Election 2016

Why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Are the Equivalent of "Sick Building Syndrome"

Neither major party's leading candidate represents something new. They are the last gasp of a broken system.

|

David Deeble

Former political consultant and current ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd writes that the two leading candidates in the GOP and Democratic primaries are awful—and setting up a major transformation in partisan politics.

Is what Donald Trump says and how he acts where the vast majority of our country wants to go? Of course not. He is a bully, and appeals to some of the worst instincts of America.

But he has highlighted and is accelerating the disruption our politics so badly needs. Should he be president of the United States? I certainly hope not, but if his emergence helps destroy the sick building so many of us try to enter, then he has served a valuable purpose.

Is turning to Hillary and the status quo where the country wants to go? I don't think so because the majority of American's distrust and dislike her and she would be one of the most polarizing people ever elected, if she were to win. But she has served a laudable purpose in helping give rise to incredible disruption on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Dowd likens the current situation with the major parties to "sick building syndrome." That is, each party is a toxic environment that can't be salvaged or rehabbed, only destroyed:

The structure and the building of our politics are sick. You can be a very healthy person and if you walk into a house that is mold-ridden with no circulation and has lead pipes, you are going to get sick. The question becomes how sick do you get.

Good and healthy people can't go in a sick building and hope to paint the walls and think the building is better. It needs to be torn down. Good, well-intentioned people will become ill entering into the status quo of our political system, and it is time we admit that….

It is just time we quit thinking we can fix the problem from within the current party structure. It may take some time, and will take much effort and creativity, but we, as a nation, are worth it.

Read the whole thing here.

Dowd is short on specifics in his op-ed. Part of that is because of the short length of the format but part of it is what he openly admits: He doesn't have set answers. But as the co-author (with Matt Welch) of a book called The Declaration of Independents, I heartily agree with Dowd that the Democratic and Republican Parties, in their current configurations, are salvageable. They have painted themselves into bizarre ideological corners where each is at or near historic lows in terms of voter identification and each looks likely to nominate a presidential candidate who is genuinely unappealing to most Americans (and that's whether it's Trump or Cruz for the GOP, or Clinton or Sanders for the Dems).

Call it epistemic closure or echo-chamber syndrome or whatever you want, but the major parties have rigged their games so perfectly that they speak only to smaller and smaller groups of hard-core zealots who are further and further removed from what any of us actually give a shit about. Hence, Republicans are constantly harping on illegal immigrants (who are actually leaving the country due to our lackluster economy) and the $500 million in federal funding for Planned Parenthood (money that can't be spent on abortion-related services) and the Democrats can't stop yapping about income inequality and, well, Planned Parenthood. Neither party seems capable or willing to talk about actually putting forth agendas that might allow the economy to restart itself in a big way, or how to fix entitlement spending, or have a serious conversation about foreign policy.

As Dowd points out, Trump and Clinton represent not the start of anything new or exciting in politics. They are instead the pothole-ridden cul de sac of the the past 15 years or more of instensely partisan and genuinely awful governing.

The challenge for libertarians—who bear no responsibility for the debacles of either the Bush or Obama years—is how to take advantage of our surging popularity (see Gallup on this!) among voters and parlay into party platforms that promise less but deliver results effectively, and in a way that increases not just economic growth but cultural and social freedom. Which is of course is what this website is all about.

NEXT: Death of the Anti-War Candidate

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. Not all destruction is created equal…if Hillary’s candidacy causes the Progs to shift full-retard into Socialism, I wouldn’t precisely call that a win, even if the status quo is destroyed.

    1. Idiocracy was a documentary.

    2. Hillary won’t make the progs go into socialism. She’ll just make them into even more craven partisans. Could be worse.

  2. “27 percent of respondents can be characterized as libertarians”

    It seems that either they’re lying about being libertarians or lying about being voters or they’re just hypocrats when they go to vote? I’m not sure how else to explain election results

    1. I just assume that people don’t know what the Libertarian label means, or they get the overly generic “socially liberal fiscally conservative” definition that doesn’t have anything to do with principles.

    2. Bill F’n Mahr calls himself a Libertarian. Don’t trust the polls.

      I wonder what percentage of the 27 percent can sum up what being a Libertarian even means. My guess would be about a quarter of them, which explains why Rand couldn’t pull more than 5% of the vote, and also why the LP isn’t in a position to be a kingmaker this fall. None of the Team Red candidates are shitting their pants over those precious votes that Johnson might take away.

      1. Yeah, I recall meeting a Glenn Beck “libertarian” one evening. Yeah.

        1. Hitler and Stalin were libertarians too, don’t forget… And also Lyndon LaRouche… Maybe Donald Trump too? Now any more, the (especially the self-proclaimed versions of the) “Libertarian” label simply means “I want to confuse people”!!!

        2. The label libertarian is to team red, as the Che shirt is to team blue.

      2. Lot of garden variety libertines call themselves libertarian. A wealthy republic can afford them, for a while.

    3. I doubt many of them are really libertarian BUT if this reflects the rise of libertarian influence (and I think it does) then it means more people will open to our points. It’s a good thing.

    4. A man walks into an agent’s office.

      “Have I got the greatest show for you!” the man says.

      “Okay,” the agent says as he leans back and lights a cigar. “Let’s hear it.”

      The man steps out into the hall, beckons, and Bob Barr, Rand Paul, and Bill Mahr walk into the room. The man lights up a marijuana joint, but Barr slaps it out of his hand and punches the guy in the mouth. The man then takes out a marriage license for a same-sex couple, but Paul snatches it, rips it in half, and punches the guy in the mouth. The man then opens his jacket, revealing a handgun, but Mahr grabs the gun, throws it into the trash can, and punches the guy in the mouth. Then all four men take a bow.

      “Interesting,” the agent says, “but what do you call it?”

      “The Libertarians!”

        1. Aside from thrice violating the Non Aggression Axiom I thought it was quite good.

          /nitpicky Charles

          On a completely unrelated subject, this, HM, is for you, sir.

          1. I would say something about their dancing ability, but there are other priorities in that video.

            1. Shall they go unmentioned?

              1. i approve of the Tifa Lockhart look gaining more popularity.

                1. You may like this “tribute”

      1. Stick Kennedy in there having a fetus/baby ripped out of her, call it The Five Libertarians and you’ve got gold, Jerry! Gold!

        1. Isn’t the point of “The Aristocrats” joke to see who can outdo the previous guy? I started it kind of mild-like. I leave it up to the rest of you to build on the foundation with your own versions.

  3. The basic problem is that people are scared of the future. So they want to destroy everything and start over. It’s the fabled Tower of Babel story: “Now nothing they can conceive of will be withheld from them.” Trump is the means by which to self-destruct, in the collective unconscious. Of course, there is much to be fearful about, though it is mostly way overblown. Progress will require some honesty and self-awareness, and your ox may be gored. Sorry.

  4. Love how Dowd phrases things. Trump is a bully and appeals to the worst in America, but with Hillary, people just don’t seem to like her. It’s not that she’s a crook and a liar. We wouldn’t want to assign any responsibility for her image to that.

    I think the insurrection angle of this primary season is a nice story for the media that got it wrong from the start, but I’m not buying it. The center of the Democratic party has drifted way off course, and they’ve simply been getting their asses kicked in elections since 2008 outside Obama. They have a weak ‘bench.’ The only other viable candidate they had was Warren, and she refused to run. Likely intimidated by Hillary who is just a holdover from the declining power that was the Clintons. She hasn’t realized the party is over. The progressive fringe of the 90’s that hated her husband is the new norm.

    The future of the Democratic establishment is progressivism. Dyed in the wool progressivism. That’s Obama’s legacy. He didn’t transform the country, but he did transform and take complete ownership of his party. If anything, the establishment has grown stronger and developed a far more rigid orthodoxy under him. Sanders is the result of that. He’s a hack who the new base latched onto.

    Trump caught lightening in a bottle.

    And, oh yea…this shit aint over yet. It’s entirely conceivable Rubio and Hillary come out of this thing. The establishment will still be right back the next election cycle.

    1. If there even IS a next election cycle if hillary and rubio make it to the general 😉

      /tinfoilhat

    2. Trump and Sanders have both latched on to a populism that always exist in every election cycle. On the DNC side there is no candidate who is not horrible to counter it. On the GOP side, if this were a 2 or 3 man race Trump would not be having it this easy. I do agree there is a general dissatisfaction as well. That should not be surprising given labor participation rates and stagnant incomes.

    3. “The future of the Democratic establishment is progressivism. Dyed in the wool progressivism.”

      It depends on what you mean by progressivism.

      We have to be careful not to project today into tomorrow at the same growth rate forever.

      Obama’s legacy is class war and inflaming hatred among the races.

      I do not expect that trend to continue growing indefinitely. American has been through periods of class war and racial disharmony that were much worse than what we have today.

      In 2005, Republicans had control of both houses in Congress and the White House. It didn’t seem like the neocons could ever be stopped.

      1. “It didn’t seem like the neocons could ever be stopped”

        Abject failure helps.

        1. Eventually. Bush kept it going until 2008.

          Obama continued the failure program for another seven years after that.

          Abject failure whittles away at it bit by bit.

      2. Have the Neocons lost? I still think the primary thing that killed Rand Paul was the view that he was soft on foreign policy right at the time ISIS was ramping up. The Bush years changed the trajectory and new baseline for the Republicans. Bush the Lesser ran as a non-interventionalist. The future isn’t going to look exactly like today or continue on the exact same trajectory. Team politics play off one another and current events in my view. But the past will definitely shape it.

        You mention Reagan Democrats below, and make Bernie a manifestation of something similar. But Bernie is in many ways natural escalation from the failures of Obama.

        1. “Have the Neocons lost?”

          Yes, unquestionably. Just because people want to do something about ISIS doesn’t mean the neocons haven’t lost. The neocons wanted to bomb Assad in 2011 didn’t get it. They wanted to stay in Iraq didn’t get it. They want far more intervention on the side of Syria’s rebels than they are getting now and the GOP candidates aren’t too keen with the probable exception of Rubio.

          1. So, in your worldview, losing means not getting to bomb people as much as they’d like?

            1. Yeah pretty much. They didn’t get a lot of what they wanted. Libya was the exception.

            2. They also briefly took it in the breast-bone over sequestration ‘cuts’ to the military. Granted that was temporary.

        2. “Have the Neocons lost?”

          The neocons have lost in that if a neocon wins, it isn’t because they’re neocons.

          No one is advocating invading foreign countries to set them free–because Muslims want democracy just like the rest of us.

          They don’t campaign on that stuff anyway. But it’s hard to stop fighting the last war. Especially when people don’t embrace democracy and human rights the way they’re supposed to (according to neocons).

          1. They’re muslims. People can’t seem to grasp this. And culturally Arab/Badawi in large part. They won’t be won over the same way as other enemies. In fact, I’d say the only way to defeat them is to undermine their culture through trade.

    4. If Obama has taken complete ownership of his party he’s truly trashed the house and is set to leave it on life support:

      http://www.politico.com/magazi…..ues-121561

      Well done Obumbles!

      1. Wouldn’t disagree. But the Democratic base would. They remain oblivious. I think most Republicans in 2008 new the party was in bad shape. They recognized how divisive Bush was. The Dems have surrounded themselves in echo chambers online and have most of the press in it with them so stories like the one above are blips. They are completely convinced that Obama was a smashing success.

        1. I should add that any failures of his tend to be blamed on the opposition who only won elections because of *insert one of several excuses or all of them here*.

        2. Part of it is a highly partisan media, but the stupid party also bears a great deal of responsibilty, merely attempting to block Obama’s damaging agenda isn’t enough you have to represent something more than “Obama Liight”.

          Meanwhile hardly a squeak from the main parties and their mainstream media enablers about the real existential threat to the country 19 trillion and heading to 20 trillion dollars in debt.

          1. Been in a bad mood and very depressed since last Sat.

            1. Lighten up, bro. It’s just stupid politicians and the stupid people who follow politics. Have a drink and watch Fletch and start your weekend on a happier note.

          2. “We just owe it to ourselves!” /John

    5. Trump caught lightening in a bottle.

      If you lighten Obama, do you get Hillary?

    6. If Warren had run, she would’ve beaten Hillary and kooky Sanders in a landslide.

      I’d bet my ass on it.

      1. And you would have lost your ass. Warren polled very poorly amongst the Dems and the worst amongst liberals.

    7. The Overton Window only moves leftward. Progressivism was always the only outcome for the Democrats.

      1. Obviously we need an Underton Window.

  5. Donald Trump’s important constituency is what used to be called “Reagan Democrats”.

    These are white, blue collar workers, who feel like they’ve been abandoned by the Democratic Party.

    Here’s a description of Reagan Democrats from 1980:

    “The term Reagan Democrat is sometimes used to describe moderate Democrats who are more conservative than liberal on certain issues like national security and immigration.

    . . . .

    The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats . . . . He concluded that “Reagan Democrats” no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

    Does that sound familiar?

    This is not disruption. This is not new.

    This is progressives selling white, blue collar workers short over the last eight years to appeal to minorities.

    This isn’t 1980 all over again because the guy looking to harness those disaffected traditional Democrats isn’t Ronald Reagan. But the constituency and the reasons behind it are all the same.

    1. Conversely, Trump’s gains within the GOP age largely related to his nationalistic rhetoric concerning trade policy and wanting to cancel or renegotiate trade agreements like NAFTA, TPP as they are seen by those very white blue collar workers as having shuttered up the factory towns of the rust and bible belts. And that position is not without some merit. Though I tend to think it is more the regulatory burden than labor costs that are causing that flight.

      1. ” that position is not without some merit.”

        Yes it is. America manufactures plenty of stuff. Manufacturing has not shrunk since NAFTA. Car manufacturer’s in the Southeast seem to be doing fine. These blue-collar assholes just don’t want to compete and are ignorant of economics. I can’t wait until automation ends manufacturing jobs.

        1. “Yes it is. America manufactures plenty of stuff”

          Is that what’s in contention though? Manufacturing plenty of stuff doesn’t negate the shuttered factory towns. What automation would have done more gradually NAFTA did rapidly.

          “Car manufacturer’s in the Southeast seem to be doing fine.”

          Relative to Detroit, maybe. Overall it’s still in decline. (In Canada too, but to a lesser extent I believe)

    2. That’s a good thought, Ken.

  6. and setting up a major transformation in partisan politics.

    Now our choices are Hitler and Stalin. Take that partisan politics!

    1. “Hitler and Stalin”

      Apple Dumpling Gang version?

      1. Perhaps the Over the Hill Gang…

    2. Reminds me of the fate of the Ophidians.

    3. I think you’re overstating the case. Trump and Hillary aren’t nearly as competent as Hitler and Stalin. Maybe that’s a good thing? So, retard-Hitler vs. retard-Stalin?

  7. First of all, does anyone analyze candidate policy positions anymore? It’s either presidentialness or it’s straight out horse race coverage.

    Secondly, it’s a bit naive to think that two terrible (but, let’s face it, not exceptionally so) candidates will destroy entrenched systems simply because they don’t fit the molds or are slimy as all get-out. They can be molded and their particular sliminess will be harnessed for the good of the cabals. And the next election cycle will get the same horse race journalism that guides right back on track.

    1. First of all, does anyone analyze candidate policy positions anymore? It’s either presidentialness or it’s straight out horse race coverage

      there’s some good analysis of Bernie’s positions that you don’t normally get. My inner conspiracy theorist says that the media is scared shitless of Bernie and desperately wants Her Whose Turn It Is, so they’re actually digging in to what he says.

    2. “First of all, does anyone analyze candidate policy positions anymore?”

      If you don’t like having to pick from among a Latino, a woman, a Jew, or a retard, then you are such a homophobe!

    3. And the next election cycle will get the same horse race journalism that guides right back on track.

      that or it becomes the new normal. The Dems throw “liberal” completely out the window and go full Kim Jong Un, and the GOP becomes an Indian Casino.

      1. ” the GOP becomes an Indian Casino.”

        That would be an improvement.

    4. two terrible (but, let’s face it, not exceptionally so) candidates

      We certainly haven’t had a serious candidate as bad as Hillary in my lifetime. Her obvious criminality alone is far beyond any other candidate I can recall, and I remember Nixon, Wallace, and, yes, her rapist husband. Her narcissistic megalomania is par for the course, but even in a history of narcissistic megalomaniacs, she falls on the low end of the competence scale.

      1. Trump is worse. Hillary is a criminal, but he’s a fascist with possible mental illness.

        1. That’s total bs. Show us some facts to back that up.

      2. Even Kennedy almost certainly won the White House on voter fraud in Illinois and Texas.

    5. I’ve been watching CNN a good bit lately and it’s actually pretty interesting to watch them in action. I think the horse race angle is just the most entertaining they can make the story and still make it seem like it is in fact news and not purely entertainment. CNN seems to be the Trump News Network, all things Trump all day long, but it’s the most shallow, TMZ-style reporting imaginable. I expect if Trump gets the nomination they’ll suddenly remember they’re supposed to be journalists and start “uncovering” all sorts of news about his crooked crony dealings and his lawsuits and his bankrupcies, all the crap he was up to in the ’80’s and 90’s, start actually doing some analysis of his speeches and challenge what he’s saying.

      I also noticed just like the “Pope accuses Trump of being un-Christian for wanting to build a wall” when that’s not what really happened, CNN, ABC and NPR all used the same angle on the Scalia-replacement story, that the GOP was claiming Obama could not nominate a Supreme Court justice this close to the election. I heard that often enough that I actually had to go back and check to see if maybe I was mistaken on what McConnell and Grassley had said, but, nope, they never said that. Hard for me believe they’re all just getting the story slightly wrong in the exact same way and it just so happens to make the story sound more exciting than it really is.

      1. Every presidential election is two stories. The primaries which is all MTV, horse race crap, and then the general when the media realizes that there could actually be a non(D) in the white house.

      2. We know the Clinton machine and the White House have fed reporters talking points time and time again and we know news media exists in an echo chamber, so it could be another JournoList thing or it could be orchestrated from on high. Either way, it’s always shoddy journalism.

        1. It’s not just that the Clinton machine has fed reporters talking points, it’s that reporters have accepted and knowingly repeated them.

          Hell, I expect a campaign to feed reporters talking points. I don’t expect reporters to salute.

  8. Stop it with that picture already!

  9. Former political consultant and current ABC News analyst

    That’s not even two strikes. More like 5, maybe 6.

    With the ad hom out of the way, I’ll read the post. Maybe.

    1. Look, who better to report on the candidates than the people who promoted them?

  10. “The challenge for libertarians?who bear no responsibility for the debacles of either the Bush or Obama years?is how to take advantage of our surging popularity (see Gallup on this!) among voters and parlay into party platforms that promise less but deliver results effectively, and in a way that increases not just economic growth but cultural and social freedom.”

    Based on the comparative progress of state-level reform vs federal politics, the answer probably isn’t ‘tear it down’ or ‘engage the people’. The Libertarian Moment is happening primarily at the state level and it’s happening because well-informed motivated groups of people with fairly libertarian leanings are engaging state-level politics and with relatively enlightened politicians, usually in the GOP but not always. This is how forfeiture reform and Bill 10 and other good things were accomplished.

    Please desist with your ‘tear ’em down’ fantasies Nick. At best these are wastes of time at worst you’ll get what you want and probably hate what comes after even worse.

    1. The Libertarian Moment is happening primarily at the state level and it’s happening because well-informed motivated groups of people with fairly libertarian leanings are engaging state-level politics and with relatively enlightened politicians, usually in the GOP but not always. This is how forfeiture reform and Bill 10 and other good things were accomplished.

      Pretty much this. Arizona got a full-blown libertarian put on the state Supreme Court because of inroads made with Team Red.

      1. Good to see someone recognizes the value of my insights.

        1. I’d pay you $14.75 for them.

      2. I would add that one of the reasons we are doing badly at the federal level is Mass Idiocy. We need well-informed citizens on our side to push politics as we like. At the federal level we have lots of quantity but no quality and this is manifesting as Trumptardation, and this is worse than the SQ. Engagement is vital but the dose makes the poison.

        1. The damage the Federal government can do is at least neutralized by the gridlock guaranteed by our constitutional system.

          Republicans will own the House for the next decade and the Senate will flip back and forth. Only under the right circumstances can one team gain enough momentum to briefly get the power to make sweeping changes (e.g. Team Blue shitting out Obamacare and then promptly losing Congress). It’s death by a thousand cuts but it ultimately makes the states more important.

          1. “The damage the Federal government can do is at least neutralized by the gridlock guaranteed by our constitutional system.”

            Not true unfortunately. The ‘Administrative State’ does the dirty work and less transparently than a Parliamentary government would, which is why I increasingly prefer that form of government.

            “It’s death by a thousand cuts but it ultimately makes the states more important.”

            Hopefully you are right. I should note that Canada has better respect for federalism than the US.

  11. “…but part of it is what he openly admits: He doesn’t have set answers. ”

    He doesn’t need to come up with answers. They are already there; in the Constitution. A simple return to the founding principles would be just fine.

    1. Not progressive enough!! /derp

  12. I think Trump does represent at least one thing that’s new (on the presidential candidate level): a clear push-back against political correctness.

    1. It’s balanced out with Bernie being the full-throttle PC candidate– or at least deriving his support from that crowd.

    2. An incredibly inept, repulsive push-back that will probably do more to empower internet SJWs than they could otherwise have hoped for. The Rise of Trump will forever be used as proof of our horrible ____-ist society and the need to change it.

      1. Of course the SJWs will hate him, but they are very much outnumbered by everyone else. Especially in the privacy of the voting booth.

        1. You missed the point but what’s new. The SJWs now have a powerful new point they can use. Trump can be their proof of the horrible world that only they can see and fix.

          1. And you are short-sighted, simple-minded, and rude, as usual. Of course fighting back gives your opponent “a powerful new point they can use.” That’s the way war (on any level) works. It’s like arguing against D-Day because the Nazis will use it as propaganda for the French (“The evil Allies are bombing France!”) and the Germans (“The Allies are coming to destroy our country!”). Yeah, duh.

            It doesn’t even matter that it’s Trump. It could be anyone. Remember, they screamed about how George H.W. Bush was planning a fascist state. (Now he’s the “good” Bush to them.) Anyone not on the SJW bandwagon will be demonized.

            Now, you might have a point if it were someone like David Duke leading the GOP pack, but Trump is not anything like that.

            But I don’t know of a way to fight back against the SJWs without actually, you know, fighting back. Do you?

            1. “f course fighting back gives your opponent “a powerful new point they can use.” That’s the way war (on any level) works. It’s like arguing against D-Day because the Nazis will use it as propaganda for the French (“The evil Allies are bombing France!”) and the Germans (“The Allies are coming to destroy our country!”). Yeah, duh.”

              That’s not what remotely what I said you imbecile. I said that since Trump is ‘fighting back’ in basically the worst possible way, he can be used as a tool by SJWs. He’s not hurting them.

              “Now, you might have a point if it were someone like David Duke leading the GOP pack, but Trump is not anything like that.”

              No. Trump is more widely known of and despised.

              “But I don’t know of a way to fight back against the SJWs without actually, you know, fighting back. Do you?”

              One of the reasons conservatives are stupid and useless is that they think balls can substitute for brains. That being brash and bold makes it okay to be stupid and senseless. It doesn’t. Your fightback has to be competent and thoughtful. Trump’s bluster is neither.

            2. He’s pretty much an SJW himself, rejecting any calls for a sensible and moderated immigration system as teh racziss!!!1!1!1!!

              There’s no point engaging it

              1. Hilarious. Like you’d know anything about a ” a sensible and moderated immigration system”.

                1. Your fightback has to be competent and thoughtful. Trump’s bluster is neither.

                  Like you’d know anything about…

                  Oh sweet burning ad hominem irony

          2. Irrelevant. SJWs are mean girls in the high school of life, bullying not through violence to the person but to the social self and the emotions. If Trump helps build a clique of people that despise them, and are numerous enough that they can ignore the mean girls and still have plenty of friends, then he renders them impotent.

      2. It remains to be seen, but it could in fact disempower them. A lot of their power comes from social pressure and the ability to shame people. A shameless person who succeeds while ignoring progressives could break the spell that they represent the social consensus. Trump is not the ideal person to do this, but hopefully he will inspire better people to follow in his wake, people who will now seem all the more reasonable to the average joe when contrasted with Trump.

        1. Trump isn’t going to inspire anyone who isn’t already one of the mindless idiots idolizing him to do anything other than vote for Hillary.

          There are people who stand up to the SJWs. That was what GamerGate was about and there were and are very thoughtful people who go on YouTube all the time and make the point. They are the fighters we need. Trump is the strawman come to life that SJWs need.

          1. Stop shilling for Canadian candidate Cruz.

            1. Stop drinking the Trump kool-aid.

  13. This is how Krugman starts his column today. I’ll say one thing: he rarely disappoints.

    America’s two big political parties are very different from each other, and one difference involves the willingness to indulge economic fantasies.

    Republicans routinely engage in deep voodoo, making outlandish claims about the positive effects of tax cuts for the rich. Democrats tend to be cautious and careful about promising too much, as illustrated most recently by the way Obamacare, which conservatives insisted would be a budget-buster, actually ended up being significantly cheaper than projected.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02…..egion&_r=0

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      +1 Trillion Dollar Coin

    2. There are a lot of doozies in there, but Obamacare is cheaper than expect because they delayed a bunch of measures, most states didn’t play along with the Medicare expasnion, and enrollment hasn’t lived up to their fantasy expectations. So now instead of being quite as large a cost on the federal government (it’s still really expensive), it will just slowly bleed the private sector dry while politicians avoid making unpopular decisions. Even then, that’s only if you buy into CBO forecasts. So, if you don’t actually implement what you said you would because it’s so damn unpopular, you can’t really claim it’s because you weren’t promising too much. But we all know the score with the Krugs.

      Meanwhile, a bunch of people with employer provided insurance will lose it and we will still have millions of uninsured and many of those who have individual insurance won’t be able to afford to pay it. It’s massively inefficient costing $50k per newly insured individual, and is adding to the debt. It is not paying for itself and it isn’t cutting healthcare costs.

    3. Of course, Democrats never over-promise! Look how the War on poverty ended poverty, just as planned! And it stayed within budget projections, too!

    4. “making outlandish claims about the positive effects of tax cuts for the rich.”

      What’s funny is that even if its a tax cut for EVERYONE, liberals will fulminate about how because rich people also benefit, therefore everyone else should reject it.

    5. “…Democrats tend to be cautious and careful about promising too much…”

      WHAAAA?

      1. Didn’t you hear? White is black, up is down, ignorance is strength, and we’re all fucked now.

  14. “Good and healthy people can’t go in a sick building and hope to paint the walls and think the building is better. It needs to be torn down. Good, well-intentioned people will become ill entering into the status quo of our political system, and it is time we admit that….”

    “As Dowd points out, Trump and Clinton represent not the start of anything new or exciting in politics. They are instead the pothole-ridden cul de sac of the the past 15 years or more of instensely [sic?] partisan and genuinely awful governing.”

    How much has already been published saying that Trump is burning down the Republican Party?

    1. Too much and without nary a shred of evidence or even the smell of smoke. Sure he’ll get Hillary elected president if he’s the nominee but there’s really no reason to believe that results in the GOP’s destruction. It will suffer for a while though.

      1. Not quite, there’s definitely some evidence of it, as in “we’re voting with our middle fingers”. Whether he gets Hillary elected seems to be increasingly up in the air at this point though. If he won, it’d be a bigger disaster for the GOP establishment than if he lost. Not sure which is worse for the country though.

    2. I’ve seen many long-time GOP partisans say that if Trump is the nominee, then they’re done with the GOP. Granted there are always a few people saying that about someone every primary season, but these are coming from people I wouldn’t have ever thought would say that before.

  15. That’s not what epistemic closure is, as your link actually confirms. When knowledge is closed under entailment is a vastly more interesting question than whatever the fuck Julian Sanchez was trying to say.

  16. My only disappointment is we didn’t get to see progressive Democrats screaming themselves hoarse promoting Joe Biden.

    1. It may yet happen. Hillary looks more like a loser every day, and the DNC knows that a geriatric pinko Jewish hippie will never sell nationally.

      1. I wouldn’t underestimate the stupidity of our fellow countrymen.

        1. We are not that far gone yet. Most of the country is not like SF, Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor, etc.

    1. The people so eager to find homosexuals in history always seem to imagine that all same-sex friendships are GAYNESS. They aren’t. Also, back then, it was not unusual for people of the same gender to share a bed, which is not necessarily the same thing as having sex. It really can be just (literally) sleeping together.

    2. REALLY got behind him, hmmm?

    3. “Avatar
      Brinley ? 4 days ago

      There was no such thing as gay back in Abe’s day. There was male homosexual desire, not gay. Gay is a political term that relates to a choice of identity.

      Abe probably had homosexual desires as did most men.”

      No citation required. Or is this on of those *common knowledge* thingies?

      1. Well, he is correct in that the term “homosexual” wasn’t coined until 1886, likewise the term “gay” had nothing to do with dudes fucking other dudes until the early 20th century. Furthermore, from what I’ve read, yes, as far as “gayness” being seen an inborn, mental personality trait instead of describing a particular action that anyone had the capability to do, he is correct in that homosexuality wasn’t commonly pathologized until the publication of Psychopathia Sexualis

        1. Interesting.

          “homosexual desires as did most men.”

          I was more interested in that.

          1. That says more about the commenter than anything else.

          2. I see. Now Log Cabin Republicans makes sense.

        2. I thought Rufus meant the “most men” part.

          1. A free-spirit girl I dated in University insisted all men – not some – had homo fantasies.

            No matter how hard I refuted it only gave fuel to her assertion since I was *denying* those desires.

            It was retarded.

            But hey, she was hot and pussy.

            1. As a homo myself who has never had any “hetero fantasies” I can confirm how silly this is.

              1. You learn something everyday.

                No wonder you like soccer.

                /wink.

                1. I’m watching Australian footy right now. How gay is that?!

      2. it’s always The Great Emancipator, a married man with several children. It’s never Hitler, a dude who blew his own head off about 5 minutes after he reluctantly married a woman.

    4. “The truth is, Abraham Lincoln got hammered in the ass so much, that he died of being hammered in the ass. Thank you, and good night.”

  17. You know who else tore down existing political structures?

    1. Buttercup baby?

  18. OT: bad day for octogenerian authors, Umberto Eco dies:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35620368

    1. First they came for the rock stars, and I said nothing, because I was not a rock start. Then they came for the novelists…

    2. His obituary was 670 pages long and involved a variety of complex references to medieval history

      1. Heh, heh, heh.

        I read Foucault’s Pendulum because I usually enjoy conspiracy fiction. It really left me underwhelmed.

        1. I’m reading it now. But, yeah, I spend more time googling obscure references than reading it. It’s a bit of a slog, is it worth it?

          1. Meh, I didn’t think so but I have friends who loved it. I’m hesitant to tell you to give up on it because it might be more to your taste than mine.

            1. Well, I’m half way through it, and actually do like the underlying story so far, it’s just not easy enough to read to be the escapism I enjoy with SciFi.
              I guess I’ll finish it, because I do want to know how it ends.
              I recommended it to my GF, she’s more linguistically endowed than I, and more literary, so I think she may actually enjoy it more than I, and I guess I should be able to discuss it with xer, which means I should finish it.
              Thanks

        2. “It really left me underwhelmed.”

          I’ve read 3 of his books. All of them had me asking myself “why am i doing this” about 80% of the way through. His books make the reader work hard for relatively little payoff. They entice you in the beginning with the historical references, the philosophy, the promise of some mystery. In the end you finish them so you can tell people you did.

          1. Well this, and DenverJ’s comment, give me hope. Some times I feel like I’m not “getting” good literature but apparently, if that’s the case, I’m not alone.

            1. IMHO, “The Name of the Rose” made a pretty good movie

  19. Get out your tiny violins…

    Bills To Protect Gay And Transgender Workers From Discrimination Are Stalling Nationwide

    “[Kentucky is] one of 31 states where, according to state law, employers can fire and harass workers for being gay or transgender. And the situation is not ? to borrow a popular phrase among LGBT rights advocates ? getting better….

    “Heather Cronk, co-director of GetEqual, a LGBT advocacy group, said the leading gay rights groups deserve some of the blame for the current state of affairs because they focused too much on the battle for marriage rights….

    “Cronk, on the other hand, said many of the movement’s supposed businesses allies aren’t doing enough to pressure legislators ? especially when compared with their opponents.

    “As the Charleston Gazette-Mail recently reported, for example, West Virginia’s largest employers have effectively remained silent about the state’s so-called religious freedom bill.

    “Without a substantive threat to relocate or shift operations, pro-equality gestures from employers often appear empty, Cronk said. “Corporations have not stepped in a way that exerts pain on legislators,” she said. “The religious right knows how to exert pain.””

    Hey, Cronk, not everyone’s as into pain as you are.

    1. “Heather Cronk”? What a hilarious name. Something from a Pynchon novel. And earlier today we had “Justice Gaines,” which sounds like something from The Pilgrim’s Progress.

    2. If the activists really wanted the businesses to threaten to move, they might consider giving them someplace to move to. Maybe they should lobby the “pro-equality” states to become pro-business so that the businesses might actually be tempted to move there. No one will believe a business threatening to move from a low tax state to a high tax state over an issue of social signaling.

    3. Gays continue to flee unfriendly states – film at 11.

  20. “Opponents of a bill that would prohibit transgender students in South Dakota from using the bathroom of their choice are taking aim at the state’s $3.8-billion tourism industry….

    “Nicole Ratzlaff, owner of a bed and breakfast in Sioux Falls, said she doubted the transgender legislation would put a dent in the number of visitors coming to the state.

    “”I see that more as a bullying tactic,” Ratzlaff said.”

    1. All those bikers are going to stop going to Sturgis.

  21. I heartily agree with Dowd that the Democratic and Republican Parties, in their current configurations, are salvageable.

    Really? The parties are salvageable? Nick remains too optimistic. I suspect that not only are the parties not salvageable but the superstructure (democracy as we practice it in USA) isn’t savable.

    Libertarians should be focusing on state and local government as a means of undermining the Feds. If small or limited government types can be effective then we win.

    Here’s an interesting piece:

    The fault line in American politics is no longer Republican vs. Democrat nor conservative vs. liberal but establishment vs. anti-establishment. This is an inevitable result of serial failure in establishment policies. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the establishment’s repeated military interventions abroad in wars against non-state opponents. When such interventions fail in one place?first Somalia, then Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Libya, now Syria?it does the same thing again somewhere else, with the same result.

    1. More:

      Below these factors lies the establishment’s bedrock. It is composed overwhelmingly of people who want to be something, not people who want to do something. They have devoted their lives to becoming members of the establishment and enjoying the many privileges thereof. They are not likely to endanger club membership by breaking its rules. Beyond following money and adhering to its ideology, the rules are three.

      The first is, don’t worry about serial failure. Within the Beltway, the failure of national policies is not important. Career success depends on serving interests and pleasing courtiers above you, not making things work in flyover land. As in 17th-century Spain, the court is dominated by interests that prosper by feeding off the country’s decay.

      1. And:

        Second, rely on the establishment’s wealth and power to insulate its members from the consequences of policy failure. The public schools are wretched, but the establishment’s children go to private schools. We lose wars, but the generals who lose them get promoted. The F-35 is a horrible fighter, but no member of the establishment will have to fly it. So long as the money keeps flowing, all is well.

        Third and most important, the only thing that really matters is remaining a member of the establishment. This completes the loop in what is a classic closed system, where the outside world does not matter and is not allowed to intrude. Col. John Boyd, America’s greatest military theorist, said that all closed systems collapse. The Washington establishment cannot adjust, it cannot adapt, it cannot learn. It cannot escape serial failure.

        1. Thanks, LB, and Boyd may well be true. But how long does the collapse take and what sort of peripheral damage is there?

    2. “establishment vs. anti-establishment”

      Well unfortunately as the Trumpmania demonstrates this is kind of useless to libertarianism. Indeed the establishment is starting to look positively enlightened.

      1. It’s all useless to libertarianism – that’s the point.

    3. The parties are salvageable?

      Maybe I misread but I thought that was a typo.

  22. This sort of thing never, ever happens except when it does

    “Seattle Parks and Recreation has confirmed an adult male inappropriately used a female locker room at Evans Pool in Green Lake while a youth swim team used the facilities on Feb. 8

    “Was the individual a male inappropriately using the facilities or a transgender female well within her rights?…

    “This incident raises questions that go to the heart of the issue and controversy over gender-neutral bathroom protections. We’re told that the concern that a male using a female locker room is overblown and rarely happens. If you were to look into this incident, because police weren’t called, there’s no paper trail that the average person could discover indicating this issue happened. The only reason we’re aware of the incident is due to a KIRO Radio listener who spoke up. So it’s problematic for activists to claim these incidents don’t happen if police aren’t always being called.”

    1. “So it’s problematic for activists to claim these incidents don’t happen if police aren’t always being called.”

      Today’s logical fallacy…

    2. This isn’t going to end well

    3. “didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff ”

      Yeah, well prove that it wasn’t.

  23. ” if his emergence helps destroy the sick building so many of us try to enter, then he has served a valuable purpose.

    The structure and the building of our politics are sick. You can be a very healthy person and if you walk into a house that is mold-ridden with no circulation and has lead pipes, you are going to get sick. The question becomes how sick do you get.

    Good and healthy people can’t go in a sick building and hope to paint the walls and think the building is better.”

    Holy beardless jesus on a unicycle, that metaphor is so retarded it should star Sean Penn.

    WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ENTER THE SICK BUILDING YOU DUMBASS. BURN IT DOWN.

    1. BURN IT DOWN

      Burn it like it’s an Ebola infected Zika virus carrying small-headed baby.

  24. I’ll just post the set up and let someone else add the punch line:

    “Winona Ryder shielded her alabaster complexion with a visor on the Georgia set of Netflix’s Stranger Things on Friday.

    “The 44-year-old Golden Globe winner was bundled up in two black coats, a maroon jumper, jeans, and brown boots.”

  25. I’ll just post the set up and let someone else add the punch line:

    “Winona Ryder shielded her alabaster complexion with a visor on the Georgia set of Netflix’s Stranger Things on Friday.

    “The 44-year-old Golden Globe winner was bundled up in two black coats, a maroon jumper, jeans, and brown boots.”

    1. Remember back in the 90s when it was our *hearts* she stole?

      1. She is one of the actresses who have near-zero sex appeal to me. Drew Barrymore is another one. Neither are ugly, but inside my pants, the reaction is “meh.”

        1. Well feel free to send all the pretty girls that don’t do it for you my way.

          1. It’s just interesting to me how that happens: stars considered hot who do nothing for me. Back in the past, Betty Grable and June Allyson. Meh. I never understood why soldiers had pinups of Betty Grable, when there were dozens of hotter stars around. I’d have painted Paulette Goddard on the side of my bomber.

        2. She was even worse in real life. I think she lived near me on the upper east side in the late 90s/early 2000s. She had stopped making movies and she was living a quasi reclusive life between her apartment and Zabars. I’d see her on the street maybe once every other month. She was a walking “barbara streisand effect” in that she made such a ridiculous effort to ‘not be recognized’ that you’d spot her from 3 blocks away.

          (sitting in the window seats of a bar in heat of summer)
          “Check out the chick with the shawl over her head”
          “Probably Winona”
          “Really?”
          “Yeah, just say something when she walks by”
          (girl walks by)
          “Hey Winona.”
          (screams, sprays friend with pepper spray and runs to nearby limousine)

          That never actually happened, but that was basically the impression one got.

          1. Seems like all those child stars ended up having issues. Hopefully, she figured it out by now.

          2. I laughed.

          3. They were doing location filming for her staight-to-netflix show in my neighborhood. It looks nothing like Indiana.

        3. Drew Barrymore is a babe. She’s always in really shitty movies but she is totally hot.

        4. She is one of the actresses who have near-zero sex appeal to me.

          Halle Berry is that way for me. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to criticize about her looks, head to toe, but just no chemistry.

          1. Interesting. To me she’s beautiful, but only somewhat hot. So she’s a sort of middle case, with some chemistry, but not coming close to the beauty.

            And then there are the “hot but not beautiful” cases….

    2. Would anytime. Did you know there is going to be a Beetlejuice 2?

      1. Yup, she could shoplift from me any day.

      2. B:TNG?

        I liked Winona, Alec, and Geena & hated everything else about that movie. Burton’s worst? (Imagine Planet of the Apes didn’t exist.)

      3. At least they didn’t do the original sequel idea, which I shit you not, was Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian.

    3. Did she pay for both coats?

  26. It occurred to me the other day that if Libertarian party was one of the main parties, the frontrunner would probably be as bad as Trump or Hillary.

    1. That’s a big if.

    2. I’m not sure if that would be possible. Although, I suppose he could have blue skin.

      1. “He began taking colloidal silver in 1999 amid fears that disruptions caused by the millennium bug might lead to a shortage of antibiotics.”

        It probably looks good with a tinfoil hat

      2. I’m votin’ for McAfee if he gets the nom. If it’s GayJay I stay home or vote TRUMP

        1. Have you ever seen the documentary about his time in Belize. It’s a treat.

  27. Is this Larry Nichols guy I’m finding on the internet talking smack about Hillary credible?

    1. He sounds like a screwball.

      1. He says he’s killed for them.

        I’m surprised he hasn’t been whacked himself the shit his talking.

        Not that I would be surprised if it were true.

        1. Nothing would surprise me about the Clintons but he sounds like a screwball with a grudge.

        2. He didn’t pledge allegiance to them in a Facebook post before doing it, so it didn’t count

  28. “Libertarians?who bear no responsibility for the debacles of either the Bush or Obama years”

    One lesson we are learning from this race is that bearing no responsibility is apparently a virtue of some kind.

    1. So social security is virtuous?

    2. “One lesson we are learning from this race is that bearing no responsibility is apparently a virtue of some kind.”

      I presume there’s intended to be some ‘ironic’ truth to that statement? Like that ‘the only thing we have to fear…’ bullshit quote from the wannabe king?

  29. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both said they?ll go further than President Barack Obama on the issue of immigration

    Yeah, clearly Donald Trump has no chance against either of these two, considering the vast support for amnesty for illegal aliens (and lots more of them) among average American voters….

  30. “… Although it doesn’t explicitly say so, the U.S. Government ? or, rather, a recent (15 December 2006) Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government ? concurs (see also “GAO Chief Warns Economic Disaster Looms” and “Demographic Reality and the Entitlement State” by Ron Paul). During 2006, the fiscal gap continued to swell rapidly and now stands at ca. $53 trillion. And that’s just at the federal level. One could increase it by adding various local and state shortfalls. Further, this figure assumes the continuation of short- and medium-term economic sunshine, i.e., that nominal GDP will grow at a rate of at least 5% per annum during the next five years. In other words, because the Treasury’s projections do not incorporate economic weakness, this estimate of $53 trillion could easily err on the low side.

    As a related matter, it’s important to emphasise that there’s ? literally! ? no accounting for the U.S. Government. Its internal auditor, Government Accountability Office, found for the tenth year in succession that Uncle Sam’s financial statements are unreliable and that his financial controls are inadequate (see the Comptroller General’s comment on this year’s Financial Report). The U.S. Government is bankrupt in the sense that, by private sector standards, its financial condition is not just unaudited: it is simply unauditable.”

    http://www.quebecoislibre.org/07/070527-4.htm

    Good read.

    1. “The reality, then, is that Americans and non-Americans are likely to face a future of uncomfortably high inflation ? and possibly worse if somewhere down the track the $US loses its privileged status as the world’s reserve currency.”

      In a discussion with a friend several years back regarding the strength of the Euro at the time, I suggested it was a short-term condition, and we could all soon return to Europe and eat fine meals…
      Given the mismanagement of the US finances, he took exception. I simply said ‘the Euros are far worse yet, and there is nothing to challenge the dollar as the reserve currency’.
      Nothing has changed which would affect that condition. And I don’t see it any time soon.

      1. I agree.

        What will replace it?

        And what of gold?

        1. “And what of gold?”

          Ya know, it has the benefit that a lot of people find it a very attractive commodity. And so many faults. Why not, oh, diamonds?
          You see where I’m going with this. Maybe popularity and (relatively stable supply) is sufficient to make a commodity a monetary anchor, but if so, we’d want to survey the options and pick the best one.

          1. Which brings to mind Ron Paul’s suggestion of competing currencies.
            If we could use any currency in daily business, the best would soon become obvious and probably changing over time.
            The knowledge problem is solved by the individual agents in the market acting (and researching) in their onw best interest. Sure there would be flakes attempting to defraud the unwary (and the press would scream MARKET FAILURE!), and the result would be a rounding error compared to the fraud we get from the government every day.
            So, why bother trying to bind currency to a commodity when we have the market to determine the value of each one constantly?

          2. It is interesting how precious metals has been selected.

            1. Have always been an indicator of wealth and status. Gotta get da puddy.

            2. “It is interesting how precious metals has been selected.”
              The phrase is an admission of bias (not you, R, just in general). Who coined the phrase ‘precious metals’? And who finds them ‘precious’?
              Lucky Strike smokes were the common currency in post WWII Europe. In times of real hunger, you can bet a kilo of meat sells for more than most any metal you could offer.
              “Money” is weird stuff; for all I’ve read, no one has given a concise and complete definition of it. Yes, it is a ‘counting system’, but for most of the world’s population, it has an intrinsic value which has yet to be specifically defined.

              1. “Money” is weird stuff; for all I’ve read, no one has given a concise and complete definition of it.

                It really is a difficult concept to find all the edges of. The best short definition I have seen of money is that it is a consensual hallucination.

          3. Maybe popularity and (relatively stable supply) is sufficient to make a commodity a monetary anchor,

            Its worked for thousands of years. Why would it suddenly stop working?

            My guess: the dollar is doomed as a reserve currency, although whether its demise is next year or 30 years from now, who knows? It will be replaced by a synthetic reserve currency tied to a basket of commodities (precious metals, oil, who knows what else?), as the massive global depression following the dollar’s fall will kill any appetite for a national/fiat reserve currency for at least, I dunno, a couple years.

    2. Fiat money gonna fiat. But “goldbugs” and those who wish to audit the fed (and Fort Knox) are tinfoil hat wearing loonies.

      1. Why?

        1. Sarcasm, my Canadian friend, sarcasm.

          1. But, seriously, I think that if Fort Knox were audited, we’d find that the gold has already been spent, and probably the same gold has been sold several times.

            1. The gold stays in Fort Knox. They don’t “spend” it.

              1. Some fairly serious people (as far as I know) have been studying global gold supply and transactions. They claim that the amount of gold that has changed hands over the last 10 – 15 years (going on memory here) far exceeds the amount that has been mined over that time. As far as anybody knows – China mines a lot of gold that probably goes straight to their central bank, and China never sells gold.

                Their hypothesis is that the surplus supply represents the sovereign gold reserves of the US and the West, which have been sold to depress the price of gold in order to mask the weakness of their fiat currencies.

          2. Whoosh!

            1. Nothing goes over his head. His reflexes are too fast. He would catch it.

    3. Further, this figure assumes the continuation of short- and medium-term economic sunshine, i.e., that nominal GDP will grow at a rate of at least 5% per annum during the next five years.

      Holy shit. 5% per year? Has that happened two years in a row in the last century?

  31. Great podcast on privately provided non-violent provision of security.

  32. I’m glad the doc only gave me a scrip for 15 Percocet; this shit could get addictive! Whiskey, Percocet, and hash oil… DenverJ is feeling his groove, baby!

    1. Lucky you. I was given a scrip for hydrocodone when I had my wisdom teeth out, but I ended up not being able to use it because opioids make me nauseous as hell. Had to rely on ibuprofen.

      Then again, hash oil might counteract that…

      1. Yeah decades ago I had a double hernia surgery, and they gave me Vicodin, and it didn’t seem to do anything for me. So the doc have me Percocet Wednesday when I had my wisdom teeth removed. Turns out, I didn’t even need it; tylonol would have sufficed. But hell, I’d already bought the Percocet, and not taking it would be wasteful, right?

        1. Yeah, when I had a tooth pulled a couple years ago I wound up getting two bottles of Vicodin out of it. I needed maybe one tablet for the pain.

          1. you have a righteous dentist

      2. Yeah, I always make sure they give me vicodine.

        1. Vicodin does the same thing. I’ve yet to find an opioid that doesn’t.

      1. Hmm, poetry isn’t really my thing…
        There was a guy from Denver,
        Who had his teeth taken out.
        He wanted to be high forever,
        But didn’t want to be a drunken lout.

        1. Nice! Hey what do you use for a pen?

                1. Love you guys.

                  Don’t make it weird.

                  1. “Don’t make it weird.”

                    ANCIENT MASSIVE VAGINAS !!!!

          1. Hash oil? I tried using my nicotine pen, didn’t work. Told somebody last night it was because it didn’t get hot enough, but just swapped batteries today to see and it worked fine. I think it’s the size of the holes that let the oil in to be heated, maybe.
            Anyway, I bought a fifty dollar Nectar Bee battery, but like I said, my thirteen dollar nicotine battery works just fine, and is bigger/holds more charge.
            The cartridges aren’t refillable, they’re disposable, $50 a pop, lasts me two weeks.

    2. Dayum, DJ.

      Be careful with that shit. Oxy and alcohol can get you back to the ED, stat, where we will give you a shot that negates all the Oxy. And you don’t want that.

  33. Have a good week everyone! I’m off to sail the Grenadines in the morning. Back on the 28th. A much-needed break from work and the daily nut punches of hearing about how moronic the world is becoming.

    /and if you have to ask, why, yes, this is a brag….

    1. Have a nice time. We aren’t jealous at all, dick.

    2. Not to me, it’s not.
      Have fun, but I’d pay not to do that.

      1. You don’t like warm places?

        1. “You don’t like warm places?”

          Got A/C on that thing? And a good ‘net connection? How far off-shore are you getting?
          Warm is OK; not a lot of use for beaches.

          1. Try beaches + alcohol

            1. AlmightyJB|2.19.16 @ 11:39PM|#
              “Try beaches + alcohol”

              Done it; how about some whiskey on the deck, access to the fridge, the ‘puter, the other books that comment on what I’m reading, and so on and so on?
              I don’t gripe that a lot of folks like warm beaches; HI would be a shanty-town if they didn’t. And aren’t you glad I’m not a buzz-kill at your fave beach, whining about those ‘sand-puppies’?

              1. Part of being happy is knowing when to turn your brain off.

                I remember floating around the lagoon in Bora Bora. I don’t recall thinking anything at all. Just relaxed and happy.

                1. Pl?ya Manhattan.|2.20.16 @ 12:37AM|#
                  “Part of being happy is knowing when to turn your brain off.”

                  Perhaps. I deny no one the choice or opportunity to do so.

                  1. Where were you from before SF? The midwest?

              2. When I was 19-21 I was a ski bum in Summit County. My buddies kept wanted to go camping in the summer. Camping is what you do when you live in the city and have to rough it in order to spend a couple of days in the mountains. If you have a nice place, with cable, electricity, and a water bed (back in the day) already in the mountains, why on earth would I go camp 3 miles away, sleep on the ground, and have to use the porta-john?
                If nature is so damn great, then why has the human race spent the last 1.5 million years trying to get away from/change it?

              3. Are sand-puppies anything like sweater kittens? Because I like those.

          2. Hear hear. I hate the beach. Except for the water part. But I can do without the sunburn and the humid sea air.

            1. I’ll have a cure for the sunburn in about 6-8 years. Still working with the FDA on that. Assholes.

            2. Huh, it’s the water part that gets me. I got whatever phobia relates to deep water. Maybe its because I grew up without much exposure to it, but when I swim in natural bodies of water I have to keep firm grip on my imagination, else my little monkey brain starts conjuring monsters in the depths below, all just waiting to eat me.

      1. We’re going out of St. George’s Grenada.

    3. Catamaran or keelboat?

        1. Slave ship with orphans at the Oars

          1. Why waste the labor of perfectly good orphans that way. A day’s labor in the uranium mine of just one orphan produces enough income for diesel fuel for the entire trip.

          1. WTF are they going to eat in the middle of the ocean that doesn’t swim or wriggle?

            Du Plessis adds that he is funding the expedition with his own money to avoid the trappings of corporate sponsoring and greenwashing [?].

            It must be exhausting to be that smug.

            1. Good question.

              But apparently that quest failed, because Mom

              “After a failed attempt at peddling the South Atlantic Ocean in January 2016 due to Davey’s mother, Robyn Wolff, enduring severe sea sickness. Davey du Plessis will tackle the 6450km, 4 month crossing of the vast ocean passage in November 2016, solo.”

              http://www.daveyduplessis.com/#adventurer

              I used to work for REI and am generally a strong believer in “doing adventurous outdoor stuff because why not”.

              But i’m sorta turned off by these sorts of self-promoting “Adventurers” who think they’re ‘saving the world through self-promotion’.

              Plus – the actual project itself is stupid. Why use a freaking peddle-boat to go 6,000 miles solo when sailors have been using the tradewinds for hundreds of years?

              Also – his last major “adventure” involved him being shot by peruvians.

              http://www.explorersweb.com/oc…..p?id=21017

              1. From the link:
                “Solo Amazon adventurer shot ? urgent help needed”
                Only if the ‘help’ is a smug-removal. Other than that, let ’em die.

                1. BTW, I’ve yet to find a hint of how “Davey” affords these trips. Pixey dust? Perhaps the remains of the property gained by someone WHO PRODUCED SOMETHING, YOU MISERABLE SLIMEBAG?

          2. Oh
            Em
            Gee!
            What a pack of self-righteous bullshit!
            I sincerely hope both vegans decide to abstain from hypocrisy and refuse to eat the animal protein ‘supplement’ required to stay alive.
            And fucking die as a result.

      1. Catamaran.

        1. Sounds like something you are very excited about. Forgive us land lubbers for not sharing your enthusiasm.
          Have a great time, take lots of pics, and I wish you great weather.

  34. Trump is literally a fascist. I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean that if you look up the Wikipedia definition of fascism, it is literally a 100% match with Trump’s political rhetoric.
    .
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions:
    .
    nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership.

    “(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence”.[30] Fascism is “a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism”

    “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

    1. RoninX|2.19.16 @ 11:47PM|#
      “Trump is literally a fascist.”
      Yeah, he fits most definitions, and most folks here don’t think much of him (to put it mildly)

      “I don’t mean that as an insult.”
      Why not? He deserves it.

    2. TWILIGHT OF THE RINOS TOMORROW DOWN IN SOUTH CACKALACKY

      MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

    3. There are a lot of definitions of Fascism but Mussolini was the father and to me that makes him the model to compare to. I would say that the largest common denominator is the populist nationalism which there is no doubt Trump sells. As far as that goes Mussolini was even more hardcore than Trump . He was a true hardcore believer whereas I believe that it’s no more than a sales pitch to Trump. Mussolini was also a Corporatist. “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ? Benito Mussolini. That’s pretty much what we have now. I don’t know that Trump even thinks in those sorts of ideological terms. Certainly his stance on Eminent Domain is consistent with that. Mussolini believed in using violence to achieve nationalistic goals. I don’t see Trump being nearly as militant but certainly likes to talk tough. I think you can certainly make some comparisons but I don’t think Trump is any Mussolini. The anti-immigration political tactic has been used in this country before Mussolini was even born. It’s hard in modern times to even use the term fascist because it has taken on so much additional baggage over the years.

    4. Oh, bullshit. “Redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints”? Yeah, right. Also, anti-individualism and a belief in an all-powerful state are essential to fascism, and there’s a lot more of that in Bernie and Hillary.

  35. My Jamaican co worker asked who I’m voting for, Trump or Hillary or Sanders. I said none of them and told her I’m an anarchist that would vote libertarian if I voted at all. What’s a libertarian she asked. I’m not the best spokesman, so my question is: Strategically, what is the best way to initiate a complete newbie to the idea? Sugarfree?

    1. Ask her if she would like to keep more of her hard earned money, or let let someone else take it, and spend it for her.

    2. Simplified. “Would you like to spend your own money on what you would like to spend it on, or would you like to have someone else take your money, and spend it on what they want to spend it on ?”

      1. I went with the ass sex and Messicans. No kidding, just to get a laugh out of her. Then I just said we don’t believe using force on peaceful people. The money argument seems to work to some degree on conservatives, but I don’t know how to talk to lefties.

        1. If you are talking to lefties from South America that have moved here, then they already know about Government corruption.

          1. And the Black Market.

        2. I don’t know how to talk to lefties.

          “Sure, I’ll take fries with that.” usually suffices for me.

      1. Thanks.

    3. Do you like the crushing force of a boot heel on the back of your neck? No. Then you might be a libertarian.

      Who do you think can make better decisions about you life. You or a bunch of lawyers and lobbyist in DC? If you said, you, then you might be a libertarian.

    4. My short answer might be: limited government (but not anarchy), fiscal conservativism, plus social liberalism in the sense of “do what you want, but don’t hassle other people about it.”

      1. Just about everything after “limited government” is redundant.

        1. To you, of course, but not to someone who doesn’t know what libertarianism is.

  36. Agora !!! Anarchy !!! Action !!!!

    1. Acid Amnesty Abortion

      1. How about. Fuck Off ?

  37. Pinging HM!

    “Travel back in time more than 400 years to an era when the globe was being mapped and its wonders discovered.”
    […]
    “The 1602 Ricci map, developed by Matteo Ricci while in China, is the earliest known Chinese map to depict the Americas. The 1674 Verbiest world map, created by Ferdinand Verbiest for the Chinese court, is being exhibited for the first time ever. ”
    http://www.asianart.org/exhibi…..e=adrollpp

    400 years? Phhhft.
    But I’ll be there and tell you what I saw.

    1. It was the Verbiest map of all.

    2. The world is displayed in two hemispheres, reversing the conventional European positioning so that China and the Pacific are toward the center, with the prime meridian (where the longitude is 0?) running through Beijing.

      Suck-up.

  38. tips of my arms scratch lessons for my newnightmares
    if you eyes read this road lover please don’t be that mean to me
    ever
    never
    I love you
    i respect you
    but you fell too far and your brother kneeled on the edge while he himself fought the dark angels
    i tried to maintain peace brother
    you were so fucking hateful and my loft swirls did not deserve this and you know this
    please release the dusty man
    please understand I fell behind the trip because I knew your keel would twist, sivad. Under the rolling dissections.
    I got that. But you decide that your brother should be whipped by your life holocaust and it hurt motherfucker.
    i still love you.

  39. tips of my arms scratch lessons for my newnightmares
    if you eyes read this road lover please don’t be that mean to me
    ever
    never
    I love you
    i respect you
    but you fell too far and your brother kneeled on the edge while he himself fought the dark angels
    i tried to maintain peace brother
    you were so fucking hateful and my loft swirls did not deserve this and you know this
    please release the dusty man
    please understand I fell behind the trip because I knew your keel would twist, sivad. Under the rolling dissections.
    I got that. But you decide that your brother should be whipped by your life holocaust and it hurt motherfucker.
    i still love you.

  40. i hate the angry rainbows of sad dreams
    they lock the fantasies of my dragons

  41. my knuckles dribble tears of gloom
    my elbows are weary with gesture
    i look into the white spaces and cough
    i am sad
    i type these letters for what fucking reason
    none exist
    other than strange shapes seem to placate and enumerate
    the galaxies of my basements

    1. See any snakes down there?

      1. I saw neon, love.

        1. nice:) keep on keepin’ on:)

  42. light pervades the fields of my numbers
    counting down the fields of my wonders
    when the orange edges on the photos of
    old albums stands upright as it turns demanding
    a last glance maybe forever lost in that party
    in 1967 where a once young lover with smashing
    dreams fucked a young stud who died by lightning
    but she is now an executive at some media group
    and I wish she’d call me because I was young behind
    the Japanese Maple tree and I watched
    her fuck that dude and she killed him with her fucking pussy
    and her ass sparkled like the majestic spinning planets.

  43. under the predecessors of my mind
    the yonders elicit the wonders and
    the shake lakes the ponds and i want to melt into the earth like
    an old piano
    knowing isn’t reflections
    understanding is the furrowed eye
    magic drips from experience
    the young are baby blizzards

    angry at the block
    while the wise mountain jade
    glitters pretty much nothing
    of interest
    but this is because existence
    is more about nothing than everything
    and glitter is pretty and life is
    normally about as interesting as a human heel
    sex is the booze of romance
    life is short but so are alleys in Toledo.
    gravel is complex but not drinks at the bar
    clouds pretend to be angry or light and rarely achieve in between

  44. dark leviathans sweep beneath the curves
    if you are swept under the tall dark castles
    and the boulders of the old now dreams where
    existences crackle like tipples and odd shots
    tipped back between imaginations

  45. my taxi wears long wings and fire

    1. Sorry my friend. My dragons are loose.
      My dragons are vengeful.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU

  46. So my girlfriend thinks I am not attracted to her because she’s fat. I never called her fat. She also thinks I’m comparing her to my dead wife. Maybe. She also says I drink too much. Well of course I do; my wife’s dead and my girlfriend is fat!

    1. I laughed.

    2. So what you’re saying here, is that she’s a normal woman?

      3 facts about women:

      1. All women believe that they are fat no matter how skinnny they are.

      2. All women believe you are comparing them with someone else from the past, especially is that person is deceased.

      3. all women believe you drink too much no matter if it’s one beer a week or 5 cases.

      These 3 rules are as unbendable and inescapable as any basic law of physics.

      1. New Iron Law?

        Chicks be cray-cray, yo.

  47. I heartily agree with Dowd that the Democratic and Republican Parties, in their current configurations, are salvageable.

    Really?

    1. The Democrats are just going to become the socialist party, the takeover is pretty much complete already. Not sure if the GOP survives at all. They could have become the libertarian party, but I think they’ve pretty much held that movement off and now they’re just going to become the ‘we’ll just lie to get elected and then go along with whatever the other party wants’ party.

      1. The Rs were always, “we are a little less socialist” party.

  48. Hillary’s going to lose to Bernie anyway, she’s falling apart at an accelerating pace. She was up by 50 points nationally on Bernie just a few months ago, about 30 points just a month ago, and now it’s 2-4 points. No way she doesn’t lose, she’s toast.

    1. Her health problems have re-surfaced.

      She’s done. Its when, not whether.

      1. If she would take lighter hits on the bong she wouldn’t cough so much.

  49. A?f?ter be????in??g fir??ed from my old job 5 months ago, i’ve had luck to learn about this great company online that was a lifesaver for me… They offer online home-based w0rk. My last month payment after working with them for 5 months was 12000 bucks… Great thi?ng ab?out it wa?s th?at only requirement for the job is basic typing and reliable int?ernet…If you th?ink this co?uld b?e for you th?en find o?ut more he?re?….awl…………

    —– http://www.workprospects.com

  50. Gillespie, pay careful attention: THERE ARE NO FUCKING INDEPENDENTS!!!

    They are completely passive, unthinking, mentally subservient morons exactly the same as those who identify with parties. There is no difference and most importantly THEY AREN’T LIBERTARIANS!

    Two thirds of Ron Paul’s supporters jumped to Trump over Rand. How much more proof do you need? Even the libertarians weren’t libertarian.

    People who say “Hey man, why shouldn’t I be able to get blitzed on weed and marry my sister? Huh? Why not?” probably aren’t on the cutting edge of the cultural revolution.

  51. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.