Clinton Sent Top Secret Emails, Michigan Gov. Apologizes for Poisoned Water, Trump Surges in Iowa: A.M. Links

|

  • A new wrinkle in Hillary Clinton's email saga suggests she did in fact store top secret emails on an unsecure server.

  • Gunmen carry out terrorist attack on Pakistani university, leaving 22 dead.
  • Half of Americans think race relations have gotten worse.
  • Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder apologized for his role in Flint's water crisis.
  • Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump is a big boost for his chances in Iowa.
  • Here's how John McCain responded.
  • Could Trump be the GOP nominee? Could he be… the president?
  • Smoking weed doesn't make you stupid.

New at Reason.com:

Brickbat: Welcome to Germany

By Charles Oliver

Trump Is Right About Cruz's Presidential Eligibility

After many years of debate, the meaning of "natural born citizen" remains unsettled.

By Jacob Sullum

Economic Myths of the Presidential Candidates

Politicians are mythmakers.

By John Stossel

Americans Love Pot Taxes

But hyping cannabis cash as a source of government revenue is a bad idea.

By Jacob Sullum

Advertisement

NEXT: S.C. legislator proposes 'South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry,' coupled with 'requirements for persons before working as a journalist'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 140) In DC, Wal-Mart has opened three stores in past two years, and had informally agreed with the city to build two more in poorer neighborhoods. But a few days ago, the company announced they wouldn’t open the final two stores after all. This has caused a shitstorm in the city. The mayor is “blood mad” and a city council member thinks “the optics of this are horrible; they are not going to build the stores east of the river, in largely African American neighborhoods?” Just today in the Washington Post, there’s an editorial denouncing the store: “the bait-and-switch that Walmart just pulled off in the District has to rank among the sleaziest ever played.”

    But buried in the article that ran a couple days ago is this: “the company cited the District’s rising minimum wage, now at $11.50 an hour and possibly going to $15 an hour if a proposed ballot measure is successful in November? a proposal for ?employers to pay into a fund for family and medical leave for employees? another effort to require a minimum amount of hours for hourly workers.”

    So where’s the bait and switch now? The company that reneged on the deal, or the city that has completely changed the business environment for companies that employ low-wage workers?

    1. Hello.

      “A new wrinkle in Hillary Clinton’s email saga suggests she did in fact store top secret emails on an unsecure server.”

      God knows Hillary doesn’t have enough wrinkles. She’s perfect to lead.

    2. Oh, fuck Washingtonians. They flipped out when Wal-Mart entered the deal to build here, tried to pass a law that raised the minimum wage on Wal-Mart specifically, and now they are crying because Wal-Mart won’t build there after all.

      Fuck the Post, fuck the city government, and fuck all the thin-skinned SJW morons who live here.

      1. Different people with different goals. The ones trying to get Wal-Mart in aren’t the same ones trying to keep them away.

      2. They weren’t stupid enough to target Wal*Mart specifically (by name), but the bill was aimed at retail establishments over a certain size (square footage of store).

        1. You’re correct that it wasn’t by name, but it applied to Wal-Mart and nothing else.

          1. I seem to recall Walmart’s response to the proposed minimum wage increase was essentially – if you do it, we won’t build additional stores.

            1. Of course this is Walmart’s fault and not the enlightened liberals who refuse to look at the harmful effects of their own actions that prompted it in the first place.

              They blame the outputs and not their inputs

              1. After all, our enlightened leaders have all the right feelz and Wal-Mart is just an evul kerperashun

    3. I suspect that the mayor, and the more self-aware councilcritters, knew those stores in Anacostia were never going to get built. Sure, the minimum wage was an issue, but the “community” (race-hustler) shakedowns and pushback would have made those untenable even without the minimum wage. When Wal*Mart first wanted to come to DC there was a councilwoman (maybe activist?) quoted on here as saying basically that it’s a trap because those poor ghetto kids won’t be able to help themselves stealing.

      1. it’s a trap because those poor ghetto kids won’t be able to help themselves stealing.

        Oh, yeah. I forgot about that one. Quite the novel (and racist) argument against Walmart.

            1. “Walmart will make criminals of our children, argues Washington D.C. commissioner Brenda Speaks, because “kids are kids” so they’ll shoplift and then “security will grab them.””

              WTF

              1. “Addressing a small, anti-Wal-Mart rally at City Hall on Monday, Speaks said young people would get criminal records when they couldn’t resist the temptation to steal.”

            2. Thanks, Zeb.

              1. Yeah, thanks for that…disturbing…link.

    4. “So where’s the bait and switch now? The company that reneged on the deal, or the city that has completely changed the business environment for companies that employ low-wage workers?”

      Yep. It’s yet another example of totally unforeseen bad luck that these stores didn’t open.

      1. It’s not bad luck, it’s unbridled corporate greed. NOW will you vote for Sanders?

        /sarc

        1. I’d be more likely to shop at Wal*Mart than vote for bernie. And I don’t shop at Wal*Mart (their ‘savings’ are due to a false economy of shoddy products)

          1. Seriously! They don’t even carry any name brands!

            1. Um, what?

              I used to, once upon a time, shop a Wal*Mart. I stopped because the crap I got from them didn’t last long enough to be worth even the lower purchase price. I found that for a marginally higher price I could get the same things with a substantially longer useful life elsewhere. So I stopped doing business with Wal*Mart.

              1. WalMart carries mostly name brands. They carry name brands for less than other stores. Your problem seems to be with generics, not Walmart.

                1. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how it is that Levi’s can be sold cheaper by WalMart than other stores?

                  Don’t. The answer is: magic.

                  1. The answer is bulk sales. The more you buy, the cheaper the per unit cost is.

                    Not magic.

          2. They have a lot of name brand products that are identical to those found elsewhere (especially food products and items in their pharmacy), and are often cheaper. Stop being such an elitist.

    5. You’re all missing the big story here:

      JATNAS got a firsties!

    6. By the way, don’t think that I didn’t notice that Reason completely ignored the news about Walmart shutting down about 300 stores, half of them in America.

      They didn’t even give it an AM or PM link mention, which is rather odd to me. I know that DuPont Circle isn’t exactly Walmart country, but you would think it would still be worth mentioning, what with it being one of the world’s largest retailers and all.

    7. It doesn’t matter. Walmart gained their power through the spontaneous order of the free market. No one person decided whether or not Walmart should have the power they have, everybody just decided for themselves whether or not to shop at Walmart and thereby grant Walmart the tiny bit of power each individual as an individual consumer held.

      That is anathema to the very existence of Washington, DC.

      We can argue all day long what Top Men should do about this issue or that, but the idea that Top Men shouldn’t be deciding the issue at all is right out. You can worship any God you like, but you must worship God. The Top Men at Walmart or the Top Men in Washington – but suggesting that it is the individual consumers who created Walmart’s power may lead to the heresy of suggesting it’s the individual voters who created the power of Washington.

      (This really connects to the discussion of Freedom of the Press as freedom to use the printing press – the invention of the printing press was not a God-send, it was a tool of the Devil. Mass production of the Bible led directly to mass-consumption of the Bible. This led to people deciding that they could read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what the Will Of God was – and the Pope and the King knew their days as The Authority on the Word Of God were numbered. You start letting the sheep decide for themselves where they want to graze and suddenly the shepherd’s out of a job.)

  2. A new wrinkle in Hillary Clinton’s email saga suggests she did in fact store top secret emails on an unsecure server.

    Wrinkle?

    1. In time? Or not, actually.

      1. “Tesseract, Sir!”

    2. There’s a newsman waiting in the skies
      He’d like to come and meet us
      But he thinks he’d blow our minds

    3. You wing-bag tea-nuts just can’t let this alone, can you? Phake skanduuuul!!1! /you-know-who

      1. Hitler?

  3. Not Knowing The Colour Of Your Wife’s Underwear Could Get You Deported From The UK

    Immigration officials have been trying to expose couples they believe are entering sham marriages by asking bizarre questions about lingerie colour and bra sizes, it has been revealed

    A review into the welfare of immigration by detainees commissioned by home secretary Theresa May found the number of people held should be reduced “boldly and without delay”.

    The author of the review Stephen Shaw, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales, found that a large number of detainees were being held on suspicion of being involved in sham marriages.

    black.. silky, silky black

    1. Shit, i don’t know that! It’s winter, she’s always got like five layers on.

      1. “Oh, very well. What’s her bra size?”

        1. Nuh uh, i know better than to share information about my loved ones with all you Hit’n’Run perverts.

        2. We’ve been together for just over 3 years and had two babies. I think she’s been three different cup sizes during that time.

      2. Nine out of ten* men have no idea their wife’s bra size. They think about it, cup their hands and say, “About this big.”

        *Buried in last week’s unemployment numbers.

        1. Does she know your ball size? MGTOWs unite.

          1. I’ll tell my bra size if you tell your ball size.

            C’mon, Straffin, let’s share.

            1. Two of ’em are the size of kiwi fruit, and the other is more like one of those little clementine oranges.

              1. Right in the Chinese gooseberries!

              2. Why is a pool table green?

                You’d be green too if you had sixteen balls.

            2. Ok, let’s measure from distance to the floor.

              1. *gets out seamstress tape*

                Forty-two inches from underboob to the floor for me. I don’t know what this will tell you, except that I am short.

                This seems unscientific.

                1. *Holds up and drops them* 1.2 seconds before apogee. There, does that make it scientific?

                2. Just reading the word underboob is titillating.

              2. Right or left? There’s a substantial difference.

                1. There was a young man from Devizes,
                  Whose balls were of different sizes.
                  The one was so small,
                  It was no ball at all,
                  While the other one won several prizes.

        2. I think that would be considered a legitimate answer. They are probably checking that you’ve seen the woman your immigrating with undressed before.

            1. You can’t try a bra over a leotard! A bra’s gotta fit right up a person’s skin, like a glove!

    2. *ejects Lord H fron the UK*

      We checked, it was whote and cotton today.

      1. +1 Granny Panties

        1. Go on…

          1. I was once at a house punk show – getting to and from the basement required using a pair of torturous stairs. One of my gal-friends was ahead of me, climbing up the steps. I was following. I couldn’t help but see this enormous pair of white underwear peeking out from under her short skirt.

            Me: “Nice granny panties.”

            Her: “It’s laundry day!” in a miffed voice.

    3. My wife goes commando.

      1. You know, underwear for eight year olds is really not that expensive.

        1. He means she is covered in mud trying to hide from a predator. He just got his Arnold movies confused.

          1. Or she keeps promising to kill him last.

      2. I was going commando for a while. . .but I’m back to undies. It’s too damn cold for commando here.

        1. Libertarian Moment!

    4. I guess we’re all in danger of getting deported.

      There’s not enough sun in England. They’re becoming more and more retarded by the hour.

      Technocrat: ‘What’s you wife’s bra size!’

      Rufus (Sticks hands out and thoughtfully but stoically begins rotating them): I’d say about yay big.

      1. Tuning in Tokyo, eh?

      2. About Yay: One man’s heartwrenching journey converting from Imperial to Standard measure because his life and wife depended on it.

    5. Black, white and red all over. Do I get to stay?

    6. This is as idiotic as the periodic efforts of some service branches, usually the Marines, to do the same. Who the fuck gives a shit if someone is in a real or “fake” marriage? Are they legally married? Yes or no? End of fucking story.

      1. Seems like almost an equal protection problem. If you’ve gone through the proper legal steps that the law requires for you to be considered legally married, that’s all that should matter legally. Unless there is some part in marriage laws about actually being in love and intending to make a life together that I don’t know about.

      2. Seriously, or else game shows like ‘The Newlywed Game’ suddenly aren’t about fun and games anymore.

        Imagine a government sanctioned marriage game show!

      3. “Are they legally married? Yes or no? End of fucking story.”

        Certainly. Agreed.

        Now, the U.S. has similar problems with immigration laws against “fake” marriages.

        The problem, I think, is that if after entering the country you promptly abandon your spouse and marry or shack up with someone else, there’s nothing the immigration people can do about it. Especially not in a federal state like ours where the central government doesn’t define marriage…

        Wait a minute…

        OK, I’ve got it – the U.S. Supreme Court should declare divorce to be a violation of the Constitution because [insert legal reasoning here]. Then if you marry someone for immigration purposes, you’re stuck with them.

        1. Does anyone doubt that Bill would have to ask Huma about Hilliary’s panties or lack thereof?

    7. Dude, the UK is flailing and insane on immigration right now.

      I have been in the UK almost 5 years. I read the news and read that suddently, the UK may pass a new law saying my wife can’t work at all! Or they may raise the income requirements, so all of a sudden we can’t hire any postdocs from outside the EU, and have to get rid of the ones we do have! And then psyche! they don’t pass them, and we linger on anther year.

      Does this sound like any way a man can plan for his lab, or his family, long term?!?

      If the immigration rules keep going to go back and forth like a football, we ain’t stayin’ past 2016. It’s stupid.

      1. “Does this sound like any way a man can plan for his lab, or his family, long term?!?”

        I agree with you totally, it is very important that you make sure your retriever and then your family are taken care of. Also agree with your priorities. Good gun dogs are hard to find, families can be had for a nominal fee at most charities.

        1. This comment was seriously, seriously funny.

  4. Epi rejoices…

    White Castle offering Valentine’s Day reservations

    Valentine’s Day revelers seeking a romantic dinner in an unconventional setting are being offered reservations at fast food chain White Castle.

    The Columbus-based eatery, which has made Valentine’s Day reservations an annual tradition, said locations around the country will be offering romantic dinners with table-side service from 3 p.m. until 9 p.m. Feb. 14.

    The restaurant said the menu will include White Castle’s iconic sliders, as well as specialty items including shrimp nibblers and strawberry and cream waffles.

    1. *calls home and asks wife if she ‘wants to go out to dinner’ on Feb 14th…*

      1. I hope you have a comfortable couch, or a roomy doghouse.

        1. March 14th is a going to be an unsatisfying day.

          1. MARCH 14???

          2. Hot dog and jerk off day

            1. You’re just trying to get dyslexics arrested.

            2. Oh, you mean “Tuesday.”

    2. CARRIE:Thank you for a wonderful time George.
      GEORGE: Glad you enjoyed it.
      CARRIE:I haven’t had a Big Mac in a long time.
      GEORGE: ? millions and millions ?
      CARRIE:Would you like to come up?

    3. Despite all our political problems, I LOVE America.

    4. Awesome. I bet my wife is tired of shit like the Refectory.

  5. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder apologized for his role in Flint’s water crisis

    Thereby securing the narrative that this is all his, and the Rethuglikkkans fault. Nicely done, Rick.

    1. The Republicans aren’t called The Stupid Party for nothing.

    2. What a bleepin’ idiot he is to apologize.

      Better response:

      “Flint had to switch its water supply because the Democrats who run the place pretty well busted it. If you’re looking for someone to blame, why not start with them?”

  6. Rifle capable of taking down helicopter found at ‘El Chapo’ hideout purchased through Fast and Furious program

    A .50-caliber rifle found at Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s hideout in Mexico was funneled through the gun-smuggling investigation known as Fast and Furious, sources confirmed Tuesday to Fox News.

    A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car, or as it was intended, take down a helicopter.

    After the raid on Jan. 8 in the city of Los Mochis that killed five of his men and wounded one Mexican marine, officials found a number of weapons inside the house Guzman was staying, including the rifle, officials said.

    When agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives checked serial numbers of the eight weapons found in his possession, they found one of the two .50-caliber weapons traced back to the ATF program, sources said.

    1. Maybe we can extradite Eric Holder to Mexico.

      1. El DOJhole

    2. A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car, or as it was intended, take down a helicopter.

      Funny I thought the original use of the .50 was as an anti-tank round in WWI. They didn’t have much in the way of helicopters in that fight.

      Or was that poorly constructed sentence implying that Guzman’s .50 was bought expressly as anti-aircraft artillery?

      1. This was likely .50 BMG, which didn’t even get invented until the 30’s. Also, lots of anti-tank stuff in that era was 20mm or more.

        1. The 50 cal was invented in 1918 but didn’t see service until 1933 (Wikipedia). The German anti-tank rifle in WW1 was a 13mm bolt action Mauser!

      2. My understanding is that the .50 BMG was designed as an anti-materiel round, intended for use against lightly armored vehicles, buildings, etc. It was essentially envisioned as a very light cannon, almost.

        Its a little weird to say that .50 BMG was intended to take down a helicopter. However, the rifles that use this round were designed relatively recently, and helicpoters might well have been on their list of prey.

        1. Sometimes you gotta take out stuff like a bus, or a building, or a whole buncha muhfuckas…

    3. What we need is common sense Mexican control laws?

    4. A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car, or as it was intended, take down a helicopter.

      If you can throw a .50 cal rifle up into the rotors, I guess you could take a helicopter down.

      1. Like, with a giant slingshot?

      2. Engines. You target the engines. Apparently that .50 cal round will penetrate an engine block so should be able to fuck up those helicopter jet engines no problem.

        1. Yes, but you wouldn’t use a Barrett or similar rifle. You’d just use an M2 as you’ll need a lot more rounds down range to hit a moving target.

          Unless you’re a Marine?

          1. You’d just use an M2 as you’ll need a lot more rounds down range to hit a moving target.

            Takeoff and landing, hovering, etc. I could see someone taking a successful shot with a Barrett.

            1. Also, if it’s coming right at you… the shot is easier if you don’t mind having massive rounds and rockets coming straight at you. Maybe wait until it’s going away?

              I also suppose that the imminent fear of death will help you ignore how unpleasant shooting a 50 cal really is.

              Either way, you can be lucky or good. The gun will theoretically take down any helicopter, no problem …if you hit it in the right spot.

    5. So many PHAKE SKANDLS in the news today!

    6. Holy shit, really?

      Oh, it’s on Fox News. Wake me up when a *real* media outlet covers the story.

      /sarc

      1. “El Chapo’s weapon was purchased through a policy which began under President Bush. Republicans also claim former Attorney General Eric Holder continued the program.”

        -New York Times article on p. A17

        1. Which is a lie. The Bush program was not the same as Fast and Furious and it was discontinued prior to Bush leaving office. They really will go to any lengths to yell BOOOOSH!!11!!!, won’t they?

          1. Just to be clear, that quote was satire about what the MSM will say if it absolutely *has* to take notice of this story.

          2. They didn’t actually write that (this time), it was just a prediction.

            1. Shit, it was so much like what they have written in the past I assumed it was real. Poe’s Law, I guess.

        2. “El Chapo’s weapon was purchased through a policy which began under President Bush. Republicans also claim former Attorney General Eric Holder continued the program.”

          -New York Times article on p. A17

          What does he mean they “claim” Eric Holder continued the program (under O’Bama)? Are they so out of touch with reality that they’re denying a plainly known fact that the program was continued? Are they suggesting that some other Attorney General was accidentally and secretly doubled-booked for the same job Eric Holder has and that he continued the program? The program existed, it continued, Eric Holder was the attorney general under a significant period of that programs existence, how is this at all up for debate? Fuck You New York Times.

            1. Oh I see. the “-New York Times article on p. A17” made it look pretty authentic. That’s quality satire you got there.

              1. The p. A17 was a joke about how they like to bury stories – though what with the Internet I suppose the joke is outdated.

  7. They did find, though, a distinct relationship between cigarette use and poor educational performance, which is in line with what other research has found.

    Vape evaluation pending ?.

    1. I know when I was in high school, all the top students took up a heavy cigarette habit.

    2. Doctor: “Any recent use of alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes?”
      Patient: “No. I vape, though.”
      Doctor: “Ok, so no sexual activity either.”

      1. I just heard this:

        The pilot goes through his usual litany about the flight, but forgets to turn off the mic. Later he’s heard throughout the cabin saying “You know, I could really use a blow job and a cup of coffee right now.” A panicked stewardess runs forward to alert him. A passenger shouts “Hey, don’t forget his coffee!”

        1. Hold the cream!

  8. One more year. Just one final, long, leap year until the evil, wretched Block Insane Yomomma is finally out of fucking office.

    Of course, this is assuming that he actually agrees to step down voluntarily, which is by no means a given. There’s absolutely nothing I would put past this lowlife trying.

    1. Of course, this is assuming that he actually agrees to step down voluntarily, which is by no means a given. There’s absolutely nothing I would put past this lowlife trying.

      I think at that point protocol is for the Secret Service agents closest to retirement to bodily drag him from the building.

    2. reminds me that Gaius Marius went away when Bush left office unexpectedly.

    3. You’ll miss him once President Trump’s press conferences are nothing but the phrase, “I’m not politically correct!” separated by verbs and random nouns.

      1. No, he won’t. He’ll say we’re all butthurt that Hillary or Sanders didn’t win, and praise Trump for shootin’ straight.

        1. Don’t worry, Hillary of course is going to win. She has the support of most of the crooks on Wall Street, the rent-seeking techies of Silicon Valley, and the Saudis are apparently determined to do anything to get her in, even if they have to drive gasoline down to like ten cents a gallon.

          Then after she gets elected, it’ll probably go back up to like $3.80 within a year, while all the morons scratch their heads wondering what’s going on.

    4. Please stop this fucking bullshit.

      They said the same shit about Clinton and they said the same shit about Bush (and maybe even Bush 1 and Reagan before them but I was too young to really remember), the fact is no President is moronic enough to try and create that kind of Constitutional Crisis and if one did it will be a Republican who is insanely popular inside the military, not a Democrat who is barely tolerated by them.

      The simple fact is even if Obama wanted to somehow finagle a way to stay in power past Jan 20 2017 he wouldn’t try it because he knows he couldn’t count on the support of the Military.

      1. Ok, let’s say the gutter rat does in fact leave office without a fight, which I suspect he likely will. What do you think he’ll do next?

        Scumbags like him never just go away quietly, and he in particular is going to want to continue fucking over America any way he possibly can. My guess is he tries to become Secretary General of the UN or something.

  9. Ta-Nehisi Coates Criticizes Bernie Sanders Over His Opposition to Reparations

    Last week in Iowa, a host at a minority-focused Brown and Black Forum asked Mr. Sanders if he would be in favor of “reparations for slavery.”

    “No, I don’t think so,” Mr. Sanders said. “First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.”

    Mr. Coates wrote that Mr. Sanders’s opposition to reparations because it was not likely to get through Congress didn’t make sense because many of the policies the senator is proposing ? such as tuition-free public colleges, single-payer Medicare for all, and a $1-trillion jobs and infrastructure bill ? was also not likely to be passed.

    “Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is ‘nil,’ a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform,” Mr. Coates wrote. “If this is the candidate of the radical left ? then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children. Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy.

    1. Cripple intellectual fight!

    2. Ta Nehisi Coates has single-handedly took race relations back 40 years.

      1. But remember a white woman was once rude to his son on an escalator, he demands compensation.

        1. Woman: What weird looking little bla…hey, is that Lise Watier?

    3. Why does this guy get so much attention?

      1. The racists with no verbal filter always draw a crowd.

      2. Because liberals like him. He speaks there language, makes them feel appropriately guilty for their imagined sins, and promises them redemption and a way to stick it to those rich people. Liberals really don’t think those reparations will be levied upon them, or that their burden will be de minimis. They really want to stick it to “the rich” (anyone with a penny more than them) and to poor whites who must have extra money if they can afford all those gunz.

        1. It’s a new take on Stockholm Syndrome.

      3. I blame it on the exotic first name.

        1. That, too. They can pretend that the name makes him more authoritative.

          1. No slave name for this guy.

    4. Oh, this is delicious.

      First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil.

      But that applies to pretty much everything he wants. Interesting to see what it takes to cause him to embrace reality.

      Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.

      Really? LOL.

      1. I especially like the way he didn’t have any principled objections to it. Something like:

        “In civilized countries, you don’t visit the sins of the fathers on their children unto the 7th generation. So, no, I don’t support reparations at all.”

    5. The white supremacy movement died when it became obvious, over two decades ago, when test after test revealed that east asians have higher IQs, on average, than europeans.

      1. I don’t think it died. A lot of white power types think of north east Asians as another ‘master race’ or whatever.

      2. East Asians do not actually have higher IQ scores than Europeans.

        That result is achieved by separating out high performance Europeans and classifying them as something else.

        Ashkenazi Jews are treated as if they are distinct from other Europeans to create this illusion.

        The White Supremacy Movement–i.e. Progressivism, is still going strong

    6. I support it too, so long as it’s like a class action settlement. All the non-black people pay for the crimes of the ancestors of a small fraction of them, and all the black people agree to never again blame racism for their personal inadequacies, upon pain of deportation.

      1. so long as it’s like a class action settlement.

        Okay, who exactly might they be suing?

    7. Fucking racist. I’m so tired of being blamed for other peoples’ problems. Pull up your damn pants and speak English.

    8. many of the policies the senator is proposing … was also not likely to be passed.

      You work for the fucking New York goddamn Times. For fuck’s sake.

      Oh, I guess the section is called “first draft,” so who cares.

    9. Hey I’m all in favor of reparations.

      You show me someone who was held as a legal slave in the US and we can talk about how much they should be paid.

      Hell show me someone who was the grandchild of someone who was held as a legal slave in the US and we can have that discussion and while there might just barely be someone who meets this criteria alive (realistically the youngest grandchildren of slaves would have been born around 1925ish) the overwhelming majority of Blacks alive today are 4 to 6 generations removed from actual slaves and have never personally met anyone who has ever met someone who was once a slave

      1. have never personally met anyone who has ever met someone who was once a slave

        If they have, the slavery was perpetrated by an African or an Arab. But we don’t talk about the fact that there is still an actual slave trade on this planet, because it doesn’t involve Europeans enslaving Africans as chattel slaves, which is of course the only “real” slavery.

    10. If this is the candidate of the radical left ? then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children.

      But remember that only race traitors don’t support the radical left. Supporting the left has served our people so well for so long. And now that we’ve reached the Promised Land of having a black man as President, we’ll just shut the hell up and enjoy all this manna falling from the sky.

  10. Judge gives Edison lingerie cop his gun and badge back

    Sarni admitted to Internal Affairs detectives that he went back to a woman’s hotel room in September 2012 after an emergency call while he was off duty, but still in his uniform with his badge and gun. He also acknowledged that he asked the woman to try on several outfits that she’d purchased earlier in the day, and said that she complied with his request.

    But he denied, contrary to the woman’s claims, that he tried to use marijuana he’d found in the room as leverage to get her to take her clothes off. He also denied he explicitly propositioned her for sex. The woman said she felt coerced by Sarni.

    Before he’s returned back to work, Sarni must undergo a psychological evaluation and other re-training, his lawyer said. That could take about a month. The department has signaled that it will likely give him an administrative assignment in police headquarters, where he would have a more limited interaction with the public.

    1. “Lingerie Cop” — Coming in a theater near you!

      1. Black panties matter!

      2. Meesa thinks thissa already on yoooooporn.

    2. What the hell does it take to get fired if you’re a cop? Besides speaking out against your fellow officers, that is.

  11. Clinton signed a nondisclosure contract when she got to the State Department, in which she agreed to “never divulge anything marked SCI [sensitive compartmented information] or that I know to be SCI to anyone who is not authorized to receive it without prior authorization from the US Government department or agency that authorized my access.”

    “‘It was SAP, not SCI’ ?. Yeah, *that’s* the ticket!”

  12. Isis has destroyed Iraq’s oldest Christian monastery, satellite images confirm

    Before it was razed, a partially restored, 27,000-sqft stone and mortar building stood fortress-like on a hill above Mosul. Although the roof was largely missing, it had 26 distinctive rooms including a sanctuary and chapel. A month later photos show “the stone walls have been literally pulverised”, said imagery analyst Stephen Wood, chief executive of Allsource Analysis, who pinpointed the destruction between August and September 2014.

    “Bulldozers, heavy equipment, sledgehammers, possibly explosives turned those stone walls into this field of grey-white dust. They destroyed it completely,” he said.

    In Irbil, Iraq, Catholic priest Father Paul Thabit Habib, 39, was shocked by the images. “Our Christian history in Mosul is being barbarically levelled,” he said. “We see it as an attempt to expel us from Iraq, eliminating and finishing our existence in this land.”

    1. This is why I’m for the looting of priceless artifacts. Whoever goes through the trouble of getting that shit overseas will make sure its taken care of.

      1. I wonder how many “repatriated” artifacts have been lost, versus those that remain in the private collections and museums of the “imperialists”?

        1. Well there are two sides to that coin. I agree in principle that a private market in these antiquities would better preserve history and tying the ownership of these artifiacts to nation-states is a dire mistake. Though in some cases, like the Elgin looting of Greek antiquities, the looters did as much damage to the artifacts as they did to preserve if them, if not more, just to squeeze out whatever value remained in the battered remnants (since the lost value was not theirs to begin with).

          1. Nothing I said was meant to endorse the position that “looting” is an unalloyed good. I was only implying (though I was genuinely looking for evidence) that the preservation of artifacts has been better handled by the descendants of the so-called “looters” of the erstwhile imperial powers than the “native” populations those artifacts supposedly belong to.

            1. I never indicated that you did claim looting=good. I was responding to that bit about the “museums of the “imperialists””, of which there are few examples where people who are making these generally exaggerated claims actually do have point, like with Elgin. But those are an exceedingly rare cases, the Elgin marbles is really the only one that comes to mind as particularly egregious and didn’t serve to preserve the artifacts from destructive native inhabitants..

              The case of Iraq, if you remember the looting of antiquities during the chaos of the US invasion, which seemed terrible at the time, in hindsight I think we can say those artifacts are probably more likely to survive the ages than they were when in hands of the Iraqi government or ISIS.

      2. +1 Pergamon Museum

  13. Emerging Markets Roiled as Stock Selloff Surpasses Asian Crisis

    Turmoil gripped emerging-market assets as the slide in oil made traders and investors increasingly skeptical that governments and central banks can shore up currencies and stimulate their economies.

    Developing-nation stocks extended their worst start to a year ever, currencies slumped to a record and the risk premium on emerging-market debt climbed to the highest in more than six years. Concern an oil supply glut will worsen sent Brent crude toward the lowest close since 2003, while the slowest growth in China in a quarter century damped the outlook for the global economy. Russia’s ruble fell to an all-time low beyond 80 per dollar.

  14. Alarmed Clinton Supporters Begin Focusing on Sanders’s Socialist Edge

    It is a scenario many Democrats long dismissed as even remotely plausible: the 74-year-old Mr. Sanders, a registered independent who self-identifies as a democratic socialist, as their nominee. But the possibility of his defeating Mrs. Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire next month has prompted some of her prominent supporters to discuss how they could attack Mr. Sanders if his candidacy began to look less like a threat and more like a runaway train: calling him unelectable and warning Republicans would have a field day if he were the Democratic nominee.

    “Here in the heartland, we like our politicians in the mainstream, and he is not ? he’s a socialist,” said Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri, who is term-limited and working to elect a Democratic successor. “He’s entitled to his positions, and it’s a big-tent party, but as far as having him at the top of the ticket, it would be a meltdown all the way down the ballot.”

    You know who else was a socialist…

    1. Franky Holland, President of Frogland?

    2. William Mulholland?

      sorry, he was a SoCal-ist

    3. It would kill the argument that Dems aren’t socialists.

      1. I thought Hill and Debbie Wasserman Schultz killed it when they couldn’t explain what the difference is.

    4. All the democrats and half the republicans?

    5. ‘ a registered independent who self-identifies as a democratic socialist’
      Now if he could just identify as a black woman, he’d be unstoppable.

  15. Women inserting herb balls in vagina for ‘womb detox’ warned of toxic shock syndrome risk

    A trend among women for inserting herb balls in their vaginas to ‘detox their wombs’ could risk toxic shock syndrome, an expert has warned.

    The Herbal Womb Detox Pearls, sold by US company Embrace Pangaea , are said to alleviate conditions such as endometriosis, ovarian cysts and thrush.

    Made up of small packages of perfumed herbs, the balls sell for between ?10 and ?50 online.

    The website claims they are “designed to cleanse the womb and return it to a balanced state”.

    It adds: “The womb is not only a vessel for bringing in souls to the physical plane, but also a vessel that can hold on to emotional, physical and spiritual pain.”

      1. “Benoit.”

        “Balls.”

  16. America 2016: Burn It All Down!
    This is an era of bipartisan anger and populism. It was in 2008, and it still is today.

    Yes, Trump is going to be a spectacular disaster ? maybe even worse than most ? but why would anyone believe the contrived progressivism and incompetence of Hillary Clinton or (the incredibly expensive) radicalism of Bernie Sanders would be any less of a catastrophe? The Democrat frontrunners aren’t less inclined to embrace authoritarianism or destructive economic theories than Trump ? even if some of those ideas were mainstreamed over the past few years.

    Democrats aren’t ripping themselves apart as their leadership continually surrenders to the most strident voices in the party. Hillary, once the target of grassroots’ derision and frustration, now sounds like a random blogger at DailyKos ? which once-upon-a-time wanted to burn it all down, as well. The Democrats’ debate was a celebration of “free” stuff and gargantuan reforms that would have been unthinkable positions for a mainstream Democrat candidate in 1992, or even 2008.

    Oh, and like most of Trump’s agenda, none of it is going to pass.

    1. Oh, and like most of Trump’s agenda, none of it is going to pass.

      Whatever, I assume the next President will also have a pen and a phone? Executive orders, bitchez!

    1. There has been laws passed many times since the Reagan amnesty which mandate the administration track visa over stayers and every administration has failed to put one in place.

      Maybe they should hire Motel 6 to do it, I bet they know who has checked in and out of their motel rooms

      1. Short of putting radio trackers on them, how are they supposed to be tracked? They track them in the sense of knowing which ones have overstayed. The problem is there are so many of them it is impossible to do anything about it. The only way to enforce the VISA is to go out and police them up and deport them, which is pretty hard to do when there are hundreds of thousands of people who have overstayed their VISAS.

        1. First thing is that they are caught they are fined, deported and banned from reentering. Supposidly they know who these people are since they got visas. They got their pictures, their finger prints, etc. Get their credit card numbers if they don’t already have them. Make them pay a depoist to get a visa. Lots of ways to do it

          If they can’t police their own visa system then we should stop isueing them

          1. Those are all sensible positions. Good luck with trying to get them enacted. And be prepared for every right thinking person to call you a big racist quasi authoritarian fascist for having the nerve to expect the law be enforced.

            1. I think you would have to pass a new law to set up a deposit scheme for visas. But it would be a pretty good idea.

              Naturally, it will never see the light of day in any sensible form.

          2. If they’re supposed to pay a deposit to get a visa, how on earth are destitute, unskilled future welfare recipients supposed to get here?

    2. We broke up the old INS and created DHS because a bunch of foreign nationals overstayed their VISAs and pulled off the 911 attacks. Nothing to see here. Obama is in full control of the situation.

    3. It should be easy enough to round them up. Just look for people who keep asking where the nearest Sizzlers is.

  17. Here’s how John McCain responded

    So I had to click the link and read that half-article just to find that McCain had no comment?

    Come on, Rico, that’s weak linkage even by your standards

    1. Robby played you, son!

    2. You’ve been Ricorolled.

  18. New wrinkle?

  19. Hillary did not just store top secret material on her server. She stored above top secret information. Above top secret means it included means and methods. So it wasn’t just say our estimate of something like how far the Iranian nuclear program is or the intel community’s assessment of Assad’s army. That is top secret information. Hillary stored plenty of that but stored more. She stored special access programs information. That is means and methods. SAP information is not just the TS information but how it was obtained. So it would not be just an assessment of say the political situation in Syria. It would be information about how someone close to Assad is on the CIA payroll or how we are reading Gadafy’s email because of a backdoor the NSA managed to get on his computer. In other words, the kind of information that if leaked does real harm to US interests and often gets people killed.

    The fact is Hillary likely leaked much more sensitive and damaging information than anything Edward Snowden leaked. And let’s not forget, David Petreus got a federal conviction for mentioning some TS, not SAP but TS, information in pillow tak with his mistress. Hillary stored SAP information on a private server, ordered her subordinates to do the same and that information almost certainly ended up in the hands of every intelligence agency in the world.

    But this whole thing is just a “fake scandal”.

    1. She’s going down. It’s just a matter of time.

      1. She will only go down if Loretta Lynch and the DOJ choose to indict her. Otherwise, she walks. And I would guess that is at least a fifty fifty proposition. If she isn’t indicted, then all hell will break lose. The FBI and the military will go nuts. My guess is the FBI director will resign in protest at the very minimum. And all of the information relating to her crimes will be leaked to the media. Yes, the Hillary court media will do everything to ignore it and spin it as “mistakes were made but nothing to see here”. But that will be a difficult line to hold. Journalists depend on the FBI and DOD for access and sources. So, they will have a hard time telling the FBI to just fuck off.

        And of course everyone knows what happened to Petreus. It will be the end of the rule of law in this country. Yes I know you can say it is already over. But this would mean everyone finally realizes it. When that happens, a huge part of the country will collectively stop respecting the law. It is going to be a fucking nightmare.

        1. It won’t be as big a shitstorm as you think, because at least half the country believes this is just partisan persecution by Rethuglikkkans. And no facts will change that view.

          1. It doesn’t matter what half the country thinks. The people at the FBI and DOD won’t be in that group. And they can make a huge shit storm. Moreover, if even a quarter of the country collectively said fuck you to the feds and started systematically ignoring the law, it would be a complete disaster. It won’t matter than half the country thinks it is okay.

            1. if even a quarter of the country collectively said fuck you to the feds and started systematically ignoring the law

              I’m not sure that’s not already happening.

        2. Fair analysis.

        3. I doubt little people will start ignoring the law. It still applies to us and we will still be tossed in jail. I could see the political class stop giving a fuck about following it though. It will be all about getting the right people in power to cover your ass.

          1. All it takes is a critical mass large enough to make the chances of getting caught small and all hell breaks lose.

        4. If the media starts running stories about how the secrecy laws need to be “clarified” and how everybody should join together in a nonpartisan way to fix the problem without recrimination, then we’ll know the media has realized how bad the scandal has gotten.

          1. Also, keep an eye out for stories about Republican Congress(wo)men mishandling classified information. Then we’ll know that they realize Hillary is in trouble and are preparing their “both sides do it” defense.

        5. “She will only go down if Loretta Lynch and the DOJ choose to indict her.”

          Ain’t gonna happen as long as Clinton continues heaping praise on Obama.

          However, if the FBI director and several agents were to publicly resign in protest, maybe that would set things in motion.

          Okay, that’s wishful thinking; Clinton will likely slither around this criminal investigation like she has every scandal in her wretched career.

      2. Nope, because the only people in a position to hold her accountable have no interest in doing so.

        1. I heard something recently about whether or not any individual is too big to jail…I don’t recall exactly…it was on TV, though, so it must be true…

      3. Hillary doesn’t go down. That’s why Bill had to stick it in fours.

      4. In the long run we’re all dead, even Hillary. Until then…it seems to me there are far too many interests vested in Hillary winning the nomination. They’ll figure out a way to make it happen.

        1. there are far too many interests vested in Hillary winning the nomination.

          Please go on ?.

      5. So, what’s the filing deadline?

        1. They can replace her at the convention, so . . .

    2. Sooner or later, the MSM is not going to be able to ignore this anymore. Maybe it will take an actual indictment, maybe Barry is waiting until Hillary has won a few primaries and Biden come in and win the nomination at a brokered convention, I don’t know.

      1. They set the agenda. If the NYT, WP and whatever big news outlets ignore it, so will everyone else.

        1. Not true. In the words of Moe Green, they don’t have that kind of juice anymore. If they did, Donald Trump wouldn’t be a decent shot to be President. And the people upset about this won’t be a bunch of right wing bloggers. It will be the FBI and the entire IC community. Those people have real power.

          The FBI is going to wrap this up in the next month and recommend multiple and serious indictments against Hillary and a ton of her cronies. The media won’t be able to ignore that. Also, I don’t think Lynch will be able to ignore it all either. My guess is that she will have to try and compromise and indict Huma or a few other people close to Hillary in hopes of putting off the inevitable reckoning. Those will be complete media circuses and faced with long prison terms, the people involved will like cop pleas and agree to testify against Hillary causing the FBI to request another indictment this summer or fall.

          1. I’ll believe it when I see it.

            1. Look at it this way; Donald Trump transformed Bill Clinton from Hillary’s biggest asset into a liability in a single news cycle. If it were up to the NYT and WP Bill Clinton’s Bill Cosby act would be off limits. How is that working out?

              They will try and do the same thing with Hillary’s recommended indictment. And they will meet with the same success or lack thereof.

              1. Donald Trump transformed Bill Clinton from Hillary’s biggest asset into a liability in a single news cycle. If it were up to the NYT and WP Bill Clinton’s Bill Cosby act would be off limits. How is that working out?

                That was the point where I decided the notion that Trump was engaging in a Clintonian sabotage of the Republican Party was completely falsified. Perhaps they encouraged him to run for that purpose, but the Donald was not their doberman but his own man.

            2. Yeah, at best I see a few scapegoats thrown to the wolves to keep Hillary relatively safe.

          2. See above – when the media can’t deny or ignore the problem, they’ll look for some Republicans they will claim did equivalent stuff. Then they’ll recommend nonpartisan action to address this serious problem without singling out any particular person.

          3. It will be interesting to see how the FBI plays this.

            If they make a public and detailed recommendation for indictment (or if their detailed recommendation gets leaked, wink wink), I don’t see how it can be brushed off, even by an increasingly frantic DemOp Media.

            1. It may seem not too likely that this will be brushed off, but I think it’s even less likely that someone at the top of the pyramid will do any time for any crime.

      2. Obama has Clinton indicted after she locks Bernie out of the nomination. Then Michelle throws her hat into the ring to save the party. Classic Chicago playbook.

        1. Thanks for the new nightmare.

          1. Now that she’s perfected her ways on school lunches, she’s coming for everyone else’s lunch.

        2. Since I think that Michelle has even more identity politic points than the Hildebeast I have wondered why she hasn’t thrown her hat into the ring and this would explain it. I assume that when you add the fact that she is really black, not just half, and purportedly possesses a vagina, she would be a shoe in. If they could wait until later in the cycle to declare, they wouldn’t have to worry about all of those pesky debates and inquiries and campaigning, just go straight to the coronation.

          **Starts on the whiskey even though it is only 9am***

          1. Eight more years of Obama. Woo hoo!

            1. Now that you mention it, if that happens I’m investing in booze companies. I really miss not getting in on the gun action.

          2. I think I need to go home for a shot. :-/

          3. Michelle will have spectacularly bad negatives, and will be a terrible campaigner. Her bitchy entitled act will wear out really fast if we are subjected to a steady diet of it.

            1. I am less sanguine on this point.

              The reality distortion field surrounding both Obamas in the major media has been a sight to behold. Ten years ago I would scarcely have credited any claim that something like this was possible.

        3. Sounds about right.

    3. Yeah, when the IG has to get his security clearance upgraded just to read your unsecured server, you’ve got a real problem.

  20. “Could Trump be the GOP nominee? Could he be… the president?”

    Time for my official opinion on Trump.

    He’s a Democrat without the identity politics or love of refugees and illegal immigrants. Otherwise he believes in gun control, speech control, higher taxes, and government paid healthcare. I’m not certain if he will actually be able to get many things I don’t like passed in congress compared to other candidates.

    We will likely maintain the republican majority in congress. I can’t see them caving on gun control or focusing on speech control right now. It sounds like he’ll tear ObamaCare down not because he’s against it in principle but because it’s unpopular and he won’t think far enough ahead for a replacement. He won’t be able to ban all muslims from the country, but our Syrian refugee program will stop and we won’t get anymore executive order trying to naturalize without consent from congress. Drug war will stay the same as it is.

    The big benefit to Trump is he will be a big win in the culture war. Right now accepted logic among the elites is that you have to cave and apologize the second someone squeaks about being offended if they aren’t a white male Christian. This might possibly end the era of power for the SJW twitter mobs (maybe if we are lucky, it will end the belief that Twitter is important at all). Some new group will rise to power in their place, but the current one might go down. I’m on board for that.

    1. Trump strikes me as a pro closed borders Bill Clinton without the bimbos. That is not good but I honestly can’t see how he justifies so many people are shitting their pants over it, especially when you consider the alternatives will likely be an open felon, Hillary, or a committed communist, Sanders.

      I think most of the pants shitting in the media has nothing to do with anything Trump would actually do as President. I am not sure even Trump knows what he would. The media is foaming at the mouth and panicking over Trump because his winning the Presidency will finally show the country how fragile their power and influence actually is. If Donald Trump can be President, anyone can be President and the media no longer gets a vote in the matter.

      1. Personally, if Trump were to win the whole thing it would be worse than Hillary or Bernie winning. In the latter case, you will have a Republican Congress acting as a check on their respective insanity.

        However, were Trump to win there will be lots of Republican Congresscritters holding their fingers in the wind, decide the best means of political survival is going along with Trump, and vote with him on whatever authoritarian, quasi-fascist policies he wants. I find that more terrifying.

        1. What authoritarian position? Hillary and Bernie want to repeal the first two amendments to the constitution. What do you think Trump is going to do? Unless your entire measure of civil rights is the ability of anyone in the world to cross the border and go on welfare, I fail to see how Trump is any more authoritarian than any other candidate and he is a hell of a lot less than Hillary or Bernie.

          You guys always say this and then you never give any examples of exactly what you mean. You guys are just shitting your pants over Trump because if he won it would expose the lie you have been telling yourself about how open borders are popular and support of them politically essential. That is it.

          1. I’m just measuring the man according to what I see is his character. He’s a sloganeering idiot. He hasn’t built or done anything meaningful with his life except be a blowhard and be insanely lucky with birth parents.

            He wants to Make ‘Murica Great Again…and he hasn’t said how he’s going to do that. So, in my humble opinion, he’ll just try to ram laws or executive orders through the sausage factory and their will be plenty of fellow imbeciles in Congress that go along in order to keep their political careers alive.

            Hillary or Bernie will have an opposition party firmly in place in Congress. Deadlock.

            1. I’m just measuring the man according to what I see is his character. He’s a sloganeering idiot. He hasn’t built or done anything meaningful with his life except be a blowhard and be insanely lucky with birth parents.

              All that is true but we are talking about Trump not Obama.

              Yeah, I get it, you don’t like or agree with Trump. I don’t either in large part. But every bitch you have about him is true of pretty much every other politician in existence. You guys amaze me. We have Hillary Clinton a woman who is openly guilty of multiple felonies that would warrant decades in prison if it were anyone else and Bernie Sanders, an outright communist, both with real shots at the Presidency and you guys are shitting your pants over Donald Trump because he is promising things that likely wouldn’t get through Congress.

              You are kidding me right?

              1. But every bitch you have about him is true of pretty much every other politician in existence.

                Absolutely true, John. That’s why I didn’t vote for Obama, McCain, or Romney.

                You are kidding me right?

                No, I’m not. I’m looking at the situation realistically.

                Let’s assume Hillary isn’t indicted. Let’s further assume she wins the Presidency. She’ll be faced with a Congress in control of the opposition party. Now, I don’t think she is anywhere near as politically savvy as Bill so she’ll try to get some pet things passed in Congress but those won’t amount to much as they will be watered down by Congress.

                Bernie, as you said, is an outright communist. His ideas are so looney tunes he’ll get even less passed than Hillary.

                Trump is potentially a different matter. He’s used to getting his way all the time regardless of the concerns or interests of others. Assuming his populist rhetoric nets him a big win, their are likely enough Congressmen willing to go along with whatever it is he wants to do to Make ‘Murica Great Again – and we have no idea exactly how he plans to do that.

                I’m sure I’m wrong but I find the last scenario the least palatable of the three, at least at this point in time.

                1. If Hillary were to win, she would like Obama have complete protection from the media. So what if the Republicans control Congress? The progs have given up on Congress and now plan to use the media and the Presidency to make the country into a defacto elected dictatorship.

                  How much good has that “opposition Congress” done under Obama? Again, are you delusional? Here is how Washington works. There are four parties in Washington; the President, the media, the President’s party in Congress and the opposition party in Congress. The President gets whatever he wants unless two of the other three parties unite to stop him. Since a Democratic President can depend on the unwavering support of the media and his own party, they get whatever they want and no scandal no matter how egregious ever results in any consequences.

                  A President Trump in contrast would have a totally hostile media and opposition party to deal with and likely would command little loyalty from Republicans. I would give Trump a 50/50 shot at making through a full term without being impeached. Hillary in contrast would have complete media coverage and would be able to get away with anything. There would be no stopping her.

                  1. Yes, John, I guess I’m delusional. Thanks for the instruction on how Washington works. What would we do without you?

                    Sheesh. We’re all royally foocked anyway so I honestly don’t see a lot of difference between three totally shitty options.

                    1. Restoras,

                      Look at all of the things Obama is guilty of and he still go re-elected and still commands a huge amount of loyalty. Hillary would be the same only she would understand from the beginning that she can get away with anything. That is a bigger danger than anything Trump could do. It just is.

                    2. That’s your opinion. I don’t share it.

                  2. So what if the Republicans control Congress?

                    Indeed. Congress may be nominally controlled by Repubs, but it sure acts like its controlled by the Dems.

                    Exhibit A: Paul Ryan’s budget deal.

              2. Can we have a moratorium on the use of “pants shitting”? This is getting silly. No one is shitting their pants. We’re just speculating about the relative merits of electoral outcomes that we, as individuals, have no control over.

                A Democrat would probably get more resistance from a likely Republican dominated congress. That’s probably true.

                The way you talk about it, John, you’d think that we were deciding who the next president will be here in this comment section.

                1. Zeb,

                  Reason called Trump Hitler. Not metaphorically but literally. They had a picture and everything. Restorus says he is a “fascist”.

                  That is pants shitting. Sorry but it is what it is. If you think it is silly, I agree and think you should go along with me and tell people to calm down.

                  And Hillary would get even less resistance from Congress than Obama has gotten. And Obama has gotten little and to the extent he has gotten any, has just ignored it.

                  And remember we are one vote on the Supreme Court away from losing both the first and the second Amendments to the Constitution. You know as well as I do, even a 60 vote Republican Congress would rubber stamp anyone Hillary nominated out of a sense of comity and the desire to be liked by the Washington Post.

                  1. Reason called Trump Hitler. Not metaphorically but literally.

                    Uh, no that was metaphorically. Perhaps a bit hyperbolically. I don’t know why you think people aren’t calm. It is quite possible to calmly say that someone is a fascist asshole. Maybe some people are all wound up and shitting their pants, but I think that most here are resigned to the shitty choices that exist and are just interested in discussing the relative merits of possible outcomes.

                    Trump, Hillary and all the rest are fascists. Or near enough. And I’m not at all convinced that Trump gives a shit about the 1st or 2nd amendments any more than Hillary does.

                    Still, as I said yesterday, I think that having a Republican president next would be better on balance. But all the possibilities suck ass. What we really should have is a long series of one-term presidents. Why do people keep reelecting these assholes?

                    1. It is quite possible to calmly say that someone is a fascist asshole.

                      Sure it is. But saying it calmly doesn’t make the charge any more valid or any less of a rape of the meaning of the word. None of these people are “fascists”, not even Hillary. Hillary is just a criminal and more like an American Chavez or Evita Peron without the racial baggage. Trump has done nothing to indicate he is a fascist other than saying mean thinks about the sacred Mexicans and Muslims. And what Trump said about those groups isn’t half as bad as what various members of the Progressive media says about white people and white males in particular every single day.

                    2. Trump has done nothing to indicate he is a fascist other than saying mean thinks about the sacred Mexicans and Muslims.

                      Well, yeah, I mean, if you ignore everything he says about the economy, he doesn’t sound like a fascist.

                    3. I’m not sure why John thinks that the fascist label is all about his immigration positions. That’s just standard populist jingoism turned up a notch. As you say, it’s his ideas about economics and trade more than anything.

              3. Sigh….

                John, I really, really want to suggest you put down the crack pipe and maybe take up golfing or birdwatching.

                Because, if you think we don’t think Hillary sucks, that we are comfortable with a Bernie presidency, that we are shitting our pants over trump but blase about the other two… you have disassociated from reality.

                Trump is a fascist who is a right wing proggie. Bernie is a socialist. Hillary is a crook. Cruz is a self aggrandizing blowhard. Rubio is a man of naked ambition.

                They are all p[oliticians. They are all scum. If any individual one were to slip in the tub and break his or her necks, we would all be better off.

                Speaking for myself, I am not shitting my pants. I am resigned.

                1. Well said, tarran.

                2. Trump is a fascist who is a right wing proggie.

                  And on this board that means “he said mean thinga about Mexicans and Muslims”. That is it. You never point to a single position that he takes to illustrate that. You just hurl the accusation like it is self evident. If anyone has lost touch with reality it is people like you who equate saying Mexicans might not all be wonderful freedom loving people or inviting more Muslims into the country is a bad idea is a “fascist”.

                  Reality is proving open borders to be national suicide. And you guys can’t face it so you call everyone who even thinks of pointing out reality a “fascist” and try and make doing so unacceptable. That is all that is going on here.

                  I understand that you don’t like Trump. Knock it off with the pants shitting about fascism. It is idioitc and makes the board look like a bunch of kooks.

                  1. So, how do you think Trump will Make ‘Murica Great Again? Because, that’s a phrase that has been uttered by others in the past, others with a deep disdain for the status quo political process.

                    He’ll fail spectacularly, of course, just like he does with everything else, but do you honestly see no risk to a President Trump?

                    1. So, how do you think Trump will Make ‘Murica Great Again? I have no idea and I don’t think Trump does either. I think it is a typical campaign slogan like hope and change.

                      And so what if Trump fails? Is that a good thing since you don’t agree with him? And no candidate ever delivers on his promises. Again, all you are telling me is that Trump is a politician and that you don’t agree with him. And that is fine. The problem is when you and Tarran start pretending that means he is a fascist or that the threat of him being President is anything close to as bad as Hillary or Bernie being President.

                      Again, we are one vote on the Supreme Court away from both Heller and Citizens United being overturned. If Hillary wins, there is a very good chance she will get to replace one of the conservative justices. I don’t think Kennedy makes it another four years. And if she does, it is virtually certain both of those decisions are done for.

                      I have yet to see anything Trump has proposed that is anything like that bad. And maybe you missed it but Trump has not to my knowledge openly and proudly committed multiple felonies and expecting to walk.

                      I am not saying support Trump. I am saying stop pretending he is something he is not.

                    2. I have yet to see anything Trump has proposed that is anything like that bad. And maybe you missed it but Trump has not to my knowledge openly and proudly committed multiple felonies and expecting to walk.

                      You remember when he said “I’m going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it?” . How do you think he is going to get that lovely thing to happen?

                      I don’t see any method that doesn’t involve gunboat diplomacy. Of course, military campaigns against he Mexicans are a dawdle as any U.S. army historian can tell you. The French Foreign Legion doesn’t really memorialize any of their battles in Mexico, because they found the Mexicans so easy to fight. Right?

                      Nothing scary, whatsoever, about trying to coerce large sums of money out of a neighboring country.

                    3. I am saying stop pretending he is something he is not.

                      Well, since he hasn’t said what he is it’s easy to call him something he is or is not. I believe he has authoritarian, fascistic (in the Nationalist sense of National Socialism) because he 1) wants to Make ‘Murica Great Again, 2) has not said how he will do that, 3) since he has not said how he will do that, he will, once in office, adopt positions and policies more in keeping with an authoritarian than a Chief Executive as defined in the Constitution, and 4) is no friend of personal liberty and, in my opinion, will happily trample on the Bill of Rights as much as he can to do what he wants to do.

                      Fair points on the Supreme Court but I don’t know that I can make that speculative a vote – especially since Roberts was hailed/decried as ‘conservative’ and he fucked us over royally with the penaltax.

                  2. And on this board that means “he said mean thinga about Mexicans and Muslims”.

                    I don’t think so. That has nothing to do with why he is a fascist. At least to my mind. The fascist part is where he thinks that it’s the president’s and government’s job to “make America great”.

                    Most people here, I think, are using “fascist” in the more original sense, not the nazi/racist sense that has come to be more common.

                  3. You never point to a single position that he takes to illustrate that.

                    How about, “If I’m president, you’re going to hear ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores again.” Is he going to force retailers to say “Merry Christmas” to people? Or is that just an empty promise made to people who…enjoy hearing someone promise to make other people say things?

                    1. How about, “If I’m president, you’re going to hear ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores again.”

                      Okay, do you think he is going to make it a crime to not say Merry Christmas? I guess you could think that, if you are nuts. Sane people here that and think it means his election will embolden people to say it without fear of being sued.

                    2. Yeah, because department stores are worried about getting sued if they say Merry Christmas.

                    3. Also, you realize you answered my comment by…repeating my comment. Except you replaced the idea of authoritarians with “sane people.”

                  4. Jesus Christ, John!

                    How many times do I need to link to Jeffrey Tucker’s article on Trump? How many times do I need to link to Mises’s scholarly articles on fascism as a loose collection political and economic philosophies?

                    Trump is a fascist because his stated policies and philosophy of governance are fascist ones. When he talks about beating the Chinese in negotiations and telling them what we are going to buy and what we are going to pay for it, and what they are goign to buy and what they are going to pay for it – it’s fucking straight out of Mussolini’s corporatist approach!!!

                    I really, really suggest you stop ignoring what people are writing in favor of the voices in your head. We really miss the insightful john. We enjoy our conversations with him. We kind of want him back. But so long as you ignore our actual arguments in favor of some knee-jerk stereotype of them, that insightful john will be imprisoned inside a jail of your creation.

                    1. Jesus Christ Tarran.

                      You have lost your fucking mind. I am no fan of protectionism but it is not fascism. And you link to those articles and they are ridiculous. I am sorry but claiming that Trump is a fascist because he sees himself as CEO of the country, when every President since FDR has thought the same thing is just laughable.

                      The whole thing is pathetic. I might as well be arguing with the crazy homeless guy preaching about Jesus as arguing with you over this topic. You have lost your mind on this and there is no getting it back. Some day you will wake up from you delusion and feel really foolish about the things you have said. Sadly, no amount of reason and argument is going to break the spell Trump mania has put on you.

                    2. John, I am sorry that pointing out that fascism is a thing, and that an American politician promising to enact fascist policies is a fascist causes you so much distress.

                      I do want to warn you that I also call Bernie Sanders a socialist. You might want to have your feinting couch ready when he gets discussed. I do believe you can order smelling salts on Amazon Prime should you need a stock as well.

                    3. John, protectionism would most certainly be a policy any fascist would adopt. It would serve to further the strength of their own industry and employ their own workers – all to further the greatness of the nation. Protectionism has probably been around as long as trade has been around so it is not fascist in the sense that it is not an original, fascist idea but it most certainly would be used that way.

            2. He’s a sloganeering idiot.

              Trump’s past, including this campaign, is littered with the metaphorical corpses of people who believed this.

              1. He’s not an idiot. I don’t think he’s any kind of genius either, but he is good at what he does and knows how to sell himself and keep people talking.

          2. if he won it would expose the lie you have been telling yourself about how open borders are popular and support of them politically essential

            Uh, who are you addressing here? Who ever said open borders were popular? You don’t become a libertarian if you care about practical electoral politics above all else.

            1. I am addressing Reason and many of its readers. Reason publishes a “if the Republicans don’t embrace open borders they are doomed” article about twice a month and has for years.

              And even the open borders people on here who admit they might not be popular, insist that no one could have a rational or moral reason for opposing them. Open borders are forever a “moral imperative” and anyone who disagrees is a racist or a xenophobe.

              1. Maybe you should try addressing the people you are actually responding to instead of a massively oversimplified straw-man of your own creation.

              2. Yeah, John, that’s how having principles works. Freedom of movement is a moral principle of some of us, and there are no facts that will convince us it’s wrong. You might have a reason to oppose them that you think is moral, but literally the whole point is that I disagree with you about its morality.

                1. Yes, Nikki. I am totally aware how being a fanatic and thinking you have a monopoly on reason and morality works. And I understand why being that way is so appealing to some. It vitiates the need to think or have any humility.

                  1. thinking you have a monopoly on reason and morality works

                    So, are you arguing for moral relativism now?

                    1. No Zeb. Just because you believe in morality and ultimate truth doesn’t mean you think you have a monopoly on it or that other reasonable people can come to reasonable but differing conclusions about what that truth is.

                      Understanding that reasonable people can differ on an issue is not the same thing as embracing moral relativism. You can disagree with someone and not think them immoral or unreasonable. In fact, you can occasionally disagree with someone and even admit they have valid points in favor of their position. The horror.

                    2. Understanding that reasonable people can differ on an issue is not the same thing as embracing moral relativism.

                      No, of course not. You miss my point. If one has any moral principles at all, one must believe them to be the correct ones, or they aren’t moral principles. In that sense, everyone thinks they have a monopoly on morality.

                      Since we do live in a world of tyrannical nation states, immigration is more complicated than that and reasonable people do disagree. Yes, there are lots of practical arguments for immigration control. And almost no one who is open borders in principle has any expectation that that is how it will be.

                      Once again, try actually reading and responding to what people actually say. There is tremendous diversity of opinion on immigration around here. And most people are willing to thoughtfully discuss it with people who aren’t being dicks about it.

                  2. Yeah. The guy who believes in objective morality says to the woman who doesn’t even believe in objective reality that she’s the one with a lack of humility.

                    1. See my post above Nikki. Understanding there is morality and truth is not the same thing as thinking you have complete access to it to the exclusion of everyone else.

                      My God you are dense lately. Seriously, you and Zeb’s statements are Frank level simple minded.

                    2. What makes you think I think I have complete access to it to the exclusion of everyone else? You’re just making shit up.

                    3. You keep saying you do.

                    4. I have never said that. I have only said that I actually believe what I believe.

                    5. John, you are tilting at windmills again. No one claimed to have a special line on the true and correct morality. We are just saying that we believe what we believe and follow our moral principles to their conclusions. I don’t think you are a horribly immoral person because you don’t agree on what the fundamental principles are. I don’t think that everyone who wants more resptrictive immigration policies is a racist. Maybe I’m wrong about what the fundamental principles should be. Or maybe there is no absolute morality.
                      If you have principles, then you by definition believe that they are correct or superior in some sense. Otherwise you would have different (or no) principles.

                    6. Yeah… It’s really not Nikki and Zeb that come out of this conversation looking dense.

                2. Freedom of movement is a moral principle of some of us

                  What constraints exist upon freedom of movement, in your view?

                  1. The nonaggression principle.

                    1. The nonaggression principle.

                      Wonderful. So someone doesn’t have the freedom to move onto my property or break into my house to use my toilet? But suppose the government steals some of your land, does another person’s use of that now public property rest on some moral principle too?

                    2. Any action taken by the state will be just as illegitimate as stealing your land was, unless the state operates via consensus with ongoing enthusiastic consent of the governed. You don’t get to use the state against someone else just because other people used it against you first.

                    3. Don’t dodge. I asked if another person’s use of that stolen land rests on moral principle.

                    4. Yes, the nonaggression principle.

                    5. So a person has some kind of moral right to the stolen property of others because of the non-aggression principle? That’s some mighty fine mental gymnastics.

                    6. No. The nonaggression principle applies always and at all times. That the state violated the NAP only authorizes its victims to act against it; you are well within your rights to attack the state or any of its agents because they are aggressors. You want to keep saying it’s “your property” after the state has stolen it, but it’s not: it’s common property now, and there is no way to administer it that does not violate the NAP. That there is no way to morally administer common property other than consensus by consenting individuals is a reason it is wrong for the state to hold property, just as it is a reason the state cannot legitimately exist. But it’s not a reason for you yourself to violate the NAP.

                    7. No. The nonaggression principle applies always and at all times.

                      Not in the way you claim.

                      You want to keep saying it’s “your property” after the state has stolen it, but it’s not: it’s common property now, and there is no way to administer it that does not violate the NAP.

                      1) It’s still stolen property which necessarily means that people don’t get some automatic right to it. And 2) yes since there’s no way to administer without violating the NAP, some kind of administration is preferable to none at all. Which is why there is some kind of ill-begotten legitimacy to the existence of government immigration restrictions, since the naturally occurring social restrictions that ought to be used are legally forbidden by way of abridging free association and the disregard for property rights.

                      But the legitimacy of state policy on the issue has no bearing on whether or not a person has some moral right to utilize stolen property. If taxation and eminent domain is theft just like a regular extortion is theft, you cannot claim that people have a right to what was stolen. You certainly can’t reasonably claim that the NAP grants a 3rd party some kind of right to what was stolen. The “right to free movement” doesn’t exist in any way that isn’t completely superseded by property rights and free association.

                      You are predicating the existence of moral right or moral principle on a violation of the NAP.

                    8. since there’s no way to administer without violating the NAP, some kind of administration is preferable to none at all.

                      I fundamentally disagree with that, and you don’t even attempt to explain why it is the case.

                      But the legitimacy of state policy on the issue has no bearing on whether or not a person has some moral right to utilize stolen property.

                      If you think this, then you have to explain why it is morally acceptable for anyone to travel on roads. In my view, you can either go in that direction, or decide that once the property has been stolen, it is a commons.

                    9. I fundamentally disagree with that, and you don’t even attempt to explain why it is the case.

                      You don’t fundamentally disagree, you fundamentally agreed when you wrote:

                      You want to keep saying it’s “your property” after the state has stolen it, but it’s not: it’s common property now, and there is no way to administer it that does not violate the NAP.

                      If you think this, then you have to explain why it is morally acceptable for anyone to travel on roads.

                      Because if you didn’t travel on the road monopoly, you would never be able to travel. It’s a sad state of affairs, but the state has erected a virtual monopoly of roads. Just as if there was a food monopoly, it wouldn’t be unacceptable to eat tax payer provided food. That said, no one has a natural right to gubmint roads, it’s moral “acceptability” stems from the fact that consumers and property owners have no choice but to either curl up and die or deal with the status quo.

                      In my view, you can either go in that direction, or decide that once the property has been stolen, it is a commons.

                      Public property isn’t commons, it’s government property. You’ll have to explain why it is that you’re putting the government in a separate moral category. If a private citizen steals your car, that car is stolen property but if the government steals your car, it’s “commons” that anyone and everyone has moral right to utilize.

                    10. The point is that there might be some practical necessity in using stolen property, but you can’t predicate the existence of some kind of moral right to that property based on a violation of the NAP.

                      A right such as that should be able to exist in a stateless environment, and in a world that contains nothing but private property (notwithstanding unowned goods), you simply don’t have the freedom to travel where ever you damn well please. Thus “the right to free movement” is inextricably linked to the state and all of it’s infringements of property and liberty and cannot be considered a valid right or moral principle.

                    11. it’s moral “acceptability” stems from the fact that consumers and property owners have no choice but to either curl up and die or deal with the status quo.

                      Sometimes dying is the only moral choice.

                      Public property isn’t commons, it’s government property. You’ll have to explain why it is that you’re putting the government in a separate moral category. If a private citizen steals your car, that car is stolen property but if the government steals your car, it’s “commons” that anyone and everyone has moral right to utilize.

                      I am putting the government in a separate moral category because it has no legitimacy and no moral worth. Essentially, government property has no owner under this view. That’s why it’s a commons.

                      The point is that there might be some practical necessity in using stolen property, but you can’t predicate the existence of some kind of moral right to that property based on a violation of the NAP.

                      Practical necessity does not enter into my argument. Practical necessity is something you are concerned with.

                    12. Sometimes dying is the only moral choice.

                      So then some sort of morally obligatory nihilism then.

                      I am putting the government in a separate moral category because it has no legitimacy and no moral worth. Essentially, government property has no owner under this view. That’s why it’s a commons.

                      Well as long as you can overlook the logical inconsistency with that, fine. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that things stolen by (a) government become the common property of all mankind. How did it get to be “commons”? It was stolen by the state, that’s how. So your theory of a “right to free movement” is predicated on the existence of something that does not exist without the state. Thus it makes no sense to call that a moral principle, knowing what you know of statism that should tell you it’s not a valid moral principle. But apparently you prefer mental gymnastics to intellectual honesty.

                      Practical necessity does not enter into my argument. Practical necessity is something you are concerned with.

                      I have a hunch that you use roads too. If you don’t factor in any practical necessity then any day now I expect you to curl up and die, lest you become a profiteer of statist crimes. Until then, please get off that fake high horse of yours.

                  2. I don’t know if Nikki would agree with everything I wrote, but here’s what I believe:

                    Dismantling a ‘Libertarian’ Argument for Restricting Immigration (a rebuttal to Hoppe’s arguments for closed borders)

                    The Simple Argument in Favor of Open Borders Explained in Greater Detail:
                    I have a right to do business with whomever I want so long as they are willing and able to do business with me. So long as that person does not trespass on someone else’s property or steal anyone else’s property in order to do business with me, no one else has the right to physically restrain me from doing business with them.

                    Also relevant (tackles questions about culture):

                    Liberty and Racial Discrimination: Responding to David Duke

                    1. That’s about where I come down on it too, tarran. It’s not primarily about the rights of foreigners to enter a country (though it is also about that). It’s about the right of people to use their property and associate with people as they see fit.

                    2. Yeah, I agree with that.

                      It’s also important to remember that I don’t really believe there is any legitimate mechanism by which to keep people out of a “country.”

      2. “without the bimbos”

        really?

        1. If you marry her, she’s not a bimbo any more?

          1. Here’s what Wikipedia says:

            “In 1977, Trump married model Ivana Zeln??kov?, a native of the Czech Republic…Ivana Trump became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1988…By early 1990, Trump’s troubled marriage to Ivana and long-running affair with actress Marla Maples had become widely documented in the tabloid press, and the couple divorced in 1991. Trump married Maples on December 21, 1993, two months after the birth of their child, Tiffany…They divorced on June 8, 1999….

            “Trump dated model Kara Young in the mid to late 1990s, and reportedly “bombarded” Princess Diana with expensive floral arrangements after her 1996 divorce from Prince Charles. “I only have one regret in the women department ? that I never had the opportunity to court Lady Diana Spencer”, Trump wrote in his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback. “I met her on a number of occasions ? She was a genuine princess ? a dream lady.”

            “In 1998, Trump met and began courting fashion model Melania Knauss, a native of Slovenia. After becoming engaged on April 26, 2004, they were married on January 22, 2005…

            “In 2006, Melania became a naturalized U.S. citizen.”

            1. So I guess Trump isn’t against *all* immigration.

              1. All he needs to do is meet a Somali Muslim model…

              2. I’m fairly certain Trump has never claimed to be against all immigration or even most immigration. He like most Americans doesn’t have any issues with middle class immigrants.

              3. I also married an immigrant and still an opponent of open door immigration so long as we have all the perverse incentives in place that we do.

                1. Again, that was in the nature of a joke – I’ve heard immigrants who follow the rules criticize those who didn’t. They’re mad about it, too.

      3. If Donald Trump can be President, anyone loudmouth, self-promoting, celebrity multi-billionaire can be President

        FIFY

    2. We could also see congress cave to a popular president on the speech thing, and trusting that SCOTUS will fix things after the fact. I fear a Trump SCOTUS appointment.

      1. Why? You don’t think Judy Sheindlin would make an excellent Justice?

        1. I read this morning that 10% of college graduates think that she is already on SCOTUS. Yeah, we are doomed.

    3. I’m looking forward to the Rodney Dangerfield presidency
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phagxOal7_A

    4. One thing not getting enough attention, in my view, is that Trump also completely undermines the narrative that Super PACs and Citizens United completely up-ended democracy. Those fear-mongering claims were demonstrably false even before Trump (see, for example, David Brat) and merely a thinly veiled attempt to rewrite the First Amendment, but it can’t be ignored in the case of Trump. Literally billions of dollars were being wasted in campaigns playing by the old, 20th century rules, but Trump has dominated the race and spent less than any other candidate in the process.

      1. yes he does. If that narrative were true, Jeb would be the nominee right now and the actual primaries a mere formality. Trump doesn’t need PACs and money. He has a constituency and knows how to troll the media.

        1. Additionally, the Arianna Huffington would be addressed as “Governor Huffington”.

      2. That too. He undermines narratives about electability left and right.

    5. He’s a Democrat without the identity politics or love of refugees and illegal immigrants.

      His whole campaign is identity politics. The identity politics of loserdom.

      1. The identity politics of loserdom.

        So you are saying that you support him?

      2. Losers want to WIN, Nikki. They want to win until they get bored of winning.

  21. Tom Tomorrow explains why the Flint water problems were caused by capitalism.

    1. So a failure of a government monopoly run by the government and overseen by the government is caused by capitalism?

      It fails on a facial examination, I’m not wasting my time on the sophistry and mental gymnastics needed to make that argument.

    2. Isnt “theNation” a really far out there publication?

    3. What the hell is that even trying to say? He appears to have no idea what “invisible hand” or “free market” means.

      1. The “invisible hand” is white.

      2. Neither do his readers, so it washes.

    4. TT writes some anti-war pieces over at AmConMag which are generally intelligent and sane.

      1. What is AmConMag

        1. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/

          I’m not on board with most of their stuff and they criticize every candidate but some of their foreign policy stuff is decent.

          1. Got ya. So someone who writes for the americanconservative is also writing for theNation? Am i missing something here?

            1. I didn’t know they wrote for The Nation. And, it’s obviously a pseudonym so it could be more than one person using it. AmCon only publishes their anti-war stuff.

              1. I see thanks. Because my understanding the Nation was far left crazy

            2. I think Tomorrow is syndicated.

            3. Amconmag is not what it appears to be?

    5. Ridiculous to blame capitalism. But it is a blow against republicans who keep telling us how states know best. Well, you got a governor and AG who have always been hostile to environmental regulations, and the EPA, and yet despite being warned by the EPA(Who is to blame too for being too passive on this issue) , they were caught blindsided on this issue. No one has paid for it with their jobs(one guy was “reassigned”).

      1. So praveen, what does that tell you about politicians and civil servants?

      2. So what was your take on the EPA screw up with the river down in the southwest? How does the fed know best…what about them makes them better?

  22. Yo can be not stupid, and still be a worthless slacker asshole.

    1. Not that I have any problem with weed. I certainly don’t. But potheads…ugh.

      1. Those are just the ones you notice. Basically what you are saying is that slacker assholes are slacker assholes. I would bet money that the majority of regular pot smokers are not what you would call a slacker asshole.

        1. I’ve known a couple. One worked for a rental agency coordinating repairs for the region, another is a commercial architect, and another is a backwoods surveyor. How any of them manage to stay awake given the copious amount of pot they smoke is anyone’s guess, but they’re all successful professionals.

          And then there’s my high school buddy who, ten years on, is stocking shelves for a pet store. But he’s happy, as far as I know.

          1. I smoked regularly for years. Made the pilgrimage to Amsterdam in the mid 90’s and still worked my ass off the entire time. Haven’t touched the stuff in almost 20 years, but not because of the side effects. Just got bored with it.

            1. For anti-anxiety or sleep aid, it’s great stuff. Recreationally, well, I guess sleep can be a kind of recreation.

              1. For me it was a social lubricant like alcohol. While others my age were out get trashed on Jager bombs at the bars, my friends and I would get sit around and listen to music and discuss books. Weirdos, I know.

          2. Some of the hardest working, successful people I know are wake-and-bake smokers. Some people it just works for. I couldn’t do that and go to work and be focused.

      2. Thank you for sharing your very important opinion. Changing lives, you are.

      3. Okay so you hate potheads and I hate self-righteous know nothings. That’s fine.

    2. Lumping a group of people together and insulting them, how individualistic of you. Fuck off slaver, you’d be surprised how many hidden pot heads are out there that are smarter and harder working than you.

  23. Why Hillary and Iowa Don’t Mix

    All the door-knocking, phone-banking, motivated volunteers (there really are hundreds of them) and pizza-fueled pep sessions at Clinton’s downtown Des Moines headquarters can’t alter an immutable fact about the woman at the center of it all: She isn’t an Iowa kind of candidate, never has been, and isn’t going to shape-shift into one by the end of the month. Part of it is Iowa, a state where roughly four in 10 Democrats self-identify as socialists. But the political MRI of the caucus has revealed that Hillary ’16 is essentially the same mixed-bag candidate she’s always been: amply informed but often uninspiring, more focused on the tactical task of fileting her opponent than the strategic imperative of delivering a succinct, appealing message?an establishment fixture in an era of populist statue-smashing.

    Hillary Clinton has adapted lessons from her Iowa loss in 2008; she now reads out the names of local volunteers at every rally, a practice Obama enshrined in 2008.

    “There are certain elements of Hillary Clinton that are just unfixable,” said one Democratic consultant who has worked with her on previous campaigns.

    1. Hillary Clinton that are just unfixable

      Her being a lying corrupt old hag with no personality is a big one.

  24. Americans do not love pot taxes. We are just stuck in an age of unenlightenment where most people are more concerned about sounding tolerant and non-extremist than they are about being honest. Oh sure, some common sense tax and regulation is good because blah blah blah, climate change must be real I guess I’m gonna have to agree with the scientists *barf*.

    1. The surface temperature on Earth is trending up at about 2 degrees Celsius per century. “But it’s cooler than is was during a spike in 1998. And Jesus told me not to worry.”

      Humans will burn every economically available molecule of fossil fuel until its gone. I am surprised that Saudi Arabia is dumping oil on the market now. Do they have some astounding unidentified reserves or are they playing poker?

      The idea that they will drive shale oil producers out of business seems to be correct. So what? Will the technology used to extract this oil be forgotten and impossible to re-mobilize a decade or two from now? No.

      1. The surface temperature on Earth is trending up at about 2 degrees Celsius per century.

        It is disingenuous in the extreme to talk about trends over centuries when the reliable data only covers half that amount of time. Let’s talk about the decadal trends for now and be mindful of how they change.

        1. The surface temperature on Earth is trending up at about 2 degrees Celsius per century.

          Even if true (and I doubt it, given the way the data has been manhandled to give this result), so what?

        2. The ny times has a headline saying 2015 was the hottest by far and destroyed 2014…sensational click bait it is

  25. Nice article at spiked I hadn’t noticed here yet

    It’s on the subject of Cologne, but the target of the article is post-Enlightenment European culture.

  26. Please God, if you’re up there…

    Trump/palin 2016… For the entertainment value for the bitter and cynical. Please, ok?

    1. I’d never start a post with that if I were a socialist.

      1. No one will ever accuse that one of intelligence.

  27. This morning I heard a Sanders commercial on my radio. All I can hear when that guy talks is “KILL THE WRECKERS! KILL THE KULAKS! TAKE THE WHITE MAN’S FARM!”

    On the drive into work, I saw a car whose tail end was covered in bumper stickers. I noticed a “Orwell was only off by 20 years” sticker, a Rand Paul sticker, a Carly Fiorina sticker, and a Walker 2016 sticker among many others. Hedging his bets for losers?

    While eating breakfast in the caf, the TVs showed a Trump speech. I tried to make sense of what he said. His speech rambles. I think, in among all the tangents, he was talking about himself and his performance in polls. I was reminded of a lawyer in training (not Bo, someone I met who shared a hobby with me). When arguing for something, he would spew a stream of words and then sit smugly acting as if he had won, but in reality he was hoping no one noticed that in the tsunami of words that he spoke, he actually said nothing and had not point at all.

    1. “All I can hear when that guy talks is “KILL THE WRECKERS! KILL THE KULAKS! TAKE THE WHITE MAN’S FARM!””

      Maybe you should talk with a psychologist.

      1. We’re only ever a few million murders from utopia.

        1. If only we could have killed more…

            1. …in Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Germany, etc. etc.

              1. Except for that guy you pwn in the mirror every morning no one here is arguing for totalitarian communism. It’s the smug complacency of reactionaries– complete with their $700 billion dollar defense budgets– that I have a problem with. Can’t you guys make real arguments about, you know, political systems that actually exist and are worth debating instead of hearing things when Bernie sanders is on the telescreen?

                1. The day you or Bernie shows respect for property, from the lowliest of the poor to the loftiest of the rich, is the day I will give a shit what either of you have to say.

                  I don’t need to make things up. I know what Bernie is going to do and I know how liars and cheats like you will benefit from it.

                  1. The day you or Bernie shows respect for property, from the lowliest of the poor to the loftiest of the rich, is the day I will give a shit what either of you have to say.

                    I don’t need to make things up. I know what Bernie is going to do and I know how liars and cheats like you will benefit from it.

                    Yes. This is worth repeating.

                2. Would that be the Scandinavian countries which dabbled in socialism and are gradually liberalizing in light of the fact that socialism is, at best, a net loss? (Let’s pretend that, at worse, it eventuates totalitarian communism?according to amsoc, that’s off limits because it’s rather inconvenient.)

                  Would that include the welfare socialism of France and Britain, already in precarious shape, being overrun by migrants? Or Canada’s healthcare socialism, which works only because medical tourism to the only halfway-socialized American industry?

                  1. What about the other welfare democracies of Europe, overleveraged and plagued with bureaucratic sclerosis due to overpromised benefits and underwhelming economic performance. That’s the natural and inevitable state of socialism, after all: it’s theft masquerading as national solidarity. Socialism is stagnation, so, yes, I suppose that’s a great deal better than the collapse into authoritarianism and communist barbarity. Thanks for helping refine the debate: we should prefer sclerosis over barbarity.

                3. You keep harping on about the great injustice of American foreign policy, while calling the worst foreign policy monster in modern history “the greatest president of [your] lifetime”, but worse yet you never offer anything but violence on the domestic front.

                  You want to lie, cheat, and steal, and Bernie wants to give you license to do so. That is just as bad as killing “brown people halfway across the globe”, but you want to get a pass for that because you have “smug complacency” of a socialist.

                  Flowers for the foreigners, threats of force and jail for the taxpaying, law-abiding citizens.

                  What a great plan.

            2. Commies had nothing to do with Vietnam right?

      2. Yeah, because socialists never behave that way at all.

  28. http://www.progressivestoday.c…..bed-video/

    Pro immigration filmmakers visit refugee camp and get robbed. It sucks when reality collides were your cherished multicultural fantasies.

    1. Hmmm… I wonder what happens when the real far right realizes that they can get away with whatever they want if they “convert” to Islam. They don’t have to believe shit, they just need to understand the Koran well enough to fake it, attend mosque occasionally enough to fool the progs into damage control mode, and then they can do all shit they always really wanted to without being called on it. Skinheads can bash Jews and fags and (Christian) blacks. The Aryan Brotherhood can burn down the Holocaust Museum in the name of solidarity with Palestine. PUAs can stop negging and just start raping. Nativists can attack those jerb-terking Mexicans (but because they’re infidel Catholics, mind, not out of racism — that would be wrong). Shit, you could blow up a government building, and the DOJ’s first priority would be reminding people that the true danger is someone committing crimes against people like you.

      It’s like a cloak of invisibility, albeit one that only works on fuckwits. But with those same fuckwits controlling so much of government and the media, it’s still pretty effective. Man, it’s a good thing the right is pretty dumb, or they probably would have already done this.

      1. they “convert” to Islam

        It’s like a cloak of invisibility

        So, all-white burkas for all?

  29. Do liberals actually realize they really are authoritarians?

    From contraception mandates (hobby lobby), to sugar drink taxes, smoking taxes, min wage laws, their gun grabbing, forcing employers to provide all these goodies, pushing green energy, rent control, citizens united, single payer, tax the rich, corporate taxes, anything else?

    It boggles my mind how they can’t see themselves as control freaks especially hobby lobby…they complain about others forcing their views on the employees (note: this doesnt ban women from purchasing plan B on their own) yet liberals are the ones that want to force their views on employers with no regard if it makes the employer’s uncomfortable.

    It is as if they want to take credit for being noble without themselves having to do anything.

    1. Do liberals actually realize they really are authoritarians?

      Nope, and they will scream at you if you dare suggest it.

    1. While Qaiser was having his wounds dressed in a poorly-equipped clinic, his father told us: “I ? want a new hand for my son. “

      BLASPHEMY!

    2. I bet he shat his pants while doing it.

      1. You know who else shit their pants…

        1. The Shat?

        2. A high school chum who, hours after eating several red chile enchiladas, shart himself on his bicycle?

    3. Qaiser looks brown-skinned so all bets are off.

      Quasar though, is not a bad name for a boy in this post-Bowie era.

    4. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. Matthew 5:30

      Though in the defense of Christianity, I think it was a metaphor.

  30. The idiot Democratic mayor lost his reelection in Flint. How come not one firing in the Snyder administration despite the Snyder administration causing this problem? We keep hearing about how state regulations somehow are more desirable than federal. From what I see, the EPA is suffering from cutbacks because you have guys who need to be demoted or fired too slow to press the issue with the state authorities on this issue. ALl the EPA did was alert the state? But not quick enough and strong enough action to alert everyone on this issue.

    As far as the state of MIchigan, they knew about the lead issue and tried to cover it up.I keep hearing about eliminating the EPA . If anything, we need a better EPA with better employees who do not focus on trivial crap and concentrate on the bigger issues. I have no problem with getting rid of bad EPA employees. But as this incident showed, having a slow to react EPA lets states get away with the idiocy like we just saw in MI.

    1. How did they cause the problem? Who should be fired?

      “If anything, we need a better EPA with better employees who do not focus on trivial crap and concentrate on the bigger issues.”

      Not sure you understand how government agencies work.

      1. We should educate him.

        Praveen, I recommend you read the following:

        1) Mises Bureaucracy

        2) A primer on Public Choice Theory

        What do public choice theorists claim? Essentially they hold that when people enter government and become “public” servants, they act on the same motives they would if they were agents in the marketplace. “Public” servants are motivated no less by private interests than are men and women in business. As Buchanan puts it, “Politicians and bureaucrats are seen as ordinary persons, and ‘politics’ is viewed as a set of arrangements, a game if you will, in which many players with quite disparate objectives interact so as to generate a set of outcomes that may not be either internally consistent or efficient.”

      2. we need a better EPA with better employees who do not focus on trivial crap and concentrate on the bigger issues

        I suspect there is no bigger issue at the EPA than water quality, and more specifically, avoiding responsibility for catastrophic spills that wreck pristine watersheds.

        Yeah, we need more of that.

    2. http://ethicsalarms.com/2016/0…..er-crisis/

      Shortly after Christmas, Snyder fired Department of Environmental Quality Director Dan Wyant and apologized for what was happening in Flint. He declared a state of emergency.

      You are not entitled to your own facts.

    3. I have no problem with getting rid of bad EPA employees

      This is the “Waste, Fraud, and Abuse” canard. So you fire a handful of people in a symbolic gesture, then double your budget and workforce. Meanwhile the organization’s primary focus continues to be its own self-aggrandizement.

      Yes, the solution is to abolish the EPA. Then, if and when the environmental problems become severe enough again, you institute a new organization with a constrained mandate, a small budget, and small workforce, you know like the original EPA when it actually accomplished things.

      The problem many people refuse to acknowledge is that every government program that lives too long becomes a jobs program. Whatever the original purpose was becomes secondary to employing people.

      Government programs need to be treated like experiments. Even when they succeed, the role needs to transition out of the government.

    4. If the EPA would just settle for not actually causing environmental catastrophes, that would be a step in the right direction.

  31. Why has nobody in the IC been prosecuted or lost their job for mishandling of classified super secret docs? Isn’t the original sin of sending those docs to a non-government server at least as bad as keeping them on said server (and not reporting the bad handling)? Were these docs at least sent encrypted?

    1. I suspect they will be. It is unclear who put the information on the server. It may be that they sent the information to Hillary. It may also be that Hillary put the information in her emails herself. It is likely both. Understand, that it is the information that was there and likely Hillary put a lot of it there.

    2. I am not sure why HRC is being set to the fire over using a private email account while conducting business as Secretary of State. She didn’t trust the deep-state email servers?

      It’s like she had a libertarian brain-fart.

      1. Aside from the facial illegality of using a private server, she was incompetent about it, and managed to run who-knows-how-much classified intel through a very weakly secured system.

        Don’t forget: this scandal broke because somebody hacked into a private email account that had some of her email on it.

  32. OT: in the total bullshit department: I am representing a dude for a criminal matter – domestic violence – and for his divorce. The local Legal Aid has an income requirement (poverty level, family size, that sort of thing) and a requirement that DV be an issue in the case. My client is the one who’s been charged with DV but would have also been able to report DV against the wife – she’s allegedly thrown a sewing machine at him, and tried to beat him with a hammer.

    But here’s the bullshit: Legal Aid won’t represent him, as he’s the one who’s been charged. I was on the phone with a legal aid attorney today who’s telling me this, and I nearly blew up, mentioning how this flies in the face of essential fairness, etc. But “policy.”

    /end of rant

    1. she’s allegedly thrown a sewing machine at him

      Show me that sewing machine! Bring that machine into court. My mom had a sewing machine that she couldn’t lift, let alone throw it at my dad. It’s probably some 1/2 lb plastic gizmo made in China.

      1. I have a sewing machine (hugely heavy thing from the 60’s), so I know. But still, her MO seems to be throwing shit when she’s angry.

    2. Welcome to the wonderful world of social engineering through application of the law…

      I will be so glad when my daughter graduates from college and the last legal link between me and my ex is severed.

  33. Trump will be the next President of the US and it will be great

  34. Trump will be the next President of the US and it will be great

    1. Hope and Change!

    2. You mean: it’ll be UUUUge!

  35. “Gunmen carry out terrorist attack on Pakistani university, leaving 22 dead.”

    Every day I wake up to headlines featuring someone screaming “Allah Akbar” just before murdering people.

    Then I get to come here and hear someone spouting “Hey y’all, watch this…hold muh beer….I’m gonna open duh borders” idiocy.

    1. Jesus Christ, this is becoming “open borders derangement syndrome”.

      The left is actually no shit going to make gun control an election issue. And everybody is dancing in the end zone about how they’re going to lose big time as a consequence.

      But what if they don’t lose? Even if they don’t get what they really want, they can still make life harder for gun owners and prospective gun owners. The Supreme Court has not granted cert for any follow-on cases to Heller. The lower courts are whittling away at what was a pretty minor victory.

      Nobody is going to get “open borders” from any of the politicians on the election slate. The President’s reckless and lawless actions aren’t going to be materially affected by Shikha Dalmia penning another thoughtless “article” on the unalloyed good of immigration.

      But the real threat, of newer and stronger gun laws, which is especially dangerous in light of what the President is doing, is what we really should be fighting. It’s like everyone has forgotten how Fabian socialism works.

      1. Hmm.

        [Heads over to MuchoAmmoFast.com]

  36. smoking weed doesn’t make you stupid. you were already stupid.

  37. as Phyllis replied I am in shock that any body able to make $4140 in a few weeks on the internet . try this website……….

    ________________ http://www.Wage90.Com

  38. I don’t get why the governor is “apologizing”. The switch in water supply was a decision of the city of Flint, with the Detroit water district repeatedly offering them to switch back and even waving the “connection fee” (several million dollars for the city).

  39. 1) Install ‘easy hack’ server (or servers)
    2) Clients obtain wanted data
    3) Donation to “Clinton Foundation” follows

    Too easy?

  40. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.