MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

When He Called for an End to the War on Drugs, Trump Claims, He Meant It Should Be Waged More Aggressively

The Republican presidential contender is keen to pretend he never said drugs should be legalized.

C-SPANC-SPANWhen asked about marijuana legalization at the Conservative Political Action Conference last February, Donald Trump said, "I think it's bad, and I feel strongly about that." During a 1990 speech in Miami, by contrast, Trump spoke in favor of legalizing not just marijuana but all prohibited intoxicants. Here is The Miami Herald's account of his remarks:

[Trump] said that legalizing drugs is the only way to win the war against what he considers to be one of America's most serious problems.

Trump blamed the country's drug problems on politicians who "don't have any guts" and enforcement efforts that are "a joke."

"We're losing badly the war on drugs," Trump said. "You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars."

Trump said tax revenues from a legalized drug trade could be spent to educate the public on the dangers of drug use.

In an interview, Trump said he felt it was an appropriate time to broach his ideas "because South Florida has such a huge problem with drugs."

"What I'd like to do maybe by bringing it up is cause enough controversy that you get into a dialogue on the issue of drugs so people will start to realize that this is the only answer; there is no other answer," Trump said. 

On ABC's This Week yesterday, George Stephanopoulos asked Trump why he changed his mind on this issue, and Trump implied that he hadn't:

Stephanopoulos: You used to think that legalization, taking the profit out, would solve that problem. What changed your mind?

Trump: Well, I did and I—I —not think about it, I said it's something that should be studied and maybe should continue to be studied. But it's not something I'd be willing to do right now. I think it's something that I've always said maybe it has to be looked at because we do such a poor job of policing. We don't want to build walls. We don't want to do anything. And if you're not going to want to do the policing, you're going to have to start thinking about other alternatives. But it's not something that I would want to do. But it's something that certainly has been looked at and I looked at it. If we police properly, we shouldn't do that.

In 1990 Trump did not merely say drug legalization "should be studied"; he said it is "the only answer," and "there is no other answer." And while he did call the government's efforts to enforce prohibition "a joke," he did not argue that the war on drugs could be won by trying harder. To the contrary, he said "you have to legalize drugs to win that war," because "you have to take the profit away from these drug czars"—by which I assume he meant drug traffickers, as opposed to Bill Bennett and his successors at the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

In other words, prohibition is self-defeating because it creates artificially high profits that motivate people to evade it. Although that seems like a smarter analysis than Hillary Clinton's position that we can't legalize drugs because "there is just too much money in it," now that he is vying to oppose her in next year's presidential election Trump is keen not only to disavow his critique of the war on drugs but to pretend it never happened.

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.

  • tarran||

    Gosh! I'm shocked that a self-promoting blowhard with very poor impulse control got caught lying!

  • John||

    Does it matter? Supporting Trump is just a way to tell the media and people in Washington to fuck off. His actual views, integrity or competence are incidental. The only thing that is going to derail Trump is that someone else figures out a way to convince people that voting for them is an even better way to tell the media and anyone in Washington to go fuck themselves.

  • ||

    It sounds like Trump is either advocating building a wall around everyone who uses drugs, or just having the police to shoot them.

    Who wouldn't vote for that?

  • ||

    John, I really appreciate you confirming how voting is nothing but pure social signaling. I mean, I always knew that but it's good to see you come out and reinforce that.

  • John||

    I am not saying I am going to vote for Trump, but that is clearly what is going on. And I don't think it has always been the case. But it has certainly become the case in the last 10 or 15 years. The genius of the Obama campaign was that it figured out a way to make voting for Obama a brand. Supporting Obama was your way of saying you are not one of those "other people".

    It is also mostly a white people thing. Obama knew he was going to get the minority vote. The problem was the white vote. And the way he got the white vote was to make voting for him a way to show how you were not a lower class white. That is how he beat Hillary. Hillary won the white working class vote and that played right into the hands of Obama. It made voting for Obama something smart, educated and tolerant people do.

    Trump is the same thing only with a different brand. You vote for Trump as a way of saying you are not one of the dickheads who voted for Obama. The whole thing is mostly a fight among white people.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    "The problem was the white vote."

    The problem was never the white vote, he was assured of the White Guilt Vote from the outset. Also the It's Time for a Black (Halfbreed) President vote.

    And the I Don't Wanna Look Racist vote, and the Perhaps a Black Man Won't Fuck It Up As Bad vote, and the...

  • ||

    So you're agreeing with me. Because you just said, in so many words, that people vote as a reflection of themselves and what they want to be perceived as, and it often has little to no bearing on any actual issues or policies. Which is called social signaling.

    Trumpers are just flip-side versions of Obamatrons. I'm glad we agree.

  • John||

    I agree with you. Political brand means a lot. The Dem "I vote Democrat because I am not white trash" brand is wearing thin. The new and rising brand is "I hate Washington and the media and am am not going to be told what to do anymore" brand. That is why I think Hillary is likely going to lose. She is too connected to the old fading Dem brand to be able to latch onto the new "I am mad as hell" brand.

  • ||

    Who's going to beat her? Bernie? No way. All of the good proggies are supporting him now, but come time to actually cast that vote, they're going to get scared and pull the lever for Hillary, because else ... gulp ... A REPUBLICAN COULD WIN! Can't let that happen, gotta support the team.

    And then the GOP will nominate Trump, and then it's finally Hillary's turn.

  • John||

    Hyperion,

    Hillary is a totally known commodity. She cannot go any higher in the polls than she already is. She loses head to head with every Republican nominee except Trump and even that is close. You can say "but those people will get more unpopular as people get to know them" and they may happen. Even if it does, it won't help Hillary because she is so well known she can't get any more popular. At this point, Hillary should be beating every GOP candidate by double digits because of her name recognition. The fact that she is losing to all of them means she is in big trouble.

    And you were convinced Jeb had the GOP nomination. How is that working out? This year is not the same as 2012.

  • ||

    And you were convinced Jeb had the GOP nomination. How is that working out? This year is not the same as 2012

    John, you are way off here. I'd like for you to show me where I said that, because I can't remember even thinking it, let alone saying it. I said that the powers that be want it to be Hillary and Jeb, and that Hillary surely would love that. But I never predicted Jeb would get the nomination.

  • John||

    Okay Hyperion, my mistake. But, many of the same people who think Hillary can't be beat also thought Jeb couldn't. And they were wrong about that. This election is not going to be like the ones before.

  • ||

    Hyperion,

    Hillary is a totally known commodity. She cannot go any higher in the polls than she already is.

    That's high enough to beat Bernie.

  • John||

    Bernie is a circus candidate. He couldn't beat Trump.

  • ||

    And as each successive election brings new "this candidate is branded for what we think you want right now" candidates, it becomes less and less about any issues or policies and this is why each president seems to be worse than the last. Because all they were/are is the shithead that was able to get the most people to fall for their shtick.

    Personally, I like it. Politics and government are complete bullshit anyway, it's about time that that became as obvious as possible and hopefully breaks the system. But don't pretend that this election theater is anything but mobs of idiots signaling who they hate and why. Because that's all it is. Is that really something you want to participate in?

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Don't forget the Cytofascist, "If you don't vote you're a poseur and anyone who gets in is because you basically voted for them by not voting!" vote.

  • ||

    Al, ever notice how much people who are trying to get you to do something you don't want to do for their own selfish reasons whine when you won't do it? Well, there's the sociopathic Randian chickenhawk Canadian cripple for you.

    "Waaah...you won't vote the way I want and I need to try and convince you why you should, including trying to goad you into voting". Yeah. Ok. That's gonna work great.

  • John||

    Episiarch,

    You should welcome the Trump phenomenon, not because of anything Trump has to say but because his popularity shows that people have finally started to figure out that the promises politicians make are irrelevant. You don't read the right wing media like I do so you have probably missed it but the reaction to Trump's popularity at places like National Review and the Weekly Standard has been fucking priceless. They are all having heart attacks about how "Trump isn't a real conservative" like that matters or anyone gives a shit what they think.

    Sure, Trump isn't a real conservative, but neither are any of the other politicians these ass clowns claim are conservative. And the Trump supporters have figured that out and thus don't give a shit what his views are.They figure all of the politicians are lying so they might as well go for the one that at least has some charisma and seems to want to shake things up.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Nope - I'm a poseur showoff who hates Democracy™ and is just socially signalling. Cytofascist reliably says this every time someone brings up, "ain't fallin' for this shit and voting again."

    Poseurs - every last one of 'em.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I love how you are still pretending to be smarter than people who vote, like you know something aren't falling for it. The pretension, the self-regard, the....posing.

  • Zeb||

    I don't imagine that I am smarter than people who vote (well, I am smarter than most people who vote, but that's beside the point). I just decided it's a waste of time and energy. And gives legitimacy to the outcome, which will never be anything that I find at all acceptable.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ITT, poseurs butthurt over getting called out as pseudo-intellectual poseurs.

  • Loki||

    And of course along a similar vein, the MOST IMPORTANT ELEKSHUN EVAREST OMGZ VOTE OR DIE, BITCH! vote.

  • ||

    Well, the MOST IMPORTUNT ELEKSHUN EVAR shit is a staple now, dude. Ever since 2000 was so close, it's the mantra now. It's here to stay.

    I mean, this is all bread and circuses. All the people here and everywhere else arguing about who is going to win and why? They're all just masturbating, being entertained. It's American Idol writ large; who do you support? Who's dreamy? Who do you hate?

    Unfortunately, the winner of this reality TV show wins more than slowly fading quasi-fame and a shitty record contract.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    God, this also. Actually came up on some show the other day.

    Wait, I thought the LAST election was the most....never mind.

    Peak Election. Kind of like Peak Derp. We'll never reach it, cause the next one is always MOAR.

  • Citizen X||

    Don't forget the Cytofascist

    Come on, now. You can't expect a Canadian to understand electoral politics. Those floppy-headed maple-suckers still have pictures of the Queen on stuff, for God's sake.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Well, they don't vote for the :Prince and Princess of Canada, anyway. I think the Duke and Duchess of Ottawa appoint them......as is tradition....

  • Cytotoxic||

    She makes for a really good painting!

  • CZmacure||

    I googled the word "Cytofascist" because I wanted it to mean something.

    But the first google hit was this post so I'm betting it was just a typo.

  • ||

    To me, right now it appears that his goal is to make Hillary look reasonable on the WOD. She's saying that we should maybe reschedule MJ from schedule 1 to schedule 2. Of course, there is nothing reasonable about that, at all, and it's a solution to nothing. It's making the appearance of doing something, by doing nothing.

    But Trump's going to make that look like a great move by instead saying we should not only keep MJ illegal, but we should step up the WOD by using more force against people.

  • John||

    The drug war is important to you or me but most voters don't give a flying fuck about it and almost no voters are going to change their vote based on it. There is no deeper goal here other than Trump just saying whatever works in today's media cycle.

    You are delusional if you think Hillary's position on pot makes a dimes' worth of difference to her election chances. They don't because most voters don't care one way or another or if they do, don't care enough to change their vote based on the issue.

  • ||

    More than 50% of Americans want pot legalized. That's plenty of proof that it actually is an important issue. And with the reputation the cops now have, I think plenty of people are going to be turned off by Trumps suggestion that we double down on the use of police violence to keep people from smoking weed.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think plenty of people are going to be turned off by Trumps suggestion that we double down on the use of police violence to keep people from smoking weed.

    How many of those people vote in primary elections? I'm thinking not many. But you can bet that the talk show junkies will. And if Trump came out in support of legalization, he'd lose their vote. In the primary anyway.

  • John||

    More than 50% of Americans want pot legalized.

    Not every "American" votes and not everyone who votes changes their vote based on that issue. In fact, I would guess more people who vote and vote based on drugs are drug warriors.

    It is like gun control. The media always trots out these polls about how the majority of Americans want this or that form of gun control and it doesn't mean shit because that majority doesn't change how it votes based on that issue and gun owners do. Sorry, I would love to be all optimistic about ending the drug war, but it is not that simple.

  • wareagle||

    and pot is where a good many draw the line. Fine by me to legalize everything, but that is a minority viewpoint.

  • sarcasmic||

    The drug war is important to you or me but most voters don't give a flying fuck about it and almost no voters are going to change their vote based on it.

    Oh contraire monfraire. If he vocally supported legalization, the talk show hosts (and many in their audience) would immediately jump all over it. I think it would cost him the primary. And I'm thinking he is thinking the same thing. If he did it after the primary then TEAM instincts would take over and the talk shows would grudgingly support him, but not before.

  • John||

    Yes sarcasmic. To the extent people do care enough to change their votes, they are likely drug warriors who will vote to extend the drug war. I would love to believe ending the drug war is a winning strategy but I can't see how it is.

  • sarcasmic||

    Drug warriors show up to primary elections. Stoners don't.

  • wareagle||

    Drug warriors show up

    does this not make John's point?

  • Robert||

    Even those stoners who do vote in primaries don't make pot a priority issue in them. Drug warriors are more likely to.

  • Dan Bongard||

    The irony being that a vote for Trump says quite clearly that the voter is *exactly* the same as "those dickheads who voted for Obama".

    I am so sick of hearing all these complicated theories for why Obama was able to get elected. It is not complicated at all:

    1. Hillary Clinton is widely disliked, even within her own party.
    2. John McCain is widely disliked, even within his own party.
    3. George W. Bush was, in 2008, the most-hated President since Richard Nixon.
    4. The economy was a disaster and we were fighting an unpopular war the Republicans supported.

    And people wonder why Obama won. "Oh, it was because of 'white guilt'!". No, it was because Republicans were less popular than rectal cancer that year.

  • ||

    Only the Stupid Party can ensure a Hillary victory, and they're not going to let anything stand in their way of it.

  • John||

    Hillary was also very popular with a lot of people. She won every single primary. She was considered inevitable in 2007. And McCain was ahead in the polls right up until he ran to Washington and supported TARP.

    So there was more to it than the reason you give. And none of those reasons explain how he got re-elected despite failing in his first term. Obama is the only President in history to be re-elected with fewer votes than he was elected with. He got re-elected because his brand of "vote for me to show how enlightened you are" was impervious to circumstances in a way past political support was not.

    And yes, the Trump people are a lot like Obama voters. That was my entire point.

  • Dan Bongard||

    She won every single primary

    Um, what?

  • John||

    She did. Go back and look. Hillary won the primaries and Obama won all of the caucuses. Obama won the nomination because he won the caucuses so convincingly and got enough delegates in the non winner take all primaries that he ended up with the majority of delegates.

    The other thing was John Edwards stayed in the race through several of the big primaries. And this deprived Hillary of a lot of delegates even though she won the primary. One of the untold scandals of the 2008 election is how the media sat on the Edwards love child scandal allowing him to remain in the race and prevent Hillary from defeating Obama early. By the time he dropped out, Obama was winning enough caucuses, he was too strong to stop. If Edwards had dropped out before the actual primaries started, Hillary likely would have won the nomination.

  • Dan Bongard||

    She did. Go back and look.Hillary won the primaries and Obama won all of the caucuses.

    Obama won primaries in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, US Virgin Islands, Vermont, Virginia, Washington DC, and Wisconsin. He tied Clinton in the Missouri and New Hampshire primaries.

    So no, Clinton did not "win all the primaries". She won 20 primaries, lost 15, and tied 2.

  • SugarFree||

    Here's Dan with his fucking facts again. [eyeroll]

  • John||

    Do you need a hug Sugar Free?

  • SugarFree||

    Facts are very inconvenient things when you just want to go on an emotion-filled rant, aren't they?

  • John||

    Okay, but she won most of the primaries. And more importantly, she won all of the early ones which, had Edwards not been there, would have likely knocked Obama out.

  • Dan Bongard||

    John, I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate the 2008 election with a person who feels "just saying whatever feels right" is a good source of facts. :)

  • Win Bear||

    And yes, the Trump people are a lot like Obama voters. That was my entire point.

    You mean Trump voters might be choosing the lesser of two evils, or the candidate who is likely to do less damage even if it is due to incompetence? Sure. So, what does "your entire point" amount to? Nothing, it appears.

  • ||

    This.

  • Win Bear||

    I agree with your analysis for 2008.

    What I don't get is 2012: Obama clearly had failed at pretty much everything he promised in 2008, while he was running against a moderate Republican from a liberal state.

  • Loki||

    The only thing that is going to derail Trump is that someone else figures out a way to convince people that voting for them is an even better way to tell the media and anyone in Washington to go fuck themselves.

    I wonder why Deez Nuts isn't polling any higher then? I suspect that at least some of Trump's supporters really are dumb enough to think he can magically "make America great again" by getting Mexico - somehow - to build a wall and raise tariffs on imports or some shit. Others may be telling the the media and Washington to fuck off, or trolling the pollsters just to fuck with them. I'm not sure what the percentages of Trump's supporters fall into the two categories. I hope most fall into the fuck off/ troll category, but this electorate did elect Chocolate Nixon twice.

  • John||

    Who is Deez Nuts? I don't think people are trolling pollsters. I do, however, wonder how many of Trump supporters will actually show up and vote in the primary. I would be very surprised if he doesn't under perform his poll numbers.

    Trump might win the nomination and it is not impossible that he could win the Presidency. I think he likely won't. Someone will win the nomination. And it won't be Jeb or Kasich. That leaves Trump, Cruz, Fiorina, Carson and Rubio. If I had to bet, I would say Carson or Cruz.

  • Harun||

    Actually, of all of Trump's ideas, building the wall would be the easiest to accomplish. (See how fast Hungary built their fence.) Making Mexico pay for it is also quite possible. Just do what Oklahoma does and have a nice fat tax on all wire transfers overseas that is refunded with your tax return.

    On trade, I think his ideas are less possible.

    Note: I don't think either idea is very good. But the wall is pretty easy to build...we have experience building border fences in California, for example.

  • Nick W B||

    If that was my goal if rather vote for this guy: http://bit.ly/1OzYwYI

  • pronomian||

    Which other idiot running that has a chance should be vote for? Rubio who said, "I don't want my kids to smoke marijuana. And I don't want other people's kids to smoke marijuana. I don't believe there's a responsible way to recreationally use marijuana." Or Cruz who wants to lower sentences and give judges more flexibility? Or maybe Carson, "...marijuana is what is known as a gateway drug-- a starter for people who move on to heavier duty drugs. I don't think this is something we really want for our society." We all know where Christie stands.

    Funny, I wouldn't think anyone believes he will build a wall, deport millions of illegals, do anything that he says but wants to really believe he will do this. It's also interesting how many defended Paul when he moved toward neo republicanism in his intervention in the mid east saying he just said that to get elected.

    There may be no one worst than trump, but I would like to read a defense of any of these other idiots that are better.

  • John||

    You are giving a great example of what I am talking about above. People have figured out all politicians lie and thus are no longer persuaded by the usual "not a true Scottsman" arguments the GOP is putting up against Trump.

  • Dan Bongard||

    We can be pretty sure what Cruz, Paul, and a number of the other candidates actually believe, even if they're currently saying something else in hopes of election.

    In contrast, I doubt even Trump knows what the hell he plans to do as President. He's plainly just saying whatever pops into his head on a day to day basis.

  • pronomian||

    We can be sure what they say when they aren't saying what they actually believe? If they say what they don't really believe in order to get elected, then how can we be sure they won't do whatever they think they need to to get re elected? What they are good at is saying what people want to hear in order to get elected. The "problem" with trump is we can be pretty sure what he says is what he actually wants to do, we may not like it but at least we know going in what it is he want's to do, unlike the "established" politicians who talk according to the polls. This is where they are all confused. They are saying and doing what their handlers are telling them "we" want to see and hear them do. They are saying what they think the polls and their "base" want to hear but no one is believing them.The worst thing that happened to them is the last mid terms. They told us to trust them and vote them in and they promised things they never intended to do. The politicians running are cowards, they are afraid to offend anyone and try to be all things to all people. They don't know how fed up the grass roots are.

  • BigT||

    "The politicians running are cowards, they are afraid to offend anyone and try to be all things to all people. "

    Yale grads?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Trump knows the Trumpeters propping him up wouldn't go for legalization talk any more than they would amnesty talk.

  • B. Woodrow Chippenhaus||

    The only reason to hope Trump becomes the nominee is to also hope Sanders does so that a majority of voters might consider a third party a viable option.

    Otherwise, he's a shithead.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    God - I actually would love to see Trump v. Sanders. That would be something to behold. As I voted for neither of them....

  • Cytotoxic||

    It be hilarious until one of them wins.

  • Loki||

    I would love it if a third party candidate could at least win enough electoral college votes to prevent either TEAM from getting a clear majority, which IIRC would throw it to the house to elect the president and the senate to elect the vp. The salty ham tears coming from whichever TEAM loses would be even more epic than Gore/ Lieberman in 2000.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Not only would that be glorious, it might also mark the start of a serious effort by Congress to take back its power from the executive.

  • pronomian||

    That would be awesome, the house would elect Ryan, as long as he doesn't have to work too hard, and the senate would elect Graham. Yea, that would be glorious. I can't see any downside to those two.

  • Loki||

    It has to be someone who was on the various party tickets. Also, the congressional vote happens after the new congress is sworn in, I believe. Which means if the Dems can retake the Senate, we could end up with Trump a pres and Bernie Sanders as VP. Or vice versa if they retake the house And then hilarity ensues.

    *cues up The Odd Couple theme song*

  • Dan Bongard||

    It has to be someone who was on the various party tickets.

    No, it doesn't. I mean, *politically* there would be hell to pay if they didn't pick one of the major-party candidates, but the House could pick any natural-born American of the right age.

  • Robert||

    No, they have to select from among the top 3 electoral vote getters for president, top 2 for VP.

  • Robert||

    Congress doesn't want that power—& accountability—back.

  • Robert||

    They'd elect somebody they could simultaneously avow & disavow.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Isn't the goal of politics to win?

  • ||

    That's the first part of the goal. After that you have:

    2. Ignore everything you promised you'd do, and instead:

    3. Do what's best for you and your cronies.

    4. Maximize personal profit from 3.

  • ||

    The goal of politics is power. Sometimes you don't need to win to...uh...win?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Are you telling me that power isn't #Winning?

  • ||

    This is winning.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Charlie is Bi-winning. He said so himself.

  • ||

    It's double winning!

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    It's two!

    Two!

    Two winnings in one!

    /Doublemint Twins

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure that would actually appeal to Charlie. Hell, it appeals to me, and I'm (unfortunately) not on a drug called Charlie Sheen.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Now that you mention it - you're absolutely right. As always...

    *ponders this*

  • Crusty Juggler||

    And Epi adds yet another minion to his cult of degeneracy.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    I'm a follower by nature. Just a sucker for someone like Epi, really....

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Gross.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    *wipes hands across Crusty's face*

  • Dan Bongard||

    The nice thing about disliking Trump is that you can pretty much name any reason you please for disliking him, and even if you aren't *originally* right that he holds that position you'll be right soon enough.

  • ||

    Sounds about right.

  • ||

    Make no mistake, the GOP are once again going to prove that they are the Stupid Party and they won't be outstupided by anyone, not even some batshit crazy Demcrats!

  • R C Dean||

    I know. After losing in 2012 (what I thought would be the easiest election of all time to win), the Repubs seems to have looked up, realized that Hillary was actually even more beatable in 2016 than Obama was in 2012, and are currently digging real deep to see if they can't come up with another crazy, improbable, against-all-odds loss next year.

  • kinnath||

    In this case, the party seems to be totally aghast that "republican" voters don't give a shit what the party wants.

    At this point, I think the Iowas SoCons are going to go for Carson in the caucuses. So I don't think Trump will be here past the Iowa & New Hampshire. But who really fucking knows anymore.

  • Dan Bongard||

    The Republicans I know are in a frothing rage that the GOP "hasn't stood up to Obama", and has actually passed budgets instead of shutting down the entire government until ObamaCare goes away and a wall is built.

    Basically, they've gone insane.

  • lap83||

    passed budgets instead of shutting down the entire government until ObamaCare goes away

    You say that like it would be a bad thing

  • Dan Bongard||

    You say that like it would be a bad thing

    No, I didn't. I said it like it was an unrealistic thing, which it is.

  • Dan Bongard||

    To clarify: if you want to get rid of ObamaCare, you need the same thing the Democrats had when they passed it: control of Congress and the Presidency.

    Republicans are so pissed that their insane fantasy of "eliminating ObamaCare using nothing but majority control of 1 branch of government" has not come to pass that they have decided to "send a message" by electing Hillary Clinton in 2016. They're insane.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They are nuts but the GOP party bass are also nuts for bending over so much so often.

  • R C Dean||

    You say that like they've actually passed budgets.

    Instead of a string of continuing resolutions.

  • pronomian||

    When all you have is stupid in the party, the only ones you can elect are stupid.

  • ||

    Trump has to be the king of saying so much without actually saying anything. It's truly mesmerizing to listen/read his interviews. Like he's almost hypnotizing the audience.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    This is true. He really is a spellbinder. It's like watching a Cobra "trainer"....you start bobbing and weaving with him...next thing you know, it's Tuesday....

  • R C Dean||

    and you're waking up in a bathtub full of ice in Tijuana?

  • sarcasmic||

    He doesn't want to lose support of conservative talk radio, and coming out in favor of legalization would result in just that.

  • SugarFree||

    Trump: Well, I did and I—I —not think about it, I said it's something that should be studied and maybe should continue to be studied. But it's not something I'd be willing to do right now. I think it's something that I've always said maybe it has to be looked at because we do such a poor job of policing. We don't want to build walls. We don't want to do anything. And if you're not going to want to do the policing, you're going to have to start thinking about other alternatives. But it's not something that I would want to do. But it's something that certainly has been looked at and I looked at it. If we police properly, we shouldn't do that.

    He's the biggest shit anyone ever took in the ocean.

  • sarcasmic||

    He's the turd sandwich to the dem's giant douche.

  • ||

    Well at least a douche can be useful in the right context. i.e. smelly pussy.

  • ||

    No amount of douche could clean up a Hillary 'context'.

  • MSimon||

    +535

  • creech||

    For all that Trump's supporters supposedly want to tell D.C. to go fuck themselves, on the WOD it looks like they are falling right into goosestep with the D.C. crowd that has been pushing the WOD for like forever. Time to tell the
    WOD warriors to go fuck themselves too. Give Bill O'Reilly a stroke!

  • SIV||

    So he didn't recant. He just said he wouldn't do it right now as a candidate. That was an amazingly wishy-washy backtrack.

  • ||

    And he couldn't wait to throw walls and police right into the mix. Sounds like an authoritarian jackass to me.

  • SugarFree||

    Fuck you, Hyperion. SIV has made up his mind and your facts can go fuck themselves.

  • SIV||

    What "facts"? Trump said a bunch of vague contradictory shit to get Stephanopoulous off the topic. Is Rand Paul running around saying "maybe we should study" legalizing all drugs? Or "you're going to have to start thinking about other alternatives" ? Hell no

    Trump did what Trump does. What he didn't do was say he was wrong or that he changed his mind.

  • ||

    Look at my post below for some other stuff he's said.

  • SugarFree||

    Oh, man. I'm so fucking glad SIV was here. I mean I simply read the fucking article and understood what Trump was saying. Goddamn, I'm so glad SIV was here to clear things up.

    I guess We don't want to build walls. We don't want to do anything. And if you're not going to want to do the policing means that he doesn't want to build walls or do more policing, e.i. PROSECUTE THE DRUG WAR HARDER.

    Thank fucking Jeebus SIV was here to save me from plain fucking English.

    I've seen the light. VOTE GOP!

  • MSimon||

    VOTE GOOP!!11ty!!

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    The non-politician has become the consummate politician. Surprise, surprise, surprise...

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm actually impressed you showed up. You never pass up a chance to be a moron.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    But if "we" elect Trump, "we'll" win so much that "we'll" get tired of winning, because "we'll" be all winned out. And then no one will want to do drugs so YAAAAAAAY!

    #TRUMP2016

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Also, I'll bet Trump's house is much better decorated than Ben Carson's. So he has that going for him, at least.

  • SIV||

    I think 7th Day Adventists go burn in Hell for excessive Christmas celebration.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Yeah, SOME of us were over there, commenting. Hugh noted that Justin Beiber's house is prolly kewl, too, after I posted a pic of Jeff Gordon's trophy room.

  • Win Bear||

    Wow, Carson is even creepier and more arrogant than I thought.

  • ||

    If by better you mean everything covered in animal print and gold (think of a Russian Oligarch's pad, but less subtle), then sure.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Elephant tusks framing the bed, a' la "The Last King of Scotland".

    Yes.

  • Loki||

    think of a Russian Oligarch's pad, but less subtle

    Trump is the American version of that Russian oligarch with the miniature giraffes from that DIRECTV commercial a few years ago.

  • ||

    I'm not sure how much attention people pay to the crazy shit that Trump says. Surely his sycophant cheerleaders pay no attention at all. They're exactly like the hypnotized bovine herd animals that comprise the Hilltard minions.

    Anyone remember when he said that under his administration healthcare will be free for everyone and the government will pay for it? That was pretty recently that he said that.

    So, under Trump we'll have single payer FREE healthcare that no one has to pay for. We'll have a giant wall around the country, and he'll build more walls and hire more police to make sure that no one smokes any funny stuff.

    Wow, what's not to like about that!? Utopia!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Most importantly chicks will be put in their place.

  • ||

    Especially the uggos.

  • ||

    Kitchen, laundry room, or bedroom?

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    The uggos only get the kitchen or laundry room, agreed?

  • lap83||

    All of the ugly chicks will be replaced by hot chicks who make sandwiches on demand. You're gonna love it.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Your ideas intrigue me, and I am interested in subscribing to periodic pictures of your interior decorating skeels.

  • ||

    Is there a 'make me a sammich, woman' button on the remote?

  • lap83||

    Yes, but the "hold the spit" function is a special multi-key sequence that I forgot and is mysteriously absent from the manual

  • ||

    You'd best get back to your research, sounds important.

  • Loki||

    What about the "hold the buggers and cum" button?

  • SugarFree||

    Surely his sycophant cheerleaders pay no attention at all.

    How dare you talk about SIV like that!

  • SIV||

    And I used to think joe and MNG were my most loyal stalkers...

  • Loki||

    So, under Trump we'll have single payer FREE healthcare that no one has to pay for. We'll have a giant wall around the country, and he'll build more walls and hire more police to make sure that no one smokes any funny stuff.

    Just like paradise that is North Korea!

  • wareagle||

    so we've had the Hillary drug story and the Trump drug story. Next up: butt sex, since it's certainly clear what Trump thinks about Mexicans and predictable where Hillary falls.

  • ||

    How will Trump accomplish making Hillary sound reasonable on butt sex?

  • wareagle||

    I think Trump has been pro-all sex for a long time. Hillary "evolved" when the polling data said it was okay to do so. He might have her on this one.

  • Loki||

    Next up: butt sex, since it's certainly clear what Trump thinks about Mexicans and predictable where Hillary falls.

    Butt fucking all the Mexicans to death?

  • RobertFarrior||

    They're all liars in word and deed, in addition to being oppressors!
    robertsrevolution.net

  • ||

    Dude, you seriously need someone who has basic web design skills. Sorry, but that's some of the worst HTML butchery that I've seen in a couple decades.

  • ||

    But I really do think it's cool that you were a black kid and grew up as a white dude, that's awesome. How does one achieve that?

  • ||

    According to MHP, I think it's through the avoidance of 'hard work' or something?

  • RubyOconnell||

    Im making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ---------- http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  • gaoxiaen||

    I used to be ambivalent about Trump. Not anymore.

  • SIV||

    So vote for one of those other candidates who wants to legalize all drugs...all none of them.

  • Rockabilly||

    I like the old Trump. Legalize all drugs so I can buy some LSD at CVS.

  • SIV||

    He's still more likely to do that than Gary Johnson.

    1. Trump stands an infinite better chance of being elected and actually persuading people.

    2. He won't recant his longstanding call to legalize all drugs despite being confronted on it while pursuing the GOP nomination as the frontrunner or #2 candidate

    3. GayJay never called for anything more than legalizing just marijuana AS THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY NOMINEE.

  • MSimon||

    I'm voting for who ever promotes the legalization of murder.

    What is the next War On...?

    Mexicans murder butt seks. It could be a start. Except the Supremes have already legalized butt seks. Maybe that could be a precedent.

  • simplybe||

    There is a fairly simple solution to the drug issue. Legalize all drug use. Pass a simple law that the illegal manufacturing of Class I and Class II drugs is punishable by loss of citizenship and deportation to a country of choice. Second offense is mandatory death penalty. Selling of illegally manufactured or prescription drugs first offense is 5 years second offense is life with no parole. Marijuana can not be manufactured so it is removed from Class I and II. You decide what to do about medical doctors and psychiatric doctors that are little more than drug dealers.

  • Qbag||

    Well I said something to that effect but no different , in that , at the time , I was being consistent with what I'm saying now. If you take into account that my position was, is, and always will be what is great for America, then you'll find that there is no one more consistent than me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Donald Trump, stealth Libertarian for drug decrminalization!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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