Lindsey Graham

Who Will Cry for Lindsey Graham? Not Matt Welch Tonight, on MSNBC's All in with Chris Hayes

Tune in after 8:30 p.m. ET to hear your resident magazine editor talk about the GOP race


That wall's not gonna hit itself. ||| CNN

After failing to rise above 2 percent in a single goddamned national poll, South Carolina Senator and Sunday-talkshow heartthrob Lindsey Graham finally announced today that he was taking his one-man fight against ISIS to a different theater than the zany GOP presidential race. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the journalists who had to sit through the undercard debates will miss Graham's candidacy; hard to imagine any Republican voters will notice much.

For those of you keeping score at home, that leaves the uber-interventionist pickins looking a little slim. Here are the averages of the four last national polls (i.e., the ones conducted in their entirety after Donald Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." I've got the super-duper hawks in bold (feel free to disagree in the comments):

38: Trump

16: Cruz

12: Rubio

9: Carson

5: Bush

4: Christie

3: Fiorina

2: Paul, Kasich, Huckabee

1: Santorum

0: Pataki

We can quibble over the scoring here (and I'll be honest, I have no idea where to put George Pataki, or Ben Carson depending on the day), but that looks to me like two-thirds support for candidates who at some point have used "neo-conservative" as an insult. No wonder Ted Cruz is getting barrel-fulls these days from interventionists—if he's leading Marco Rubio nationally (as he has all month) and cleaning the Floridian's clock in the early states, there might not be any Weekly Standard-friendly candidate with any shot left in the 2016 race. At least on the Republican side. 

Anyway, I'm talking about that tonight on MSNBC's All in with Chris Hayes at 8:30ish p.m., with guest host Alex Wagner and fellow co-panelist Michelle Goldberg. Tune in!

NEXT: New Study: The Main Thing Making College Crazy Expensive Is Student Loans

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why is Santorum always coming out the bottom of these polls?

    1. Because he does nothing better than any other, more dynamic candidate currently running. Also, his success in the last election cycle was completely due to panic among the Anti-Romney bloc of Repub voters looking for someone (anyone) to challenge him. It had nothing to do with Santorum himself.

    2. Because our obese nation is addicted to Olestra in their junk food?

    3. What you have done has been seen, unfortunately.

      1. What is thought cannot be unthought.

    4. You went there, Hugh.

    5. And the guy coming out the top of the poll is so spunky.

  2. Among the many benefits of Goober dropping out of the race is that we will see far less of him on TV.

    1. And it gives Matt an opportunity to reap the benefits of attacking Trump at every turn to be a lap dog of the left on weasel boy’s show. I wonder if the cocktail party afterward was worth it all.

  3. I would take this opportunity to point out that his dismal showing is a sign of rationality on the GOP side….but…Trump, so…

    1. Can it be that Trump is getting a lot of love from blue collar Dems? Based on comments sections elsewhere, some of his supporters seem to be democratic in their outlook.

      1. Maybe, but generally you have to demographically identify as a Republican in these polls to have your support tallied, so either there is a mass exodus of blue-collar Dems to the Repub party, or Republicans have in large part decided that its time to go full retard.

      2. I would agree that he has a lot of support from Dems.

        1. Has trump said anything particularly anti-union? I could see a lot of the Democratic union constituency liking Trump.

          1. I don’t know. I was watching something on PBS and caught their post gop debate call in and there were a number of Dems calling in that liked him. I’ve talked to a number of people that like him who are Dems. It’s a populist thing more than a team thing. There are plenty on both sides that hate him as well.

          2. Not sure if they count but he was recently endorsed by a police union.

            He’s also has a lot of support among Teamsters, might simply be because they dislike Hilary though.

          3. He’s going to make America great again, which, if you are a union guy, means he’s he’s going to restore unions to their rightful place in the workforce. If you aren’t so much into unionism, then it means he’s going to protect employers from the socialist thugs.

      3. Not necessarily migrating Dems. Trump’s just picking up oodles of the “no college degree” Republicans that would traditionally be the Huckabee or Santorum types.…

    2. Trump has ‘activated’ a lot of ignorant buck-toothed blue collar losers who otherwise would not be infecting the GOP. So to the GOP’s limited credit, at least a large chunk of this is exogenous.

      1. ^ This from the guy who regularly accuses people of “xenophobia.”

        1. Yup. Accurately too.

          1. Poor guy. I’m not afraid of any hot warrior princess.

      2. You sound just like a progressive when you say that.

  4. So to me the big question is if Trump were to implode then where does his support go? Cruz?

    1. Also, considering what sort of candidate Trump has been while cobbling this support, isn’t their movement to your camp as much of an indictment as a help?

      1. Possibly, but whomever wins the primary is going to be painted as Satan by the other side regardless so not sure to what extent that matters.

        1. Excellent point. And, since The War on Women? worked last election cycle for no apparent reason relating to fact or reality, I don’t suppose that it will matter how legitimate their criticisms are.

          1. Many of the women Hillary has personally made war on are still around and happy to talk, so I don’t think that ploy will work very well.

          2. ” The War on Women? worked last election cycle”

            Data not in evidence. Obama won on the backs of minority turnout and voter apathy. He wasn’t especially strong with women.

        2. Yup. Mitt Romney was painted as an extremist, even though he probably could have run as a moderate Democrat…(and Paul Ryan is even further left, as shown by the recent budget)

    2. I think a fair amount (+-33%) would just disappear. Part of his attraction is that he’ll say things no other candidate will.

      1. “Trump says what we are thinking, even if our thoughts have no basis in reality or rationality!”

      2. If there just in it for the bluster then makes you wonder if they’ll even make the effort to go vote.

    3. That’s why Cruz hasn’t been attacking Trump, he doesn’t want to alienate his supporters.

      1. Avoiding the “Rand Paul mistake”.

        1. That’s really not the important Rand mistake. Sadly, that’s the least of his errors.

          1. That was his main mistake. Second was tacking to the center (in a GOP primary no less!) and alienating his conservative evangelical base.

            1. No it isn’t. His message is muddled enough with pandering to the Trumptards.

              “alienating his conservative evangelical base”

              You mean the folks he is always and forever pandering to? If they’re ‘alienated’ from Rand it’s no fault of his.

              1. They voted Rand and his father into office.

                1. “They”? You mean the evangies? Yes. The Trumpticles didn’t. They are the ‘moderate’ fiscally liberal socially conservative derps who always hated him.

  5. Poor guy. He’s curled up, naked in his empty bathtub choking out short breathed sobs. I know I am.

    1. He is probably furiously working on taking care of his war boner.

    2. He has little green army men on the edge of the tub and he’s talking to them, ‘Why doesn’t everyone love us, little army guys? War is so American, what happens to us if war ends?’.

      1. I laughed.

  6. This is all so much speculation based on candidate-rhetoric alone.

    Was Obama an “interventionist” in 2008? I doubt anyone would have argued so.

    Regardless, he doubled down on Afghanistan, started new conflicts in Libya, Syria, returned to Iraq after leaving Iraq, has aided the Saudis bombing Yemen…. and seems to prefer a policy of “just-the-tip” interventionism, where he fucks with adversaries but doesn’t quite either commit or disengage, keeping things in a perpetual state of ‘inconclusiveness’.

    The fact is that there’s no such thing as the “interventionist” vs “non-interventionist” dichotomy. Everything is shades of grey in between and there’s simply people with an degrees of willingness to either amplify problems, or to try and dial them down. Neither is necessarily the “right’ or “good” option, and everything depends on the context.

    ISIS isn’t going anywhere and no matter who gets elected president, they’re going to “do something”. Determining what exactly that something will be is less derived from whatever specifics they might claim while campaigning, and more a “best guess” based on their quality of character.

    So all of this is just a lot of projection and presumption. Yes, its good that Lindsey Graham is no longer in the race. No, neither Trump nor Clinton are anything like an improvement over the current status quo. Of the remainder? I’d probably go with Fiorina as being the least-bad regardless of whatever Hawkish noises she makes to win votes.

    1. Re Libya. The French think this was a Sarkozy thing. Notably, he didn’t want to pay debts to Khaddafi and opted to simply have him offed. Alas, this is what my French ‘contacts’ tell me.

      1. That’s not entirely far from the truth;

        its true that the motivation to get rid of gaddafi was mostly initiated as a European thing. the combined investments that EU oil companies had in Libya were (at least in long term value) in the hundreds of billions. Libya has long been “Europe’s” saudi arabia – their most closely-affiliated petro-state. But my opinion is that the EU and NATO would never have dared do anything without the US approval/endorsement/ participation. i think they all saw the “arab spring” as an opportunity to clean house of some unpleasant characters, thinking that when the mess subsided that Humpty Dumpty could be put back together again. Perhaps Tunisia/Egypt gave them the impression that any violence would be short lived and that a new-order would emerge fairly quickly.

        1. It’s alleged Khaddafi knew of the plot and warned if he goes even crazier people will take over and there would be a refugee crisis.

        2. Honestly, it could be an FFL conspiracy. The FFL is powerful and shady. I don’t know why nobody talks about them.

    2. Was Obama an “interventionist” in 2008? I doubt anyone would have argued so.

      Samantha Power would have. She signed on to Obama’s campaign early too.

      1. Yes. But he didn’t really sell himself as a “Humanitarian Interventionist” candidate.

        And he hasn’t really paid off (for Sam Power at least) on that angle. When’s the last time you heard anyone in the media mention “Darfur”? During the Bush years that was always tossed out as the “Good fight” which democrats would have gladly fought… in contrast to the Evil Oil Baron Bush & Co who fight wars for teh Bazillionaires and the Oil Companies.

        1. They’ll always have Libya.

          1. lol

            Sam Power will go down in history as one of the left’s most startling cases of hyper-hypocrisy.

            To their credit, the hard-left hates her (mainly for her cover of Israel when they were bombing Gaza), but the moderate left still thinks she’s doing a bang-up job for women’s rights or something….and that thank god SHE is helping the Saudis bomb Yemen engineering a coup in Syria and not that warmongering jerk John Bolton

        2. I’ve noticed that there is an inverse relationship between the national interest and Democrat/leftist willingness to intervene.

    3. Here is a good read on the current state of affairs in the middle east with a focus on ISIS and Syria and the fucked up forgien policy of this administration and it’s refusal to deal with reality.…..o-military

      Obama is convinced that he alone can see reality in the middle east in spite of all others pointing out the truth to him.

      1. That was a fascinating read. I never know what exactly to believe with Hersh, but his reporting here does not seem far-fetched, especially because Mike Flynn went on the record with him and has been giving public interviews for quite some time, and also because of Chuck Hagel’s Foreign Policy interview.

        Obama’s foreign policy strategy is obviously terrible, but it seems to be intentionally terrible, which is actually worrisome.

        1. Yes it does seem to be intentionally bad and he seems to refute reality een when it is staring him in the face.

          I wonder what his true motiation is ?

          Everywhere he has had a hand in the middle east the Islamists seem to come out better off.

          1. You notice that too, huh?

        2. I didn’t read the whole thing and I’m no policy expert, but… isn’t our military making end runs around the President kind of troubling?

          1. isn’t our military making end runs around the President kind of troubling?

            I would think so. The Joint Chiefs and the CIA are working for different goals. It is absurd.

          2. It is. Worse is the fact that their endruns were holding off something worse. The DeepState is actually less awful than the elected one.

      2. Very interesting but some serious problems with this obviously Russo-philic article.

        On 11 September 2012 the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed during an anti-American demonstration

        It was no ‘demonstration’.

        Also, Russia has a horrible history with Islamic extremism. Russia’s Chechnya campaign is a lot of why there is so much Islamism there. They have backed Iran’s government. Assad himself released hundreds of jailed jihadist scumbags at the outset of the rebellion and blatantly avoid taking on ISIS.

        Further, the rebels Russia was bombing when the Turks shot them down were ethnic Turkmen rebels and one of the extreme few rebels who might not be crazy and who could take on ISIS. They seized border villages in the next week.

        The omission of these details makes this article very misleading and degrades its quality. One can’t help but see it in part as a sop to Russia.

      3. It seems to be all from one unnamed source. This makes me suspicious. Didn’t this guy makes claims about the OBL killing that weren’t backed by anything but anonymous claims?

    4. Cruz is definitely better than Fiorina. The only really positive thing I could say about Carly is that she’s apparently pretty good on the 2nd. That’s about it.

      1. She wants zero-based budgeting IIRC and wants to leave MJ to the states.

    5. This is a good analysis but I think Rand and probably Cruz would be better than Fiorina. Listing her as a ‘super-hawk’ is still super-stupid.

      1. She wants a no-fly zone in Moscow I think.

  7. OT: If you Fucking Love Science, you probably find these stats pretty convincing.

    1. Does she have sex armed as well? That would be a tad too much even for me.

      1. Yeah, getting your back raked with fingernails is about all the abuse I need.

      2. I would still hit that shit.

    2. It’s why I don’t have electricity in my home, you are 100,000x more likely to die of electrocution or to have a loved one die from electrocution.

      Also, have you heard about the food-borne illness statistics? 2x more likely to die of a food-borne illness than being accidently shot, so I also have sworn off having food at home, or eating in general.

      1. Once again — BAN SWIMMING POOLS!

        1. 100% of post-partum depression occurs in women who have had babies, so we’d better ban reproduction, too.

    3. And people who kill their families or themselves with guns are infinity percent more likely to have guns in their homes.

      1. Unless of course you were on the neighbors house across the street with a high power rifle.

    4. Funny they din’t show a gang banger with a 9 since that would have been 5000% more accurate, than a chick with an AR. Also, Would.

      1. For those who think properly handling a firearm makes the chick even hotter (spoiler alert: it does), there are bunch of great videos on YouTube with PYTs showing off various concealment options.

        1. Yeah, that’s fun:)

    5. Related: Las Vegas Driver ID’ed…..tcmp=hpbt3

      1. Does that count as black on white murder?

      2. Lakeisha

        Ok, I can’t even take this story seriously now. But if I could, I’d blame it on white dudes.

    6. She says that she, personally, is at risk of killing herself. Why is this?

      She’s young, attractive, and has a nice gig doing ads – she has her whole life ahead of her! Yet she portrays herself as at risk for suicide. What tragic secret does she have?

      And why blame guns for that tragic secret?

      1. Because she’s going to get old, sick, and die someday, and there’s no meaning to her life? But that’s not really a secret.

    7. I request a link to the Balko or Kovatch Conspiracy article that found no link between gun control and violence or something. Pretty drunk.

  8. I’ve got the super-duper hawks in bold (feel free to disagree in the comments):

    I’m not seeing anything to disagree with.

  9. Ok, this article feints to be about Graham. But it’s really about the Donald, right, right? I’m so excited now, finally more Donald…

    1. I’ll bet you are, chanting for more of The Donald in thread after thread today.

      1. I can’t get enough of the Donald!

  10. Pataki at 0?

    Man. That can’t be good for the ego.

    1. My question is why he hasn’t dropped out yet? Did he forget he was running? Perhaps he did officially resign from the race but since his press attention is nil nobody was around to get the memo?

      1. Like. He hasn’t convinced ANYONE?


        Madonna mia!

      2. Name recognition. It can still help him with a cake lobbying gig, or even book deal, TV appearances, etc.

        1. I mean the publicity he gets as a result of being in the race.

          1. If by publicity you mean people hearing his name and then asking themselves “Who is George Pataki?” then okay.

    2. He just has to explain his message better, and then — watch out!

      1. Like Rambone!

        1. The 80’s porn star?

  11. Completely OT and SPOILER ALERT: I went to see the new Star Wars movie this afternoon with my nephew and his kids – it wasn’t a disappointment so it was pretty damn good, a good sign I think that the next and the next will be good, even if it was really just a reboot of the original. HOWEVER: How come nobody told me they had some old geezer playing Harrison Ford with Betty White playing Carrie Fisher and Orson Wells as Mark Hamill? Jesus, man, give a guy a little warning about these sorts of things!

    1. Are The Ewoks CGI? Disney has always wanted to bust the M.A.G.

  12. The perfect prequels George Lucas nearly wrote.

    Enter Anakin, prophesised as the Chosen One who will bring that balance. It all falls apart, of course – from the Jedi perspective at least – when he is tempted by the Dark Side. The prophecy was a lie! Or was it? Who knows? It all gets a bit confusing, and the remaining Jedi just run away and hide from the issue for a couple of decades. But how about if Anakin’s shift in polarity is actually the would-be product of balance, but his promise is warped by the biases and failings of factions who don’t really want balance at all?

    1. The Sith, on the other hand, are staunch libertarians. They accept no oversight or control from the state

      HFS…the people who wanted to be government incarnate (to rule) were “staunch libertarians”???

      Dear God, these authors vote….

      1. Who had oversight over the Jedi? They were the state’s enforcers.

    2. commodious, you didn’t pass this part along? FOR SHAME.

      The Sith, on the other hand, are staunch libertarians. They accept no oversight or control from the state, practice a self-centred philosophy, and value personal freedom over social responsibility. Both sides are arguably problematic in their own ways, their extremist attitudes to their own philosophies making all elements of their conduct potentially rather dangerous.

      The Sith are unwavering in their slavish devotion to the NAP.

      1. Maybe the authors understand the NAP to be more like…this, maybe.

        Or, they’re just government-fellating dumbshits.

      2. When I see this kind of shoe-horning of ‘libertarian’ where it doesn’t belong, it assures me that we’re making headway. You can smell the fear.

        1. You can smell the fear.

          Well, I’ll give you that. However, I would bet good money that a majority of readers of that crap would say to themselves, “Yup. Look at the points he/they made. Gotta be true.”

          1. I just blame Canada.

          2. Those readers are tards anyway. You don’t have to be in the majority to make the rules. Just look at how the Sith got their way…

      3. My eyes tend to glaze over when I read non-libertarians attempt to describe libertarians. I don’t even get irritated anymore, it’s a bit like hearing mom talk about the dangers of GMOs. There’s no substance and therefore nothing to get upset about unless I want to match the ignominy of debating an ignoramus.

        The rest of the piece spoke to me, though.

        1. If that sounded like a good story direction to you, I recommend the Clone Wars animated series. It’s a little kiddie at parts, but that’s basically the long-form story it tells.

  13. Wow man that makes a hole lot of sense dude. Wow.

  14. Lindsay on immigration:

    Go to the 3:00 mark if you’re busy. He is very displeased by your (I am talking to men here only) lack of baby production. And if you were more like Strom Thurman, who fathered kids into his mid-60s, we wouldn’t need immigrant workers to pay the social security bills that you have already been paying along the way.

    So either your going to eat cat food in a trailer park or we need more immigrants to pay out your SS benefits the government seem to have lost along the way.

    1. How many children does he have?

        1. I hear he likes young smooth teen boys though.

    2. A glance through the Wikipedia entry on him says he has no personal life. Perhaps he is a confirmed bachelor, NTTAWWT.

      1. Well, I mean I can’t even imagine why.

      2. Too bad he won’t be president. He would be the first one to do his own decorating.

    3. So, he says that unironically, as if SS wasn’t just blithely being acknowledged as a ponzi scheme these days?

      1. I am feeling a very populist urge to tax SS income across the board. It’s 12.4% of payroll: 6.2% to the employee and a matching 6.2% from the employer. As anyone who has run a small business can tell you, that matching 6.2% is nonsense. The employee is paying 12.4%, the matching 6.4% is just a pass-through cost of employing him. His work, and his work alone, has to pay for that in the end.

        If you own your own business you still have to pay yourself with a 6.4% personal contribution and, as the employer, match it with another 6.2%. I want Zuckerberg to pay 12.4%. Not because I hate him, which I do, but because that is fair.

  15. Go to the 3:00 mark if you’re busy. He is very displeased by your (I am talking to men here only) lack of baby production

    Graham has never been married and has no children.

    Huh, imagine that. An effeminate looking guy who apparently has some sort of macho man envy complex as is obvious by his constant war boner fantasizing, who is calling out guys who can’t produce children.

    1. I don’t like Santorum much, but I have give to him some debating credit for getting Graham all riled up and STFU’ing at just the right time.

  16. Ugh. Welch made me sit through 25 minutes of MSNBC and he’s wearing that tie?

    1. Why do you hate my wife?

      1. She’s French?

      2. She’s messing with you and you don’t even know it.

  17. We don’t know foreign policy is having as much if any effect on the race like zingers and hair.

  18. Matt has little cars on his tie.

    (I have HDTV, you see)

    I think the TV producers prefer people not wear patterned ties, but this made the cut. Colorwise it is OK. I don’t know how i feel about the little cars. I would prefer something more insidious/transgressive.

    1. Matt needs to lose the tie and get facial hair. That is all.

      1. This hippy thing is just a fad! You’ll see! We’ll be back to waistcoats, suspenders and fedoras in no time!

        no, seriously… you’re presuming matt *can* do facial hair. And why would he want to? He cleans up shinier than a new penny.

        1. Well, there is the presuming thing. But I can guarantee Matt will look better if he can. He has to get rid of that horn rimmed glasses baby face nerd look. He’s out there representing libertarians, damnit. I demand that he looks like the dangerous mean ass bastards that we are!

          1. In three+ decades of semi-puberty, I have grown exactly one acceptable goattee, plus a vacation beard a few years back that photographed well in black & white and made my face break out like a teenager underneath. EVERYTHING else has been a travesty.

            1. Well, good luck Matt. You’d look great with a goatee. There’s always genetic hacking tools on the horizon, lol.

        2. True story. Last time I went to the DMV here in Murland to pay the privilege tax for renewing my drivers license, after waiting for the obligatory 3 hours for them to call my number… thank God it’s good for 8 years now. The bored looking lady that was so lucky to call my number, after a few minutes of back and forth, looked at me and said ‘You’re not mean!’. And I’m like, uh, what? So she says, you look mean! But you’re not mean, you’re a nice guy! So I said, ‘no, I’m not, you’ve mistaken me for someone else, I’m mean as hell’. So she says ‘nah, you’re a nice guy!’. Ugh, what a fucked up day.

  19. AH! MADDOW

  20. Good riddance. Let the shake out continue. Of course Ed’s list of ‘super-hawks’ is about as useful as a Greenpeace list of ‘super-polluters’.

    1. You must be ?this? tall to warmonger, Red ButtPlug.

    1. Now if they can just get rid of those pesky roads, and import more gluten free Canadians, utopia will finally appear.

    2. And some of you people doubted that market failures actually occur. Without government, who would prevent six-year-olds from being decapitated by low-hanging conduit?

  21. Don’t go Lindsay! I love you! Don’t gooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

    1. I feel the same, I guess I have to move to Canada now. Save me Zoolander, save me.

      1. Isn’t Canada full of those folks who moved there when W won? Does that explain ‘toxic?

        1. Well, they did promise to do so, but unfortunately most of them are still her fucking shit up.

          1. Here. Have the puppies been trained on making an edit feature yet?

          2. Well, the bright side of Trump winning is that maybe most of those people will actually leave and never come back.

        2. No it doesn’t. I like to think I am the end point of this country. Its best, its years of efforts all condensed into one incarnate point.

          1. A hockey puck covered in gravy?

          2. I like to think I am the end point of this country

            You really need a beginning before you get to the end.

            1. Cold wasteland is totally a beginning! And an end!

      2. YOU DON’T LOVE HIM LIKE I DO! *plays with knife*

    2. He did make the kiddy table debates more fun. How can Lindsey link this question to terrorism and the middle east? How can Lindsey derail this conversation? Oh, the hours of entertainment he provided. About six of them, I think. I almost believe him when he says his job vis-a-vis bringing foreign policy to the forefront is done, except he was far less effective than the actual terrorists in doing so.

    1. It was a childhood hobby to put a penny on the nearby Pennsylvania railroad track and pick it up after a train ran it over to see what was left. I am horribly sentimental in some ways. I still have a penny that I subjected to this. Confederates should rejoice that the imprint of Lincoln was fully squashed.

      1. That’s destruction of currency! I’m reporting you!

        1. I bet he also cut the tags off mattresses. Anarchist!

      2. widget|12.21.15 @ 10:31PM|#
        “It was a childhood hobby to put a penny on the nearby Pennsylvania railroad track and pick it up after a train ran it over to see what was left.”

        We had he B&O, but often enough the damn penny went flying off and we never found it. No one was gonna risk a nickel; that’d buy you some candy!

        1. Gimme five bees for a quarter!

          1. (Which was the style at the time)

      3. Okay, I’m really curious about this, because my older brother used to put huge rocks (for a ten year old, anyway) on the tracks in an attempt to derail trains. It didn’t work, of course, so I can only assume the train sent rocks skittering well out of harm’s way. So how on earth were you able to find pennies afterward?

        1. Never done it personally, but I can attest to the fact that it works. Seen the results from my grade school friends.

        2. Imagine the vectors and it’s not hard to see that a derailment takes a very specific size, shape, placement and hardness; everything else ends up over there in the woods.
          But the flattened coin does work, say 25% of the time. Pennies end up looking like a copper disc; whoo-hoo! To a kid watching as the train rumbled by, it was amusing.
          Anyone else remember rubbing mercury on pennies to make them shiny silver? I had a stash of mercury from every broken thermometer I could find.

        3. The penny will be flattened by a short Paoli local passenger train. You will not find it after a 5 mile-long commerce train passes over it.

    1. They should be-they can’t win. They couldn’t stop this before BTC and certainly can’t now. What measures are used to detect gun components in the mail and how hard is it to disguise your components?

      1. Mail shmail. In a few years, 3D printers should be cheap enough that it should be cheap and easy to make firearms in the privacy of one’s own home. Nice untraceable firearms.

  22. “Politifact rewards Donald Trump’s campaign with the 2015 Lie of the Year”…..tgfeatures

    Well, Obo isn’t running and it’s not fair to point out HRC’s lies, ’cause twat.

  23. According to an analysis by IHS, ISIS has lost 14% of its territory this year, which doesn’t seem like much but includes vital border strongholds which are needed to make money. Interestingly, the Syrian government lost just over 11% of its territory over the year.…../77711622/

    1. Well, you’d better pick up a rifle and head over there, Red ‘Plug.

  24. Well, I guess, uh, something or other!

    “Suspect in Vegas Crash Said She Was Stressed Living in Car”
    “After her arrest, Holloway “described a stressful period today where she was trying to rest/sleep inside her vehicle with her daughter but kept getting run off by security of the properties she stopped at,” the police report states.
    “She ended up on the Strip, ‘a place she did not want to be,'” the report quoted her as saying. “She would not explain why she drove onto the sidewalk but remembered a body bouncing off her windshield, breaking it.”…..s-35886748

    Nothing like running down pedestrians to reduce that ol’ stress level, right? I mean, that’s part of any relaxation process.

    1. Maybe she thought she could get some sleep in jail

    2. Obviously, you’ve never played GTA.

      1. You are correct; see my note regarding collecting mercury, above. And get off my lawn!

  25. Wow man that makes a lot of sense dude.

  26. What are you gonna do Matt? Cry? Come on! Cry for me Matt!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.