just shows that I'm not a comic book nerd, and am therefore cooler than you.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Deadpool sucks. Only crazy assholes break the fourth wall.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The trailer looked awesome.

  • John Titor||

    DC also owns Vertigo so even though they don't have as many great superheroes, they have the best mini-series and adult comics due to stuff like Y: The Last Man.

    Vertigo is great for non-superhero comic books, such as Warren Ellis' magnum opus, Transmetropolitan.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    DC also did Sandman, but I believe that was before the Vertigo Imprint existed. Plus you have Watchmen.

    DC has easily the best mini-series. It's not even close. Alan Moore worked for them in their prime, so they've got Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, The Killing Joke, and Watchmen, which are three of the greatest mini-series ever. Plus they had Sandman and Vertigo had Y: The Last Man and publishes Hellblazer (which I've never read, but hear is awesome).

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "DC's intellectual property is run by idiots to think things like the Joker saying "I'm here bitches' is a good idea?"

    In fairness, DC's decision to go with a Suicide Squad movie with Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn is genius. That movie will take all of my money.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I want to like that trailer but...it might suck. A lot. Why is Will Smith in this? Why is the tone so humorless and heavy? I have a bad feeling.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why is the tone so humorless and heavy?

    Where are you getting that? The footage they have revealed, I'm thinking of the scene where Harley breaks Joker out of prison, seemed too wink-wink zany for my tastes.

    What the Suicide Squad is supposed to be about is the government taking advantage of the fact that when they direct psychopaths like Black Manta to kill terrorists and the like, the "bad guys" are more effective in maintaining world peace than the "good guys".

  • Cytotoxic||

    The trailer I saw was very different from the footage you've seen.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wouldn't be the first time Hollywood pulled the ol' switcheroo.

  • John Titor||

    Yeah, they need to promote that guy and fire most of the people who worked on the animated Suicide Squad movie.

    Also, come on DC, make a damn Red Son animated movie already.

  • John Titor||

    *In response to casting Robbie as Quinn.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Old Waller seemed like a perfect fucking Homeland Security bureaucratic asshole, like Janet Reno and Condi Rice had a baby.

  • PapayaSF||

    Holy mackerel, I don't follow comics but I Googled that and... wow. She's younger, thinner, bustier, lighter-skinned, and now looks half white. She went from surly DMV clerk to Halle Berry. Why was there not a huge uproar from the SJWs about that?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    While I tend to be disdainful of the "GET SHREDDED IN FOUR SIMPLE EXERCISES!!" industry, the "Health at Any Size" movement is certainly odious. It's actually going to get people killed in the long run:

    http://getoffmyinternets.net/t.....at-age-30/

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Milo is an extraordinary troll. I mean...

    http://www.breitbart.com/author/milo-yiannopoulos/

    Animals That Aren’t Delicious or Useful Deserve to Be Extinct
    Planned Parenthood’s Body Count Under Cecile Richards Is Up to Half a Holocaust
    16 Movements Less Ridiculous Than ‘Black Lives Matter’
    ‘Cuckservative’ Is a Gloriously Effective Insult That Should Not Be Slurred, Demonised, or Ridiculed
    Is Anyone Honestly Surprised That Greeks Don’t Pay Their Debts?
    Donald Trump, King of Trolling His Critics, Should Be the Internet’s Choice for President
    Gay Rights Have Made Us Dumber, It’s Time to Get Back in the Closet
    Here’s Why There Ought to Be a Cap on Women Studying Science and Maths
    It’s Time To Be Honest About Women’s Football
    No One Wants To Live In A World Of Uncircumcised Penises

    ... it's so beautiful.

  • John||

    I like him too. It is funny, a flaming English queen like Milo has more balls than the entire reason staff.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yeah, he's funny. Back during Gamergate I commented on one of his stories, talking about the similar SJW wars going on in science fiction, and he Tweeted my comment. He also reminds me of my gay friends who loved to be funny and outrageous. So I am positively disposed towards him.

  • Winston||

    You know I always feared that way things are going in the US was to either have a prog dictatorship or the Right would decide fight them and probably turn fascistic. Well that scenario is looking more likely.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yeah, I've been seeing that on the horizon for a while now too. Oh well. People gonna people.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    And when it happens it will be all my fault for not treating Donald Trump supporters more fairly.

    Wicked, wicked Irish, leading yet another country into the authoritarian darkness by being mean to idiots! When will I learn!

  • Cytotoxic||

    And that's on top of supporting gay marriage for the sole end of forcing Christian bakers to make cakes for them. So evil.

  • John||

    Yes. You are a fanatical idiot who doesn't understand foreseeable consiquences. We already knew that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You are moron who keeps stating that the baker oppression results from gay marriage, despite being that being contradicted multiple times.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Maybe he's an entirely reasonable idiot who doesn't take responsibility for the actions of other people, especially non-libertarians? The fucker isn't even American, why are the consequences of SCOTUS decisions his problem or responsibility?

  • John||

    They are not. And the truth is he probably understood the consiquences. He is smarter than Frank. He just likes them.

  • ant1sthenes||

    If you had just learned to reject all principles, you too could be seated at Trump's table of power with the conservatives. Because if there's one thing arrogant dictatorial bastards do well, it's share power equitably with the rubes that brought them into office. Or maybe not, perhaps the phrase "outlived your usefulness" might be uttered, you never can tell.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Normally I avoid RedState like a herpes infected grizzly bear but this was pretty good on Trump.

    When a politician goofs once, it’s easy for that to get stuck in the feedback loop of the media and other candidates.

    Watching Donald Trump speak and answer questions, though, is like watching a billion targets appear in the sky all at once, for a political opponent. Each thing he says is so bizarre, or ill informed, or demonstrably false, or un presidential in tone or character, that it becomes impossible to know which target to lock on to or focus on. And to the extent that he makes a policy statement, it is so hopelessly vague and ludicrous that it’s impossible to know where to begin, at least within the context of the 30-second soundbite that the modern political consumer requires (and chances are, he will say something diametrically opposed to it before the press conference is over anyway).

    Donald Trump is the political equivalent of chaff, a billion shiny objects all floating through the sky at once, ephemeral, practically without substance, serving almost exclusively to distract from more important things – yet nonetheless completely impossible to ignore.

  • Dan Bongard||

    That's a really apt metaphor.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    No matter what I say, or anyone else says, that giant tattoo on your thigh does not look good. Please stop showing me pictures.

  • Winston||

    The cosmotarians want to be accepted at cocktail parties, the yokeltarians want to be accepted at barbeques and the left-libertarians want to be accepted at college rap sessions.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Where do you want to be accepted at?

  • ant1sthenes||

    He just wants his fucking tail to stay on.

  • John||

    No where. I hate them all equally. The homos the holy rollers, the hipsters the kikes, Muslims spics, the whole lot are equally worthless.

  • Winston||

    I see many commenters are adopting the "Vote for the Crook. It's important" line. The Libertarian Era is dawning!

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Never change, Winston.

  • Winston||

    Gillespie and Welch have been peddling the "Libertarian moment is upon us!" for how many years? The closest we have to "rebelling against the establishment" so far are: Obama, Warren, Sanders, Trump. All quite libertarian aren't they?

  • Cytotoxic||

    HUR DUR WINSTON NOT UNDERSTAND POINT

  • Winston||

    So Cytotoxic care to explain how Welch can say that the libertarian moment is upon us yet say that there is a good chance that libertarians will start to feel "nostalgic" for Obama since his successors will be worse? Wouldn't a libertarian moment mean at least thinking that future President won't suck as much as Obama?

    Also, if America is on the cusp of a libertarian moment then politicians will be getting more relatively libertarian. A choice between Trump, Sanders, Biden, Hillary or Jeb doesn't strike me as evidence of a libertarian swing in American politics.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'd explain why the libertarian moment goes beyond who is president but that would go what you seem able to comprehend.

  • Winston||

    It's pretty simple Cytotoxic: if future Presidents suck but America is more libertarian, which would in turn make the President more libertarian even if it is just for political expediency, then they shouldn't be feeling nostalgic for Obama.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "which would in turn make the President more libertarian even if it is just for political expediency"

    Uh maybe. Politics lags people.

  • Winston||

    Politics lags people.

    So the lag will eventually catch up and lead to a more libertarian President. He might even just not do anything. He may suck but he will be better than his predecessors.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I might feel nostalgic for Obama when I'm living in Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong. I'll tell my asshole grandchildren "when I was your age, we had to walk uphill both ways to get our cavity searches and checkups from the combined NHS/DHS that Obama created in his third term. You little bastards have no idea how good you have it, with your $200 annual citizenship fees."

  • Sevo||

    Winston|8.25.15 @ 11:30PM|#
    'Gillespie and Welch have been peddling the "Libertarian moment is upon us!" for how many years?'

    Winston, those are headlines; intended to grab attention, not intended as a statement of fact.
    Do you get pissed when you use a new tooth-paste and women don't chase you down the street? Are you upset when the beer you buy doesn't result in the friendship of various athletes?
    Gullibility is not a mark of a questioning mind...

  • ant1sthenes||

    The universe requires balance, Sevo. Every light casts a shadow. Winston isn't mere flesh and blood, he's the universe's response to Reason's unwarranted optimism -- a voice from the dark and infinite expanse of nothing outside our tiny, fragile bubble of life, testifying to the futility of existence. Also, the universe is really, particularly upset about the Confederate flag, moreso than other SJW bullshit, for some reason.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, don't bogart that thing!

  • PapayaSF||

    "Much, however, of the energy that formerly flowed into ritual and religious observance now find expression in political creeds, or is frittered away in peculiar cults...." —An Introduction to Jung's Psychology: Religion and Individuation by Frieda Fordham

  • Winston||

    Sorry but "Reason is saying shit for marketing purposes" isn't really much of a defence. Anyway I suspected that if Welch and Gillespie weren't delusional they were saying it to sell books and perhaps to engage in Tinkerbell thinking. You know "if we keep saying there is A Libertarian Moment then people will begin to believe it and once enough people believe in it then it will happen".

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

  • ant1sthenes||

    Wait, which one is the Crook -- the Clintonista running for the Dem nomination or the Clintonista running for the GOP nomination?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Jesus fucking Christ you a monotonous asshole.

    Shut the fuck up already.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We get it: you hate the Libertarian Moment almost as much as you don't understand it.

  • Winston||

    So is Trump part of the libertarian moment? Sanders? Is Hillary, Biden or Jeb being the lesser evil part of it?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Again: woosh.

  • John||

    You are such a delusional idiot. Can you at least be an entertaining one?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Project much?

  • Sevo||

    WIH is RP 'attacking' what is in all likelihood to dissolve into waste in several weeks or months? Even our resident Trumpeter isn't *for* him, he's *against* the alternatives.

  • Cytotoxic||

    To stand out and attract votes.

  • Sevo||

    Thank you, obvious-man, I KNEW that.
    The question is WIH anyone thinks that would be accomplished by the effort.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Because Trump is the number one in the polls and is thin-skinned moron? Why wouldn't it!?!?

  • Sevo||

    See below.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Because it's free publicity? Like I said at the top, he should just go all out and challenge Trump to some kind of debate/wrestling match hybrid.

  • Cytotoxic||

    At this point, Rand is down on chips and may as well go all in. Trump is the kind of asshole who'd call on a busted straight.

  • Toast88||

    Attacking Trump is a mistake. Trump's voters should be Paul voters---pissed at Washington's business as usual and wanting a different kind of politician. Every time he attacks Trump, he's alienating the very people who should be in his camp.

    Who gives a shit? The voters' and pundits' reaction to the Christie dust-up told me what I already knew about GOP voters. They don't want freedom. Fuck 'em. Otherwise they'd like the guy who stood for 13 or whatever fucking hours to argue against killing Americans with unilateral drones. Fucking assholes.

  • Sevo||

    Toast88|8.25.15 @ 11:41PM|#
    "Attacking Trump is a mistake. Trump's voters should be Paul voters---pissed at Washington's business as usual and wanting a different kind of politician. Every time he attacks Trump, he's alienating the very people who should be in his camp."

    This is more to the point.
    Trump is a wasting asset; someone is gonna end up supported by those who currently claim they prefer that ego-maniacal asshole, and the way to do it is not pointing out that he's an ego-maniacal asshole.

  • Cytotoxic||

    John, this is what you sound like when you calling on us libertarians to be nicer to the 'should have been aborted' lot that make up Trump's base: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI

  • SIV||

    Like I said 300 comments ago. If Rand is serious about actually competing in this race he might want to think about attacking the GOP establishment. It worked for Trump and is working for Cruz.
    Republican voters hate their own party (which somehow makes them a TEAM per H&R-speak)

  • Cytotoxic||

    Trump IS the establishment.

    TEAM isn't just about party. Candidates can have idiot TEAMs of their own.

  • PapayaSF||

    Only for some strange, stretched definition of "GOP establishment." Having a Team is not the same as being the establishment. Sanders is more of the D establishment than Trump is of the GOP, that is to say, not very.

  • Dan Bongard||

    He has supported the GOP and Democratic establishment vocally and monetarily his entire life while opposing voices for reform. He was pro-McCain, pro-Hillary, pro-Romney, anti-Tea-Party, and anti-Contract-with-America. He supported gun control, H1-b visas, and single-payer health care.

    So yes, he's as establishment as they come. No rational person could think he's an outsider or a reformer.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If Rand is serious about actually competing in this race he might want to think about attacking the GOP establishment.

    SIV, you've finally said something I can agree with.

  • PapayaSF||

    I agree as well.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They might be dumb, but they've figured out the political class's game. The elites offered two cups, one labeled "Poison", the other labeled "Antidote", but having drunk from both, they've learned that the second is just a placebo. Now they want to play a new game, called "Hurt the fuckers who poisoned me."

  • SIV||

    "Hurt the fuckers who poisoned me."

    A very good game, well worth winning.
    #BTFSTTG

  • John||

    Exactly that. They don't care that he isn't a conservative. Hell I bet a good number of them don't even care about immigration. They just want someone to stick it to the establishment. That is it.

  • SIV||

    The majority.Extensive polling, posting and press interviews all confirm this. Yet a somewhat regularReason commenter, whose livelihood literally derives from asking customers "do you want fries with that?", sneers at them for being uneducated, unthinking, ignorant , low class losers. I deserve a civility award for not pointing this out in direct answer to his arrogance.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yes, and unchecked, that will lead to one of three foreseeable consequences:
    1) Trump loses the primary, runs Reform, splits the vote, Democrats win, and the best option there is Hillary.
    2) Trump wins the primary, horrifies general voters, Democrats win, see above.
    3) Trump inexplicably wins the primary and the general elections, governs in a way such that Democrats might as well have won because he isn't a conservative or even really that hostile to the elites.

    Since that's as foreseeable as lawsuits against Christian bakers, I imagine that you'll really let those Trump supporters have it when that happens, right?

  • SIV||

    I'm not seeing anything to suggest a President Trump would be any worse than Bush or Obama. Or any "major" candidate this election cycle. I'm not a Trump-supporter but the Trump-detractors show an irrational faith in our political establishment.

  • Sevo||

    SIV|8.26.15 @ 12:46AM|#
    "I'm not seeing anything to suggest a President Trump would be any worse than Bush or Obama."

    And I believe your comment. Which is not a compliment

  • ant1sthenes||

    I'm not saying he necessarily would be worse, even if I do think the Trumpista movement suggest fascistic tendencies are more common than we might hope. But what exactly is the endgame here, if all roads lead to Democrat or Democrat-esque rule?

    If politics is a game of checkers, then Trumpism is just the kid who's tired of losing and completely outclassed, stomping his pieces around angrily and randomly, possibly not even on legitimate squares, because he is frustrated and upset about the inevitability of losing. The other kid is too stupid and arrogant not to escalate, so it's only going to end with one of them flipping over the board. If we're really lucky, that means the GOP takes its metaphorical ball and goes home to Jesusland and Washington doesn't try to settle the question of secession the second time around with nukes.

  • Winston||

    We've seen Democratic one party rule before. Big cities like Detroit, Chicago and Jim Crow South.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I'm not seeing anything to suggest a President Trump would be any worse than Bush or Obama.

    It isn't that he'll be worse, it is that there is no rational reason to think he'd be better.

  • Dan Bongard||

    They just want someone to stick it to the establishment.

    The fact that they think supporting Trump "sticks it to the establishment" is exactly what makes them idiots. They are hated largely because they're destroying any chance of nominating one of the half-dozen actual reformers in the race.

  • Winston||

    Rand's problem is that he didn't want to run as the anti-establishment bomb thrower but Trump has and it has been good to him. Rand is in the awkward position of trying to attack the "anti-establishment" figure when the establishment hates him too, probably more than Trump.

  • SIV||

    This is entirely correct. As much as I hate to say it this makes Rand Paul both a literal and figurative "tool". I'm gonna feel pretty good about not voting next year.

  • Sevo||

    Winston|8.26.15 @ 12:08AM|#
    "Rand's problem is that he didn't want to run as the anti-establishment bomb thrower but Trump has and it has been good to him."

    Yeah, it's been 'good to him' for, oh several weeks.
    Crash and burn.

  • Winston||

    Even if Trump crashes and burns he will have lead the polls for a while which can't be said for Paul.

    Also Rand didn't want to run as an the anti-establishment bomb thrower but he couldn't run as the Sane, Sensible Bipartisan Moderate liked by the Dems and MSM either.

    Also another problem with Rand is that the MSM wants to ignore him. In order to get attention he will have say some rhetorical bombs which will get him negative attention from the MSM and the other candidates. Saying something Trump-like would alienate the libertarians but something libertarian would alienate many conservatives.

  • Sevo||

    Winston|8.26.15 @ 12:32AM|#
    "Even if Trump crashes and burns he will have lead the polls for a while which can't be said for Paul."
    Yeah, how about that?

  • Winston||

    If Rand languishes at the bottom it is hard to say he was more successful than a brief rise and then collapse.

  • Sevo||

    Winston|8.26.15 @ 12:45AM|#
    "If Rand languishes at the bottom it is hard to say he was more successful than a brief rise and then collapse."
    Uh, well, uh, was there a point there?
    Pretty sure to RP the intent is the nomination, not bragging rights for leading the polls at X-week.
    Are you trolling?

  • Winston||

    What is your point Sevo? You complained about three words in my 12:08 post that aren't really all that relevant to the main point.

  • Sevo||

    Winston|8.26.15 @ 1:00AM|#
    "What is your point Sevo?"
    You seem to have missed my question:
    "Uh, well, uh, was there a point there?"
    Now, care to answer?

  • Winston||

    As far as I can tell I said that Trump's anti-establishment bomb-throwing has served him well and you objected to that since you think he will collapse eventually which wasn't what I was talking about anyway.

  • Sevo||

    Winston|8.26.15 @ 1:23AM|#
    "As far as I can tell I said that Trump's anti-establishment bomb-throwing has served him well and you objected to that since you think he will collapse eventually which wasn't what I was talking about anyway."

    I'm to presume that from this?
    "If Rand languishes at the bottom it is hard to say he was more successful than a brief rise and then collapse."
    Logic; how does it work?

  • Winston||

    I was referring to my 12:08. Anyway I was mainly talking about the problems Rand is having and Trump collapsing won't solve them.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Haha, WTF, you're insane. Paul's goal should be to lead the polls for a while, months before any vote is cast?

    When was the last time the anti-establishment bomb thrower won? Gingrich placed nowhere in 2012. The Maverick lost in 2000. Unless Paul is here just to promote his image for this cycle, what good is leading the polls for a while?

  • Inigo "Chip" DuBois||

    So am I to understand that the way to defeat Trump is to play nice and show respect to his supporters? Sort of kill them with kindness and maybe try to talk them around to some isolated libertarian viewpoint like opposing eminent domain abuse while abandoning every other principle we hold dear?

    As for voting for Bernie or Hillary as the slightly less obnoxious choice -- no thank you. There are many good reasons to not vote at all or write-in "none of the above." What if an election came down to Hitler, Stalin and Mao? What, do you go for least huge of the body counts in millions?

    I hope the LP runs someone. I could give a shit if he or she gets 2% of the popular vote. Better to be among the rational fractional minority than with the vast, benighted mob.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If Franco were running in that election, you'd better vote for him and skip the LP alternative. Sometimes the lesser evil is the right choice.

  • PapayaSF||

    I agree, but that's an odd thing to hear from someone who likes to throw around the "fascist" epithet.

  • Sevo||

    Inigo "Chip" DuBois|8.25.15 @ 11:52PM|#
    "So am I to understand that the way to defeat Trump is to play nice and show respect to his supporters?"

    Did someone suggest that? I didn't read the entire thread and may have missed it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Ed Clark got a helluva larger slice of the vote than Ron Paul The Antichoice. Let's hope that lesson has sunk in. A Republican brainwashee is as passable in drag as a libertarian candidate as a bearded lady in a beauty pageant. Even a Trump supporter would spot the insincerity and counterfeiting.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    In happier news, teenager dies after being buried alive

    Footage shows frantic relatives smashing into the concrete tomb of recently buried Neysi Perez, 16, after they said they heard her screaming from inside. She had been buried the previous day.

    When they opened the coffin, Perez was dead. But according to relatives, she was still warm and had bruises on her fingertips. The glass viewing pane on her coffin had been smashed.

    "As I put my hand on her grave, I could hear noises inside," her husband, Rudy Gonzales told Primer Impacto TV news. "I heard banging, then I heard her voice. She was screaming for help."

    Perez, 16, had been three months pregnant, and apparently fell unconscious when she heard a burst of gunfire near her home in La Entrada, western Honduras.

    When she began foaming at the mouth, her parents – who thought she was possessed by an evil spirit – called a local priest who attempted to perform an exorcism.

    Perez was rushed to hospital when she became lifeless and was soon pronounced dead by doctors three hours later. She was buried wearing her wedding dress.

    Mr Gonzales was visiting his wife’s grave 24 hours after her funeral, when he says heard screaming coming from inside the tomb.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    The fuck...

  • SIV||

    apparently fell unconscious when she heard a burst of gunfire near her home in La Entrada, western Honduras.

    Shit, on that alone she could've qualified for a refugee/asylum visa. Complete with EBT card,SNAP, TAFDC and a section-8 voucher. President Jeb! could solve our lack of "outreach" and save these poor young women from being buried alive.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Well, isn't that special?

  • ||

    They blurred out her face. How am I supposed to know if this is a tragedy or not if I can't tell how hot she is?

  • SIV||

    here

    There has to be at least 50 million hotter 16 y/os out there but it is still a tragedy. R.I.P. Neysi.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You are a heartless bastard.

  • Sevo||

    "When she began foaming at the mouth, her parents – who thought she was possessed by an evil spirit – called a local priest who attempted to perform an exorcism."

    You'll forgive me if I see a bit of a problem here...

  • SIV||

    The priest didn't declare her dead. The credentialed doctors did.

  • Sevo||

    Yes, and if the doctors had been called earlier, well, things might have turned out differently, doncha think?

  • SIV||

    Yeah, they could've buried her alive sooner. A priest is probably easier to find in ShitHole, Honduras than an M.D. Probably kills a lot less people too.

  • Sevo||

    SIV|8.26.15 @ 12:33AM|#
    "Yeah, they could've buried her alive sooner."
    Lemme guess: Bleever?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Yeah, foaming at the mouth=possessed by evil spirits...a priest is just the ticket. Wouldn't even think of getting medical attention.

    The parents killed their daughter because of their mysticism. Ain't blind faith grand?

  • SIV||

    The priest didn't declare her dead, the doctors did. She was failed by their scientific authoritah.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The priest didn't declare her dead

    No, the priest declared her possessed by evil spirits.

  • SIV||

    Are we sure? Or did he refer her to the physicians? The priest didn't declare her dead or inter her alive. primum non nocere

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Are we sure? Or did he refer her to the physicians?
    When she began foaming at the mouth, her parents – who thought she was possessed by an evil spirit – called a local priest who attempted to perform an exorcism.
  • SIV||

    Her parents suspected the evil spirits. The priest just offered the treatment. The doctors declared a living woman dead. I'm failing to see where the priest is responsible for her living burial.

  • Sevo||

    SIV|8.26.15 @ 1:10AM|#
    "Her parents suspected the evil spirits. The priest just offered the treatment. The doctors declared a living woman dead. I'm failing to see where the priest is responsible for her living burial."

    That's because you're a ignorant bleever trying to justify your ignorant bleefs!
    Why isn't that surprising?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I believe your question was:

    Are we sure? Or did he refer her to the physicians?
  • Sevo||

    SIV|8.26.15 @ 12:51AM|#
    "The priest didn't declare her dead, the doctors did. She was failed by their scientific authoritah."
    OK, assuming you can't read as opposed to just being a bleever ignoramus, I'll try this one more time:
    "Yes, and if the doctors had been called earlier, well, things might have turned out differently, doncha think?"
    Now, you have a choice:
    1) Can't read
    2) Fucking bleever ignoramus
    Take your pick.

  • SIV||

    You're a man of irrational faith. Only the doctors declared a live woman dead. Why would you have any more faith in the Honduran doctors?

  • Sevo||

    SIV|8.26.15 @ 1:04AM|#
    "You're a man of irrational faith."
    You're a fucking ignoramus, hoping to justify your stupidity.
    May you get treated for mortal danger by some magician in fancy clothes, and here after presume your comments are treated as they should be.
    Fuck off.

  • SIV||

    May you get treated for mortal danger by some magician in fancy clothes

    White coat and a head mirror. All the sartorial trappings you SCIENCE-BLEEVERS need to know that some serious magic is underway. Like declaring a live patient dead and burying her alive.

  • Sevo||

    SIV|8.26.15 @ 1:23AM|#
    "White coat and a head mirror. All the sartorial trappings you SCIENCE-BLEEVERS need to know that some serious magic is underway. Like declaring a live patient dead and burying her alive."

    Ignoramuses think it's about "signs" and "costumes"!
    You're an ignoramus; fuck off,

  • Hank Phillips||

    Halleluja! Who sez mysticism is death-worship? We need to get this Poe feller to write more Reason articles.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Surely you mean drugs, right? The killer weed? Charles Manson LSD? The Demon Rum? Negro cocaine juju? Jamaica Ginger?

  • ant1sthenes||

    If they can't tell the living from the dead, I don't think we can really make any assumptions here.

  • Sevo||

    ant1sthenes|8.26.15 @ 12:38AM|#
    "If they can't tell the living from the dead, I don't think we can really make any assumptions here."

    I think we can make the assumption that a patient who hasn't been allowed to waste away while some fucking idiot makes 'magic' has a better chance of survival. Just ask Steve Jobs' doctors.

  • SIV||

    They have medical degrees. Sevo has faith in their magic pieces of paper and the mystical wisdom it confers. Despite their results.

  • Sevo||

    SIV|8.26.15 @ 1:06AM|#
    "They have medical degrees. Sevo has faith in their magic pieces of paper and the mystical wisdom it confers. Despite their results."

    No, it's their study of actual evidence instead of magical thinking.
    I hope you get very ill and get treated by people in funny hats and purple robes; asshole like you deserve to die slow and painful deaths, as did Jobs

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Obviously they needed a better priest.

  • Sevo||

    *Purple* robes? Funnier hats?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Snappier imagery.

  • Sevo||

    Hot stuff there!
    Keeps the bad juju away most always!
    But I didn't watch the entire thing; did they get to the bloody parts?

  • SIV||

    JuJu

    ^This is some really good shit^

    Archie Shepp attended the same college as the members of Phish and my hawt hippie cousin. Fortunately he had immense talents to fall back on.

  • ||

    Meh. I am calling bullshit on this story.

    I have seen a hundred cases like this. The more backward and ignorant people are the less they are able to tell the difference between what is in their heads and what is real.

    JJ has the most pertinent question. How do we know is this is a real tragedy or not?

    Ponder that while you listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6MAlv01AZ0

  • GamerFromJump||

    How THE FUCK are deaths by exorcism still happening in 2015?! Why in the name of Satan's flaming asshole are there not people demanding the immediate repudiation of such a practice?

  • *GILMORE*||

    Mad Max Fury Road is great.

    (charlese theron is 10X the character Max is, sadly)

    but the deadly-feminist-old-lady-agriculturalist biker gang is a bit much to swallow.

    usually when there's no dialogue from the main character for 30-40 mins, its a good sign. it means they're telling a story with pictures and action. But i'm 1.5hrs in and Max is no more detailed a person than he was in the pre-titles montage. The "haunted by his past" thing becomes a bit over-used and meaningless.

    Still, much better than the Avengers re-run

  • ant1sthenes||

    Felt a little like a videogame, where the protagonist is mostly a shell to insert the audience into the action, and the supporting characters are the ones with actual personality.

  • *GILMORE*||

    yes, very much so.

    the post mad-max, road warrior movies don't give a hell of a lot more actual character cues... he's a guy just 'trying to survive', but always ending up trying to help the helpless.

    but gibson seemed a much more multidimensional person in how he played it. its all in the eyes and how they play who he is when he's alone. Hardy is sort of dead faced and the moment when he chooses to actually help the ladeez is completely "oh, hey, look... my ghost daughter.... ok, i guess i'll just do something suicidal now". Its the only moment they get to give him depth and its done in a very shallow, superficial way.

    The action scenes make up for most of it. They're scripted in a way you don't see in films today, which because of CGI, just throw everything at you at once and never make a 'inner story' out of the action.

  • John Titor||

    The "haunted by his past" thing becomes a bit over-used and meaningless.

    Every Mad Max movie plays out the same way, except the first one. Mad Max starts out alone as his typical half-crazed barbarian self, tortured by his past, only to come in contact with people who need his help, which ends up humanizing him again (usually through some interaction with children or women). In the end, after helping them, he fades away into the desert and it starts all over again.

    I thought Fury Road was a pretty good action movie, but it still pales in comparison to Road Warrior.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Honestly, I think Max shouldn't grow between opening and closing. He's that gunslinger from old Westerns who rides into town, wants to be left alone but is pulled along into whatever the local problems are, solves them as they need solving, then rides away.
    The old lady gang was somewhat subversive - they know shit-all about agriculture, their lovely commune went to shit, and now they bait travelers to kill them for their stuff. Very enlightened, ladies!
    Furiosa was a cool character, I thought, but by the gods, if "man with tits" was ever a real thing, it was her. I didn't think she had more personality than Max, she was just further along the "fine, I'll get involved" track.
    Still awesome movie, still hope to see a sequel. May even get the tie-in video game when it comes out!

  • *GILMORE*||

    "Honestly, I think Max shouldn't grow between opening and closing."

    No one said he should. its just that when you play a character, they're made up of various "tones". Mad Max, Mildly Amused Max, Scared Max, Horny Max, Sneaky Kick You in the Balls Max, etc.

    Hardy's max is either "sad about something he's thinking about" or "serious fighting face". the character depth isn't there.

    And the Charleeze character has lots more. She starts off as the "respected badass", she has sneaky plan, then loses faith (moment of weakness), .reveals her childhood dream to find it lost.....etc. She starts off very one-note, and develops 3 or 4 more facets by the middle.

  • straffinrun||

    Damn, I step out to have some coffee and come back to see a wall of "Idiot!". I don't give a shit who started it, you're all to take a 15 min timeout a zerohedge comments. It's my version of scared straight.

  • PapayaSF||

    Gads, what a punishment. They're better than Youtube comments, but not by much. And always hundreds, and no way to sort by rating. That's why I like Disqus: if there are hundreds of comments, I can sort by "Best" and many of the better ones rise to the top.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

  • Winston||

    So Trump is smarter then Geordie and Riker?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    MAKE IT GO!

    /Winston

  • Winston||

    You do know that they were idiots to let Geordie get captured by them?

    And only a Pakled would think that I have endorsed Trump here.

  • Winston||

    So speaking of TNG wasn't the early years full of SJW propaganda? TOS was Rodenberry's ode to the Great Society and TNG was his rant at Reaganite America. Worf, LaForge, Yar, Troi, the Ferengi, Q, The Neutral Zone, Arsenal of Freedom, jabs at the Cold War in Encounter at Farpoint, etc.?

  • Winston||

    And Roddenberry was a sci-fi writer in the vein of Rod Serling who used the genre in order to use his thinly-veiled political propaganda (usually of a leftist bent) to get around the network censors.

  • JeremyR||

    Not to mention about that episode where the Warp Drive was destroying the fabric of the universe which was meant to be about the ozone layer...

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

  • Winston||

    Yes I got the joke. Pakleds are Dumb so they support Trump who is also dumb. I was making a crack at how Riker and Geordie were so dumb to be tricked by them.

  • Sevo||

    Winston,
    How many ducks and weaves are you going to use to hint/suggest/propose that Trump isn't an ignoramus?
    How many of us here do you hope are dumb enough to buy that pile of shit?
    Do you know those who presume the rest of us are that stupid get treated poorly, since it's insulting to those of normal intelligence?
    IOWs, are you hoping we'll tolerate fools?

  • Winston||

    Trump's an ignoramus.

  • Sevo||

    Yep, that convinces me!

  • PapayaSF||

  • Hank Phillips||

    Richard Nixon's electioneering strategy still carries the day. Pay the looter media to subsidize everyone BUT non-looters and the media will point spotlights and cameras at the mangiest, most idiotic millionaire willing to pretend to be a "third party" without a coherent platform. From the day Nolan's Libertarian Party formed to expose the Nixon Administration's prohibition, wage & price controls and genocide as not capitalistic, but rather, the exact system that operated to ruin National Socialist Germany, positive Christianity and all. God's Own Party meanwhile has the usual one (01 out of 301) anti-choice counterfeit libertarian proclaiming marijuana kingpins ought NOT to get the death sentence George Holy War Bush demanded in person and in print. BFD. The LP got its largest vote share ever when Ed Clark ran against Reagan and whatzisname, and a miserable showing when Ron Paul (The Antichoice) was smuggled in as a counterfeit Libertarian.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online