Trump declines presidential run

[Andrew J.]

From the Associated Press via Yahoo News:

Trump says no to presidential run
By DAVID BAUDER and BETH FOUHY, Associated Press 35 mins ago

NEW YORK – After months of flirting with politics, Donald Trump said Monday he won't run for president, choosing to stick with hosting "The Celebrity Apprentice" over a bid for the Republican nomination.

The reality TV star and real estate mogul made his announcement at a Manhattan hotel as NBC, which airs his show, rolled out its fall lineup.

"I will not be running for president as much as I'd like to," Trump said.

Trump's office released a formal statement just as he was taking the stage. In it, a confident Trump said he felt he could win the Republican primary and beat President Barack Obama in the general election but had come to realize a presidential campaign could not be run half-heartedly.

"Ultimately, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector," Trump said.

Several Republicans are seeking the nomination in a race that lacks a clear front-runner. Among the top hopefuls are former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. The GOP is still waiting to hear whether Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin or Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann will get in the race.

Trump has floated the idea of a presidential candidacy in both 1988 and 2000 but claimed he was more serious than ever this time, citing the weak economy and the sense that the United States was in decline. Some public opinion polls showed him leading the slow-to-coalesce Republican field.

In the past few months, he delivered speeches to national GOP groups and traveled to early primary states like New Hampshire and Nevada. During that time, he reignited the so-called "birther" controversy by perpetuating falsehoods about Obama's birth place, insisting that questions were unanswered about whether the president was born in Hawaii. He amassed admiration from many on the far right who have insisted Obama was born overseas and, thus, wasn't eligible to serve as president.

Obama finally distributed his long-form birth certificate earlier this month, indirectly casting Trump as a carnival barker and the controversy as a sideshow. Trump took credit for the release even though it robbed his candidacy of its signature issue.

Obama retaliated days later in his monologue at the White House Correspondents Association dinner, where he poked fun at the birth certificate controversy and mocked Trump and his television show. A stone-faced Trump heard the barbs from both Obama and comedian Seth Meyers. A day later, NBC interrupted the airing of Trump's show with word of an Obama announcement — within 45 minutes the president informed the nation and the world that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden had been killed.

Whatever buzz over a Trump candidacy was left fully faded.

Trump would have brought to the race both celebrity and the no-holds-barred criticism of Obama that many Republicans are hungry for in a GOP nominee. But, as it has for months, Trump's participation also could have made the GOP nomination fight a less serious affair, seeming small by comparison to Obama and his presidency.

Trump is the second Republican in a matter of days to say no to a bid for the GOP nomination. Mike Huckabee announced Saturday that he wouldn't seek the presidency.

At the Hilton hotel in New York, NBC said that "The Celebrity Apprentice" would be coming back in midseason. But Bob Greenblatt, the head of NBC entertainment, said the only mystery would be whether Trump was host.

Trump said the show has made a lot of money for charity and that he wanted to continue as host.

Not too surprising, really. The release of the long-form certificate destroyed the only major issue he had ever made noise about.

[Raw Shark]

Obama finally distributed his long-form birth certificate earlier this month, indirectly casting Trump as a carnival barker and the controversy as a sideshow. Trump took credit for the release even though it robbed his candidacy of its signature issue.

Obama retaliated days later in his monologue at the White House Correspondents Association dinner, where he poked fun at the birth certificate controversy and mocked Trump and his television show. A stone-faced Trump heard the barbs from both Obama and comedian Seth Meyers. A day later, NBC interrupted the airing of Trump's show with word of an Obama announcement — within 45 minutes the president informed the nation and the world that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden had been killed.

Whatever buzz over a Trump candidacy was left fully faded.

Flawless Victory.

[Justforfun000]

Trump would have been a joke! The only credit I can give him is he is a smart enough businessman to realize a losing battle. It's not that he wouldn't have ran if he was perceived differently.
I never paid a great deal of attention to the man, but lately everything about him just seems to scream self-centered megalomaniac asshole.

[Broomstick]

Actually, I call him "attention whore".

My arch-conservative friend thinks that Obama may have deliberately out-maneuvered Trump with the long-form birth certificate, roast at the Washington dinner, then the bin Laden kill. Sure, it's possible... and we all know Obama has an epic-level poker face.

Don't know if the bin Laden bounce will carry Obama through the 2012 election, but right now it's making him look a hell of a lot stronger than before. If he pulls another couple rabbits out of his hat he'll have his second term. No guarantees at this point, of course, a lot could still have between now and then, but I am detecting cracks in the Republican facade of confidence.

[TheHammer]

Actually, I call him "attention whore".

My arch-conservative friend thinks that Obama may have deliberately out-maneuvered Trump with the long-form birth certificate, roast at the Washington dinner, then the bin Laden kill. Sure, it's possible... and we all know Obama has an epic-level poker face.

Don't know if the bin Laden bounce will carry Obama through the 2012 election, but right now it's making him look a hell of a lot stronger than before. If he pulls another couple rabbits out of his hat he'll have his second term. No guarantees at this point, of course, a lot could still have between now and then, but I am detecting cracks in the Republican facade of confidence.

Even without the Bin Laden bounce, the Republicans have no strong message, nor do they have any really strong candidates. The Healthcare Reform boogeyman has I believe shown itself to be smoke and mirrors, and that was the primary driving force behind the limited elections Tea Party backed candidates won. Now Republicans (from Wisconsin) are showing their real goal is to fuck over working people for the benefit of tax cuts for the wealthy. And people have started to take notice of that. And despite some on the left's disappointment with Obama, they clearly aren't going to be voting for the Republican candidate.

[Mr Bean]

Actually, I call him "attention whore".

My arch-conservative friend thinks that Obama may have deliberately out-maneuvered Trump with the long-form birth certificate, roast at the Washington dinner, then the bin Laden kill. Sure, it's possible... and we all know Obama has an epic-level poker face.

Don't know if the bin Laden bounce will carry Obama through the 2012 election, but right now it's making him look a hell of a lot stronger than before. If he pulls another couple rabbits out of his hat he'll have his second term. No guarantees at this point, of course, a lot could still have between now and then, but I am detecting cracks in the Republican facade of confidence.

They have never had a facade of confidence. The most likely to win possible 2012 Republicans are Mitt and Huckabee and Huckabee is not running leaving only Mitt Romney except Mitt has a good chance of winning the general but a terrible chance of winning the nomination.

Which means the field is now...
Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Plus possibly Palin who I don't think is running.

Then you have the 1%'s like
Rick Santorum
Jon Huntsman
Tim Pawlenty
Mitch Daniels

In case your wondering the reason Cain gets in there is because of his excellent debate performance and let us be honest the color of his skin which in that odd republican way of thinking is the best way to beat Barack Obama is a black guy of their own (See one Michael Steel former chair of the RNC)
So realisticly we have a six person race but I predict Bachmann is going to get trounced out of there along with Newt who has way to many negatives to last long on the national stage which means there's a four man/woman race between Ron Paul, Herman Cain Mitt Romney and possibly Palin.

Which when you think about in those terms... is kind of hilarious, here's hoping Ron Paul gets the nomination because I'm sure we'd get some lovely Legalize Heroin and Jim Crow bumper-stickers out of it. (*Note Ron Paul is not a racist by all accounts but he is against laws preventing people from making racist laws because he's a lolbetarian)

[xerex]

^^^

2012's field is starting to look like 1996. where the main contenders were

Dole (only credible candidate)
Buchanan (a political talkshow host)
Forbes (millionare businessman with no political experiance)
Lamar (Govorner best known for his plaid shirts)

[Sea Skimmer]

I never remotely thought Trump was serious, attention whore describes him very well. He got some free media coverage, that's something he can turn directly into profit.

[Slacker]

Not strictly on-topic, but Jon Huntsman intrigues me as the sort of "In an ideal world, where his party wasn't insane, this guy wouldn't be an awful 'well, if they won, he would probably make a good president for four years' sort of candidate". It won't happen, of course, because the Republicans are freaking insane.

[Rahvin]

I never remotely thought Trump was serious, attention whore describes him very well. He got some free media coverage, that's something he can turn directly into profit.

This. Trump has "considered" Presidential runs before - and has never actually run.

Trump is a marketer marketing his own name as a brand, that's all he ever does. He spun a fake intention to run for President into a bunch of free airtime with people saying the Trump name left and right...again. I guarantee you any other marketer would love to be able do the same.

[Count Chocula]

Out of them all, Herman Cain intrigues me the most. As Bean noted he's a black guy, which doesn't make no never-mind to most of us but might to Independents and minorities. And if it really matters, to some, he's a "real" black. All right, enough about that before bobalot decides to ship me a white hood and bedsheet.

Cain's CV is impressive:
* Mathematician
* Computer Scientist
* Ballistician for the Navy
* Former exec for Coca-Cola and Pillsbury (managed 400 Burger King stores and turned them around, and started the Godfather's Pizza turnaround)
* CEO of Godfather's Pizza, which he and a group bought from Pillsbury
* CEO of National Restaurant Association - valuable lobbying experience/perspective
* Board member of the KC Federal Reserve Bank
* Talk show host and author
* Loser against other Republicans in the 2004 GA Senate campaign (I think this is a GOOD thing, the Republican establishment didn't like Reagan either)

While I don't agree with him on TARP or auditing the Fed, I like a lot of what he says.

Gingrich and Paul are old school; Paul advocates may not like it, but he's an establishment politician.
Romney lost to fucking John McCain! in 2008; he's high if he thinks he has a chance.
Bachmann IMO needs more seasoning and time heading up a committee or 2 to really have a chance.

[Coop D'etat]

Actually, I call him "attention whore".

My arch-conservative friend thinks that Obama may have deliberately out-maneuvered Trump with the long-form birth certificate, roast at the Washington dinner, then the bin Laden kill. Sure, it's possible... and we all know Obama has an epic-level poker face.

Don't know if the bin Laden bounce will carry Obama through the 2012 election, but right now it's making him look a hell of a lot stronger than before. If he pulls another couple rabbits out of his hat he'll have his second term. No guarantees at this point, of course, a lot could still have between now and then, but I am detecting cracks in the Republican facade of confidence.

They have never had a facade of confidence. The most likely to win possible 2012 Republicans are Mitt and Huckabee and Huckabee is not running leaving only Mitt Romney except Mitt has a good chance of winning the general but a terrible chance of winning the nomination.

Which means the field is now...
Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Plus possibly Palin who I don't think is running.

Then you have the 1%'s like
Rick Santorum
Jon Huntsman
Tim Pawlenty
Mitch Daniels

In case your wondering the reason Cain gets in there is because of his excellent debate performance and let us be honest the color of his skin which in that odd republican way of thinking is the best way to beat Barack Obama is a black guy of their own (See one Michael Steel former chair of the RNC)
So realisticly we have a six person race but I predict Bachmann is going to get trounced out of there along with Newt who has way to many negatives to last long on the national stage which means there's a four man/woman race between Ron Paul, Herman Cain Mitt Romney and possibly Palin.

Which when you think about in those terms... is kind of hilarious, here's hoping Ron Paul gets the nomination because I'm sure we'd get some lovely Legalize Heroin and Jim Crow bumper-stickers out of it. (*Note Ron Paul is not a racist by all accounts but he is against laws preventing people from making racist laws because he's a lolbetarian)

Paul has a hard core of about 5-10% support among Republicans but doesn't seem to have the ability to expand on it. Conversely, the ones who support Paul are unlikely to migrate to others. At this point it looks like the race is Romney's to lose because of the lead he has and the big negatives of his competitors. At this point I think the biggest threat to Romney would be if one of Pawlenty, Daniels or Huntsman gets traction as then he'd actually have to face someone that could be considered a "serious" candidate.

[Zaune]

Out of them all, Herman Cain intrigues me the most. As Bean noted he's a black guy, which doesn't make no never-mind to most of us but might to Independents and minorities. And if it really matters, to some, he's a "real" black. All right, enough about that before bobalot decides to ship me a white hood and bedsheet.

Cain's CV is impressive:
* Mathematician
* Computer Scientist
* Ballistician for the Navy
* Former exec for Coca-Cola and Pillsbury (managed 400 Burger King stores and turned them around, and started the Godfather's Pizza turnaround)
* CEO of Godfather's Pizza, which he and a group bought from Pillsbury
* CEO of National Restaurant Association - valuable lobbying experience/perspective
* Board member of the KC Federal Reserve Bank
* Talk show host and author
* Loser against other Republicans in the 2004 GA Senate campaign (I think this is a GOOD thing, the Republican establishment didn't like Reagan either)

While I don't agree with him on TARP or auditing the Fed, I like a lot of what he says.

Including the part where he will not employ any Muslim as part of his administration?
Up until that point I was almost willing to say that he might do better by the United States than Obama has, because a Bachelor of Mathematics in the White House strikes me as a potentially good thing.

[Count Chocula]

Including the part where he will not employ any Muslim as part of his administration?

Actually, yes I do. And, he clearly articulated why he would not employ any Muslim, a position with which I agree. Christians do not nowadays, by and large, confuse the purposes of the church and state, nor does the Bible prescribe a legal system. The Koran and Sunnah, with relation to Sharia, DO establish a legal system guided and shaped by religion. That's incompatible with the American system of government, and considering our decades-long "dispute" with certain Muslims, I understand Kane's reasoning. Rules of evidence and procedure under Sharia law, which a Muslim in say the Justice Department might condone, are also incompatible with our system of jurisprudence. I could do without spousal rape, honor killing and stoning being legal in the US, thank you.[/exaggerated examples]

[Simon_Jester]

Including the part where he will not employ any Muslim as part of his administration?

Actually, yes I do. And, he clearly articulated why he would not employ any Muslim, a position with which I agree. Christians do not nowadays, by and large, confuse the purposes of the church and state, nor does the Bible prescribe a legal system. The Koran and Sunnah, with relation to Sharia, DO establish a legal system guided and shaped by religion. That's incompatible with the American system of government, and considering our decades-long "dispute" with certain Muslims, I understand Kane's reasoning. Rules of evidence and procedure under Sharia law, which a Muslim in say the Justice Department might condone, are also incompatible with our system of jurisprudence. I could do without spousal rape, honor killing and stoning being legal in the US, thank you.[/exaggerated examples]

You know, this reminds me of the days when WASP-fetishizing idiots thought that voting a Catholic into office automatically meant signing control of the country over to the Vatican.

Now, based on what you just said, you don't see the difference between a Wahhabist who cannot grasp the idea of not imposing his idea of sharia as a national legal code, and a far more normal Muslim who can- of the sort that exists in countless millions throughout the developed world.

Honestly, that's some really blurry vision you've got there. That strikes me as the political equivalent of, literally, being unable to tell your ass from a hole in the ground.

Meanwhile, we've got Bible-humping fanatics who honestly believe, and profess the belief, that the basis for all American law is the Ten Commandments, that all manner of vicious social policy can be justified by "it's in the Bible," and that there are categories of people whose life is to be made a free-fire zone for bigots on account of their not living Biblically enough. Who regard anything other than the state approval of and compliance with their religious strictures as discrimination against Christians, and who often have a remarkable ability to pick whichever Democrat is most prominent in the news today and declare him to be the anti-Christ.

And no one of any consequence on the Republican side of the aisle seems to have a problem with Republican presidents appointing such people to responsible public office. It was not a problem when Reagan appointed a Secretary of the Interior who thought there wasn't really any need for him to do a large fraction of his job responsibly because soon the Millenium would come and it would cease to matter whether our natural resources had been conserved or not. It is not a problem when senior officers responsible for peacekeeping in countries full of Muslims tell their troops that they are on a "crusade," despite how fucking obvious it is to anyone with a brain that saying such things will undermine the mission of, y'know, keeping the peace.

Again, no one of any consequence on the Republican side of the aisle seems to have a problem with this kind of shit, least of all you.

From such a glass house, it is not wise to throw stones at Muslims, not when the best argument you can cook up is "every Muslim thinks his religious law should trump American secular law!"

[Terralthra]

The sheer amnesia and illiteracy in Count Chocula's post defies my ability to respond rationally at this point. I vote we let it stand as a monument to ignorance.

[Zaune]

The sheer amnesia and illiteracy in Count Chocula's post defies my ability to respond rationally at this point. I vote we let it stand as a monument to ignorance.

Agreed. And thank you, Simon, for responding to that statement with better reasoning and greater diplomacy than I could manage if I live to be a hundred.

[Count Chocula]

You know, this reminds me of the days when WASP-fetishizing idiots thought that voting a Catholic into office automatically meant signing control of the country over to the Vatican.

Now, based on what you just said, you don't see the difference between a Wahhabist who cannot grasp the idea of not imposing his idea of sharia as a national legal code, and a far more normal Muslim who can- of the sort that exists in countless millions throughout the developed world.

Honestly, that's some really blurry vision you've got there. That strikes me as the political equivalent of, literally, being unable to tell your ass from a hole in the ground.

Of course I see the difference. I just don't see how you would distinguish between "a far more normal Muslim" and a Wahabbist unless they were cross-examined six ways from Sunday. IIRC my last reading of the Koran about a year ago, per the Muslim holy book those "far more normal Muslim" are apostates themselves and deserve no better treatment than infidels.

From the Koran in Surah 4:150-151:

Those who deny Allah and his Messenger and those who intend to draw a line between Allah and His Messengers saying: "We believe in some, and reject the rest" - desiring to take a middle way between belief and unbelief [150] - these are the real unbelievers and We have prepared for such unbelievers a humiliating punishment.

Want to see a Sharia state? Try Iran. With all the other issues a President would have to contend with come next election, why risk a loose cannon?

EDIT: Ahh, fuck it. Go look up Sharia rules of evidence and testimony yourselves.

[Rahvin]

Including the part where he will not employ any Muslim as part of his administration?

Actually, yes I do. And, he clearly articulated why he would not employ any Muslim, a position with which I agree. Christians do not nowadays, by and large, confuse the purposes of the church and state, nor does the Bible prescribe a legal system. The Koran and Sunnah, with relation to Sharia, DO establish a legal system guided and shaped by religion. That's incompatible with the American system of government, and considering our decades-long "dispute" with certain Muslims, I understand Kane's reasoning. Rules of evidence and procedure under Sharia law, which a Muslim in say the Justice Department might condone, are also incompatible with our system of jurisprudence. I could do without spousal rape, honor killing and stoning being legal in the US, thank you.[/exaggerated examples]

On top of what others have already said...isn't there something in the Constitution about "religious tests?"

Oh, right - Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So the Constitution says you can't actually ban people from holding public office in any legislative, judicial, or executive position because of their religion.

Why do you hate the Constitution, Chocula? Why do you hate America?

[Simon_Jester]

Of course I see the difference. I just don't see how you would distinguish between "a far more normal Muslim" and a Wahabbist unless they were cross-examined six ways from Sunday. IIRC my last reading of the Koran about a year ago, per the Muslim holy book those "far more normal Muslim" are apostates themselves and deserve no better treatment than infidels.

Oh come on, it's easy.

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

It's good enough to make it permissible to hire a Baptist; it's good enough to make it permissible to hire a Sunni. Sure, there's the off chance that the Baptist wishes, in his heart of hearts, that it was legal to beat people to death for being gay. Sure, there's the off chance that the Muslim wishes, in his heart of hearts, the same thing.

If it's OK to hire the former guy and take your chances that he's a goddamn troglodyte, why not the latter?

From the Koran in Surah 4:150-151:

Those who deny Allah and his Messenger and those who intend to draw a line between Allah and His Messengers saying: "We believe in some, and reject the rest" - desiring to take a middle way between belief and unbelief [150] - these are the real unbelievers and We have prepared for such unbelievers a humiliating punishment.

Then that is between them and Allah, and no concern of mine. Either the man does his goddamn job or he does not; whether he chooses to pray to Allah, or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not my affair.

If he does not do his job, then fire him. If he cannot do his job because of his personal beliefs, let him man up and say so, and then let him resign honorably. Do not refuse to hire him in the first place because of retarded bullshit about the Papist Conspiracy or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or whatever.

Want to see a Sharia state? Try Iran. With all the other issues a President would have to contend with come next election, why risk a loose cannon?

EDIT: Ahh, fuck it. Go look up Sharia rules of evidence and testimony yourselves.

..."Why risk a loose cannon."

Why risk a loose cannon.

Why risk a president who blindly declares his intent to break American laws, including the fucking Constitution of the United States, the which he is supposed to swear an oath to follow? Because he is doing exactly that, by lumping all Muslims into one big block, and then refusing to hire anyone in the block, on the grounds that someone, somewhere in that block might want the US legal code to work differently than it does. When no such standard is applied to Christians, or to members of any other religion.

Herman Cain's statement about this is a blatant act of pissing on the Constitution. And he doesn't even have some vaguely relevant excuse like "this is a matter of national security!" Nope, he's just being a goddamn bigot, who thinks all Muslims are part of the Secret Sharia Conspiracy.

I fail to see why I should treat this distinguished individual with his long career as a corporate executive for Coca-Cola, Pillsbury, and a pizza chain as being any different from the scum of the earth who would refuse to hire a Jew because he is part of the secret Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy outlined in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or who would refuse to hire a Catholic because they all take their orders from the Pope and that's treason don'tcha know!

God. This is just fucking disgusting.

[Sarevok]

Of course I see the difference. I just don't see how you would distinguish between "a far more normal Muslim" and a Wahabbist unless they were cross-examined six ways from Sunday. IIRC my last reading of the Koran about a year ago, per the Muslim holy book those "far more normal Muslim" are apostates themselves and deserve no better treatment than infidels.

How would you distinguish between a normal Christian and a fundamentalist one ? They both follow the bible ! The same thing applies here. Judge people by who they are instead of nitpicking their holy books to find ways to fault them.

BTW why dont you get to know a few muslim families in your area Chocula ? If u dont see any muslims in a to day life chances are its because they look and live like your typical American. I think a lot of the ignorance about Islam stems from this fact. A lot of Americans only notice muslims individuals when they are doing something unusual like wearing hijab. The rest of the population, like the girls who go to college wearing skinny jeans gets mixed up with the background population.

[Broomstick]

Actually, yes I do. And, he clearly articulated why he would not employ any Muslim, a position with which I agree.

I wish to direct you to Article VI, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

In other words, you support as president a candidate who has already stated he will go into office intending to violate the document that is the foundation of the government, in direct violation of his oath of office.

Would you care to rethink that before I unpack the insults and let you know what I truly think of your position?

[Akhlut]

What about Turkey, Albania, or Azerbaijan? They're all democracies, more or less, and are all mostly secular nations. They have their own problems, but they're little different from other developing seculation nations that have Christian or Buddhist majorities. They aren't all Sharia-bound nations like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

So, how can ALL Muslims want to establish Sharia governments if they don't even do so in nations they have full control over? Turkey is 99% Muslim and they haven't done it yet.

[bobalot]

Including the part where he will not employ any Muslim as part of his administration?

Actually, yes I do. And, he clearly articulated why he would not employ any Muslim, a position with which I agree. Christians do not nowadays, by and large, confuse the purposes of the church and state, nor does the Bible prescribe a legal system. The Koran and Sunnah, with relation to Sharia, DO establish a legal system guided and shaped by religion. That's incompatible with the American system of government, and considering our decades-long "dispute" with certain Muslims, I understand Kane's reasoning. Rules of evidence and procedure under Sharia law, which a Muslim in say the Justice Department might condone, are also incompatible with our system of jurisprudence. I could do without spousal rape, honor killing and stoning being legal in the US, thank you.[/exaggerated examples]

You know, America recently had a president who regularly communed with the Christian god to make his spectacular fuck ups. He could probably be rated as one of the worst presidents in America's modern history.

Hypothetically would you be happy to choose another semi illiterate Christian moron over a well educated intelligent Muslim into any position of power?

[Broomstick]

The thing is, those of who have read and understood the US Constitution know that the purpose was not to give us a government to enforce an ideology or to keep us safe from all possible harm, it was to give us a government that would provide the maximum liberty for citizens without the union falling apart. This is sometimes expressed as "the right to be wrong" or "the right to make mistakes". In the spirit of that, while I most firmly think Count Chocula is absolutely fucked up wrong on this and is taking an extremely large dump on the document on behalf of a presidential-wannabe who wishes to shred up, spit on, and then destroy the constitution AND the first amendment thereof I will absolutely defend his right to demonstrate just how much of a donkey-felching piece of shit he is by upholding his right to free speech - even if he has clearly demonstrated he is against allowing others freedom of conscience and religion.

Really, Chocula, it's people like you who are embarrassing to the rest of the country.