Election 2016

Weirdest Republican Debate Yet, Military Recruiting Women for Combat, Scenes from CPAC: A.M. Links

|

NEXT: No, DARE Has Not Gone Soft on Pot

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. Took a while to gather up enough Trump links.

    1. Unfortunately they managed to find some.

      1. Heh. Right before the cut-away you can see this “oh hell” look on his face.

      2. If eating boogers is wrong I don’t want to be right. VOTE CRUZ.

    2. Hello.

  2. The remaining Republican presidential nominees discussed dick size…

    Good thing the black guy dropped out.

    1. “S’cuse me while I whip this out…”

      1. “We thought you was hung”

        and they was right

    2. Next time I hope they actually measure.

      1. Hillary probably has them all beat.

    3. You didn’t think Trump had been waiting all this time for Carson to leave so he could feel safe to bring this up?

  3. The mood at the 2016 Conservative Political Action Conference is glum.

    At least it’s not Frum, right?

      1. Anybody want a peanut?

    1. Did CPAC allow any of those nefarious gay groups in this year?

      1. After years of being turned away, the national LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans received notice on Wednesday that its application to become a sponsor of the 2016 Conservative Political Action Conference, known as CPAC, has been approved, according to Log Cabin President Gregory Angelo.

        1. That tent is getting bigger every year. Thanks.

          1. Enough dick size jokes.

            1. I believe that is technically an erection joke.

  4. Caitlyn Jenner is cheering for Ted Cruz even though she thinks he’s “probably one of the worst ones when it comes to trans issues.”

    Traitor.

    1. You want to get backed by Caitlyn’s super pack?

      1. [squints quizzically]

        1. [squints quizzically]
          [eyes open wide]

      1. Buckle up, buckaroo!

    2. I don’t really have any interest in what Jenner thinks or has to say. But it is kind of nice to see someone not being a single issue, identity politics moron (but a different kind of moron).

      1. This. She’s a vapid, shallow opportunist.. but at least she’s a complex vapid, shallow opportunist?

  5. A new super-PAC has formed to pressure Republican Speaker Paul Ryan into running for president.

    I’ll admit that if I think about these things too long it starts to depress me the way people spend their money.

    1. I know. What ever happened to a simple potlach?

      1. Potlach or Potluck?

        Reason commenters decide!

          1. + 50 dried salmon, 23 spears, two sides of caribou, and a shit ton of beads

        1. Potluck is what we have Wednesday nights at church.

          1. +1 hotdish

          2. + 10 potato salads

    2. A new super-PAC has formed to pressure Republican Speaker Paul Ryan into running for president.

      OH HELL YES!!! Where do I send my check? I will sell everything I’ve got and give it to this man if he’ll run for president!!!

      I don’t even give a shit which country he’s running for president of, as long he gets the fuck out of this one.

      GO, PAUL, GO!!! (And take the rest of the worthless bastards with you.)

    3. Paul “I’ll cave on the budget” Ryan

    4. Whenever I feel like it would be irresponsible to get that $7 burrito on the way home from work instead of making a sandwich, I just remember that there is a human being who spent a million dollars trying to make Bobby Jindal president.

  6. I’m away from the AM Links for one day – one day – and I get in my first car accident in 15 years. The car I bought just a few weeks ago gets totaled too. That’s what I get for breaking tradition.

    1. That *is* a bummer! You missed some damn fine threads!

    2. That’s not good. No injuries?

      1. Mostly my ribs are hurting where the seatbelt cinched up against my chest.

        Thanks to my weightlifting routine – Emergency response guy measured by blood pressure and was amazed it was only 132/?? after the impact with a “good, strong beat”

          1. Good that your weightlifting routine helped.

        1. “good, strong beat”

          Could you dance to it?

          1. Boom-cha-boom, baby!

        2. Well, you are Lord Humungus. He’s used to car accidents.

          1. You’re, not He’s.

            My apologies.

        3. That’s Hannibal Lecter-esque.

    3. Ouch, that driven off the lot depreciation is going to hurt.

      Hope you’re ok

      1. Luckily it was a used car and I got gap insurance. We’ll see how _that_ works out.

        1. You got gap insurance on a used car? I usually just make a single payment in gold doubloons.

          1. Not all of us have access to wrecked Spanish galleons, FM!

          2. I normally buy cars with cash but my reserves have been new house depleted. Now I’m living on guzzoline and smeg-heads.

            1. Smegma?

              1. My mistake –

                There’s a definite homo-erotic allure going on within Humungus’ gang. He notably has two castes of warrior which he calls out in the film: “gayboy-berserkers” and “smegma-crazies”.
                http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Lord_Humungus

    4. Seriously, condolences.

    5. FY. Give me a Brexit link.

    6. Sorry, LH.

    7. That sinks – but thanks for stimulating the economy by breaking stuff.

      1. x1

      2. x1

    8. Do you need an attorney?

      1. Got one in-house 😉

      2. Stop ambulance chasing.

        /sarc

    9. Damn.

    10. I hope you’re okay. But what about the guys you had strapped onto the front of your buggy?

      1. +1 Exploding Fragments

  7. “I want every trans person to have a job.”

    As yet another spokesperson for trans persons?

    1. They better not be chubby. I’ve heard a lot of place banned trans fats.

      1. Nice!

        It’d also be hard difficult for them to say “I’m comfortable in my own skin”.

      2. OK, I larfed at that.

        1. After your irony pun?!? I don’t think so friendo! I’m taking over the gays…I mean gaze.

          1. If I didn’t have double standards, I’d have no standards at all.

            1. At least you’re man enough to admit it.

            2. That’s twice as many as a single standard, so it’s better.

    2. At least she has the balls not to be a single-issue voter.

      1. Et tu, Fisty?

        *continues narrowed gaze*

      2. No flip-flopping here.

          1. I’ll leave the jokes to fist.

    3. Trans Am have a job. Go fast.

      1. Yeah, I’m somewhat surprised they haven’t changed their name yet.

        1. Because they don’t exist anymore?

  8. Salon‘s case for Trump’s two sons being the “epitome of ’80s style yuppie villainry” comes down to them defending their dad and one maybe accidently giving an interview to a white supremicist.

    Good enough for Salon work. (And I’ll assume the typo was in their piece.)

  9. “I want every trans person to have a job” — whether they want one or not. Jobs are costs. Nobody *wants* to work, otherwise they’d do it for free.
    But it’s hardly news that Caitlyn is a moron.

    1. That’s pretty much the least charitable interpretation of her remarks possible…

      1. Why thank you. I do try.

    2. Gotta pay the bills

    3. I think you might be taking the words a bit too literally.

    4. Most people want a job because they want an income, and some with masochistic streaks want an income from doing something productive.

    5. Damn, I thought Caitlyn said “I want every tan person to have a job” and I figured s/he was just speaking up on behalf of her lawn guys.

  10. “Peacekeeping sexual abuse and exploitation has been one of the most persistent and embarrassing problems for the U.N.”

    More so than those robin egg blue helmets?

    1. See, it’s a framing issue. They need to start advertising how those peacekeeping and humanitarian missions come with free sex ed, job training and employment opportunities for the locals.

      1. Exotic new outbreaks of disease, too!

  11. The remaining Republican presidential nominees discussed dick size, hand size, the KKK, Trump University, worker visas, and how Trump would force the U.S. military to carry out war crimes if elected president during last night’s Fox news debate. (Highlight reel below.)

    There is a strange sort of zen in the knowledge that things will continue to get worse.

  12. Youth continues to be wasted on the young.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..video.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..shoot.html

    1. “High rollers”, indeed.

      1. I prefer Ds and DDs.

  13. and one maybe accidently giving an interview to a white supremicist.

    Unrelated, but “giving an interview” is an interesting phrase in that it does nothing to narrow down who was asking questions and who was answering them.

    1. The interviewee gives (or grants) an interview to the interviewer. That’s the only way the construction can be used.

      1. i’m thinking of an employer giving an interview to a job candidate, or is that too colloquial since it’s leaving out a word like “interview opportunity?

        1. Ah, I see. Something does sound weird to me about that, but I can’t place what.

  14. The people on this board more than any other short of the real conspiracy theory swamps understand that we currently have a tyrannical federal government and the politicians on both sides seem to like it that way. Given this fact, if it were to turn out that Trump was the new Mussolini, how exactly would the lives of the average American not involved in government change? I would submit to you not much. In fact, for some of them life might get better as the Trump tyranny changed its focus to new targets and left a few of the targets of the current tyranny alone.

    Doesn’t the fact that our current political and media class don’t seem to have a problem with our current tyrannical government make their screams about the possibility of a Trump lead tyranny just an expression of their horror at the thought of no longer running the tyranny rather than any real objection to tyranny in general?

    1. He’s more bluster than anything. I still don’t want him as President.

      A Trump presidency with a Democrat Congress would be great for gridlock, but in the unlikely event Trump wins they wouldn’t be losing Congress.

      1. I thought you were pro-bluster.

    2. how exactly would the lives of the average American not involved in government change?

      One thing is for sure, the average American won’t see the economy improve if Trump is able to implement the protectionist policies he is touting.

      1. If he actually believes the shit he says, he’d try to do further damage to the economy, ignite a trade war, trample over the 1A, pile on more debt, get us more deeply entangled in foreign wars, stoke racism and xenophobia, and try to corrupt one of the last remaining government institutions I have any respect for.

        But it will piss of progressives so I guess it’s all OK.

        1. You know who put a ton of tariffs on foreign goods? Ronald Reagan.

          Look it up if you don’t believe me. I would give you a link but the reason server won’t take it. (and it is from the Misses Institute, oh the irony).

          Did we have a trade war and second great depression in the 1980s and I just missed it?

          It is perfectly reasonable to object to tariffs of any kind. But we need to stop pretending that every tariff is Smote Hawley. It is no different than the Internationalists who assume every international crisis is Munich.

          1. And that same Mises article quotes the World Bank as estimating that Reagan’s trade policies were the equivalent of a 66% tax on lower class Americans. Even if you disagree with the numbers, trade restriction hurts America. Combined with Trump’s other ideas, that harm would be severe.

            1. But, but, but tariffs punish foreigners, not Americans! So what if Americans have less money in their pocket as a result of paying these taxes? The ones who are really hurt are the foreigners who don’t sell as much stuff as they would without the artificially high prices! Stick it to the foreigners! Fuck yeah!

              /Johnderp

            2. My point is not to get into the details of the debate of whether tariffs are good or bad. My point is that we need to stop pretending that they are automatically catastrophic.

              1. OK, I’ll amend my earlier statement:

                If he actually believes the shit he says, he’d try to do further damage to the economy, ignite a trade war engage in damaging trade policies that will hurt poor Americans, trample over the 1A, pile on more debt, get us more deeply entangled in foreign wars, stoke racism and xenophobia, and try to corrupt one of the last remaining government institutions I have any respect for.

                When put like that, I’d be a fool not to vote for Trump.

              2. Small changes are long term catastrophic.

                Reduce growth rate by 1% and over a generation you have destroyed untold wealth.

                Example: $50k household income ( close enough to average). At 2% growth above inflation ( to stay in constant dollars) thst becomes 82k in 25 years. At 3%, it is 105k.

                That is a huge difference in a generation. This is what small, bad policies does to us.

          2. So fucking what? Reagan was a terrible president. His escalation of the war on drug users started the militarization of the police that we see today, he ran up the deficit like a new wife with a credit card, all the while preaching small government and liberty. In short he was a hypocrite. Oh yeah, he lowered taxes, which makes him the patron saint of conservatism, but the corresponding deficit spending makes him the patron saint of economic ignoramuses. But I repeat myself.

            1. This.

            2. The canonization of St Reagan is exactly what is wrong with the modern GOP. The elevation of rhetoric over action and commitment to wedge issues plagues the party and is its current undoing.

            3. The so fucking what is stop pretending all tariffs are catastrophic. They are not and the Reagan example proves that. As for the rest, so fucking what? It has nothing to do with the point I was making.

              1. You’re the one using the word “catastrophic,” oh slayer of straw men.

                Making stuff that people buy more expensive does not help the economy, and it is the poorest who are hurt the most. But I suppose you don’t give a shit if poor people have less money to spend because the cheap foreign products that they buy are more expensive as a result of tariffs. Fuck the poor, right? I mean, they’re poor. Who the fuck cares?

                1. You’re the one using the word “catastrophic,” oh slayer of straw men.

                  How many times do people say “trade war” on here? A trade war would be catastrophic. So stop accusing me of using a straw man when that is clearly the claim.

                  1. How many times do people say “trade war” on here?

                    One person said it once, then redacted it.

                    Then you jumped on it, claiming that every single person here believes that Trump will cause a catastrophic trade war of epic proportions that will lead to the end of the world as we know it.

                    Clearly a straw man, but then you wouldn’t be John if you didn’t make fallacious arguments.

                    1. Well, to be fair, if you take Trump at his word and you actually believe that if he were to somehow get elected he would actually do the things he claims he will…

                      Then, yeah, multiple trade wars are in the mix.

                      But I don’t, he won’t and he wouldn’t…

    3. Trump 2016: The Different of Two Evils!

      1. Trump; he may be the same as the old boss but at least his is the new boss and not the old.

        1. He should hire you this instant for his campaign. You’re really selling it to me.

          1. And Won’t Get Fooled Again would be a great song to play at campaign rallies.

        2. Ever heard the phrase, “the devil you know”?

          1. I hate that phrase. “Things suck but why try anything different?”

            1. That’s why I’ll be voting for a third party.

              1. I’m seriously considering becoming ignorant of all news and politics if it is Trump vs Clinton.

                HEAD IN THE SAND 2016!

                1. Oh come on the debates will be epic. Might as well get some enjoyment out of this before the ship goes down.

                  1. My enjoyment comes from my wife, alcohol, movies, firearms, fishing, coffee and food. I don’t particularly care to watch two geriatrics lie to Americans.

                    1. My enjoyment comes from my wife, alcohol, movies, firearms, fishing, coffee and food. I don’t particularly care to watch two geriatrics lie to Americans.

                      Yeah, I agree. There are just better things to do with my time. I’ve already accepted the likely possibility that things are gonna get shittier for the country as a whole, no matter who wins. I’d rather spend the time taking care of my family or enjoying pleasant company or just doing fun or rewarding stuff. Fuck the rest of it.

          2. I think it’s just as ludicrous to believe Trump will be a different devil. I worry about Trump’s impetuousness, but on broad policy, I expect largely the same shit.

      2. CTHULHU 2016!!
        “Why vote for the lesser evil?”

        My favorite T shirt……

    4. I think you are mostly right. If he’s serious about restricting trade, though, he could do a lot of damage to the economy.
      I think you are probably right about the media too. They are quite happy with what anyone here would call tyranny. I think most of us here have quite different objections to Trump. I don’t care if he’s a crass asshole ruining the tone of politics.

      1. This is from the Misses Institute link I reference above but the reason server won’t take.

        ut he advocated protectionism early in his 1980 campaign, saying to the U.S. auto industry: “Japan is part of the problem. This is where government can be legitimately involved. That is, to convince the Japanese in one way or another that, in their own interests, that deluge of cars must be slowed while our industry gets back on its feet…”

        When he imposed a 100% tariff on selected Japanese electronic products for allegedly “dumping” computer memory chips, he said he did it “to enforce the principles of free and fair trade.” And Treasury Secretary James A. Baker has boasted about the protectionist record: Reagan “has granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century.”

        Reagan’s economic record was pretty damned good. I don’t expect that to convert you to the cause of protectionism, but it should put the issue in perspective. The claims that Trump would cause some massive trade war and a new depression are just absurd.

        1. Maybe it would have been even better without the protectionism. Of course one can only speculate. It may have helped keep the US car companies alive. But it didn’t keep them in a very good state if the cars they were producing was any indication. Maybe if GM or Chrysler had gone under a new company could have come about without all the baggage that has continued to trouble us carmakers.

          1. Again Zeb, even if it would have been, it was still good. So the claim that Trump wanting to enact tariffs is going to be catastrophic is still not true. I am not saying you should support tariffs. That is a different debate. I am just saying that you and others should stop assuming they are automatically going to be catastrophic and trigger the Depression.

            1. I’m not saying it will definitely be disastrous compared to what we have now. Just that I think it would be much better to move in the opposite direction toward even freer trade. It probably wouldn’t cause a great depression. I’m more concerned about the lost opportunity and continued economic stagnation.

            2. I am just saying that you and others should stop assuming they are automatically going to be catastrophic and trigger the Depression.

              Oh, look! A straw man! Let’s kick its ass!

        2. Funny how conservatards understand that taxes on income are a drag on the economy because they leave people with less money in their pocket, but they somehow think taxing the purchase of foreign goods helps the economy. Even though those tariffs leave people with less money in their pocket.

          Must be the magical power of intentions or something.

          1. Funny how you can’t seem to understand the difference between “not good” and “catastrophic”.

            And stop calling me a conservative. I am most certainly not one of those, or not one as it has come to mean today.

            1. Funny how you can’t seem to understand the difference between “not good” and “catastrophic”.

              Funny how you can’t have a debate on the subject of tariffs without flailing at straw men.

              And stop calling me a conservative.

              If it walks like a duck…

    5. Doesn’t the fact that our current political and media class don’t seem to have a problem with our current tyrannical government make their screams about the possibility of a Trump lead tyranny just an expression of their horror at the thought of no longer running the tyranny rather than any real objection to tyranny in general?

      Because only the political and media class think Trump is an odious, toxic bully.

      1. Yeah because none of the political class are odious and toxic bullies. Seriously Nikki, if your position requires you to affirm the virtues of the current political class, you need to rethink your position.

        1. It doesn’t require that at all! This has nothing to do with them. Trump is disgusting. His rallies are disgusting. The things he says are disgusting. And people cheer for it.

          That’s between nobody but me, Trump, and his supporters.

          1. Do you just not know what the term “hypocrisy” means? Or has your intense desire to virtue signal on this issue caused you to forget it. Regardless, I don’t know how many more times or different ways I can tell you that saying the current political class is as bad or worse than Trump says nothing about how good or bad Trump is. Despite my best efforts, you seem to think my pointing this fact out is meant to mean Trump is good or say anything about Trump.

            I don’t know how else to explain it to you Nikki. I just wish you would stop making the same irrelevant and tiresome point about how bad you think Trump is. I get it that you think that. I wish you would get it that I am not talking about Trump. I am talking about our crrent political class in relation to him. There is a difference.

            1. Regardless, I don’t know how many more times or different ways I can tell you that saying the current political class is as bad or worse than Trump says nothing about how good or bad Trump is.

              No, but being gleeful about how he makes all the right people angry says something about how you feel about a completely odious, nasty bully.

              I always love it when people accuse me of virtue signalling. Because you can’t imagine some people actually think this shit is wrong.

              1. No, but being gleeful about how he makes all the right people angry says something about how you feel about a completely odious, nasty bully.

                Yes. It says that I am enjoying watching the political class have done to them what they have been doing to the rest of the country. And if you can’t enjoy that, says that perhaps you don’t really dislike the political class nearly as much as you dislike everyone else.

                Trump is no worse than they are but you still take their side. Why? Because you hate his supporters more than you hate even your own oppressors.

                1. It says that I am enjoying watching the political class have done to them what they have been doing to the rest of the country. And if you can’t enjoy that, says that perhaps you don’t really dislike the political class nearly as much as you dislike everyone else.

                  Except that what’s being done to the political class is also being done to me, because I have to live in a country where people eat this shit up. Where people think this is funny, or cute, instead of sick. Why would I enjoy knowing that my neighbors are cruel, vindictive, collectivist bullies?

                  What kind of person would enjoy knowing that?

                  Trump is no worse than they are but you still take their side. Why? Because you hate his supporters more than you hate even your own oppressors.

                  I’m taking my own side, and Trump is not on it. His supporters are my oppressors. Why the fuck is that so hard for you to understand? They want to steal from me, they want welfare at my expense, and they’re nasty, cruel, vindictive, collectivist bullies.

                  But I should be on their side because they haven’t already taken over the state. Great plan.

                  1. Why would I enjoy knowing that my neighbors are cruel, vindictive, collectivist bullies?

                    You’ve got me. You’re the one who lives in Chicago.

                    Where, last I checked Rahm Emanuel is still the Mayor, won his first election with 55% of the vote out of a five candidate pool, and, on his most cheerful day is a larger asshole and petty tyrant, than Trump was after Jeb! shot down his casino deal.

                    1. My point is, Trump is a vain wannabe Huey Long, with taste that Tony Montana would’ve found garish, but he’s hardly unique in the sewer that is American politics.

                      So perhaps John has a point that the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and hysterical overexposure of Trumplemania by our media betters (and Reason), is because Trump isn’t their asshole.

          2. Trump is disgusting

            I gotta admit I found his schtick amusing – until last night. Rubio and Cruz are finally getting under his skin and it ain’t pretty for Trump.

            1. Politics aside, to most of America neither Cruz nor Rubio have ever held an honest job in their lives. Cruz was a political hack who came out of Harvard Law and made his bones in the Bush administration and then went straight into politics. Rubio didn’t even work as a government attorney. He has always done nothing but politics.

              So even if their attacks are true, they will likely have no effect because in the country’s eyes neither Cruz nor Rubio have any moral standing to make them. People look around and see that Trump has at least had a successful TV show and there are at least all of these big buildings and resorts that have Trump’s name on them. What have Cruz and Rubio ever done? Nothing. So even if they can show Trump is a crook, that will not cause people to think they are any better than Trump.

              The one person who could have stopped Trump was probably Fiorina, because she unlike the rest of them has held and honest job and is something besides a politician.

              1. I get the name-recognition with Trump but I’m not seeing that people give a shit whether they’re voting for a life-long politician. If that were the case there would less than 99% of every city, state, and town being run by life-long politicians.

                1. Rhywun,

                  I think the people who are voting for Trump love the idea of not voting for a career politician and rightfully see all those who are career politicians as con men and crooks. So when career politicians call him a crook, it has no effect. You have to have at least a little moral standing to make a charge stick with the public. And career politicians have none.

                  Think about the Romney speech yesterday. The problem wasn’t so much that he lost in 2012. The problem is that the Republicans trotted out a guy whose dad was a CEO of a big corporation and governor of Michigan and who has spent his entire life in politics or trading on his father’s name and connections to make a fortune on Wall Street to call Donald Trump a phony and a crook. Think about that for a minute. Why would anyone living a normal life in America find that convincing?

                  1. Why would anyone living a normal life in America find that convincing?

                    Because “normal” people are swayed by authority. You might as well ask how any normal person could support Hillary or Bern instead of asking themselves why she isn’t in prison and he isn’t a laughingstock.

                    1. Because “normal” people are swayed by authority.

                      Sure they are. But people like Romney or even Cruz or Rubio don’t have that authority anymore. Trump has more authority than those guys. That is my entire point.

                  2. Explain Carson’s utter cratering then. Hard to find a profession that provides more altruistic “value” than that of a pediatric neurosurgeon, and people didn’t seem to care.

                    This was though probably because he could put a room full of tweakers to sleep, and had some absolutely batshit, “No, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?” views.

                    1. Explain Carson’s utter cratering then. Hard to find a profession that provides more altruistic “value” than that of a pediatric neurosurgeon, and people didn’t seem to care.

                      He was too quiet and nice and never really gave people a reason to back him. The most common thing among Trump supporters is the feeling that they don’t have a voice in the current political system. Carson, despite being an outsider and being an all around great person, never spoke loudly enough or brazenly enough to connect with those people.

                      I do think that Carson would be another person who could have taken Trump down. But he never got any of the establishment support to give him that platform and he never chose to go after Trump for whatever reason.

                      That said, rumor is Carson is going to endorse Trump. If he does, it will be a big boost to Trump I think because he does have moral authority even though he didn’t use it in his campaign.

                    2. That said, rumor is Carson is going to endorse Trump.

                      Hilarious, for a guy who had pro-life issues as a cornerstone of his campaign, endorsing one of the candidates who I gather could give two shits about the abortion issue. And not endorsing Cruz, who’s made his pro-life stance rather clear.

                      Gee, I guess Cruz really can’t work with anybody in Washington or outside of it.

                    3. Ghost,

                      I was thinking about Cruz this morning. Everyone in the Senate really does seem to hate his guts. I really wonder why that is. It is not because he is a trouble maker. Rand Paul and Wyden and Amish are all in Congress and just as big of trouble makers. They are not liked but not hated like Cruz.

                      I wonder if maybe the people in the Senate don’t think Cruz is a phony and that is why they hate him so much but don’t hate people like Paul or Amish with anything like the same intensity.

                    4. FWIW, I don’t get the “phony” vibe from either Paul or Amash. But it’s not like I’ve ever met either of them. I think that Paul, especially, has an idea of “things you just have to do” in order to make it in politics. Getting on McConnell’s good side, for one. Consequently, I think Paul will have the KY Senate seat as long as he wants it. That’s good for Libertarians.

                      Cruz, OTOH, I easily see him being one and done. Trump had a good point: Cruz fought a good fight for a day or two, but what did it eventually gain him or his cause? Not much. People want their representative to bring home the goodies. Not tilt at windmills, noble though it may be.

                      I just think it’s funny that the most pro-life guy in the race, even counting Huck and Creepy Ham Tears, has no problem endorsing a guy who doesn’t care about abortion, all the while another evangelical-minded candidate is still in the race. And could use the help.

                    5. Ghost,

                      I wasn’t clear. I am saying Cruz is a phony and Widen and Amish are not and that is why people in the Senate hate Cruz and at least respect Paul and Wyden and company even if they don’t like them but loath Cruz.

                      Sorry about not making that clear.

                    6. I don’t get “phony” from Cruz at all. He ain’t slick, he’s kinda creepy. That’s his big holdup. He doesn’t look the part. He’s kinda the anti-Rubio. Rubio is slick and looks the part. Cruz is smart and maybe somewhere on the autism spectrum and gives a lot of people the creeps. I don’t personally get it, because I’m a weirdo libertarian type who listens to ideas and not facial expressions, but I know what people around me say.

                      My wife took one look at Cruz and said “that guy is creepy, I hate that guy”. It had nothing to do with his positions, because she had no idea what the guy stood for. And she’s a good representative of the average voter. If I wasn’t in in the house with her, she might be liking Trump’s shtick. But since I’ve been on the “Trump is an idiot” bandwagon for at least a decade, she was immunized against the buffoonery.

        2. Happening to agree with some views or judgements of the political class is not affirming their virtues.

          It’s kind of fun to watch Trump drive people nuts. But he’s still an unpleasant person with bad ideas.

          1. See my post above Zeb. My post has nothing to do with Trump. It is about the current political class’ hypocrisy. I don’t understand why no one, Nikki in particular, seems to be able to understand that.

            1. I see what you are saying. And the current political class most certainly is a bunch of hypocrites. I’m not sure what you are getting at by suggesting that nicole is just signalling or affirming the virtues of the political class, though.

              1. You don’t understand, Zeb. You can’t criticize Trump without explicitly criticizing every slimy politician out there. Just like you can’t complain about government and use the roads. That makes you a hypocrite.

                1. Sure, no problem with criticizing candidate X and not criticizing candidates Y and Z even though they share the same traits you are criticizing in candidate X.

                  Up to a point.

                  When you relentlessly focus on candidate X, and rarely do more than a face-saving handwave at candidates Y and Z, though, it opens the question about why you loathe candidate X.

                  It can’t be for the same traits that all the candidates share. So it must be something else. That’s the question. Just why does the apparat loathe Trump so especially?

                  1. Sure, no problem with criticizing candidate X and not criticizing candidates Y and Z even though they share the same traits you are criticizing in candidate X.

                    How many candidates have glowingly spoken about murdering Muslim prisoners of war with bullets dipped in pig’s blood?

                    1. How many candidates have glowingly spoken about murdering Muslim prisoners of war with bullets dipped in pig’s blood?

                      Webb might’ve, if you’d have phrased the question that way.

                      Cynically, a lot of our problems with ISIS might’ve never arose if more of those detainees at Camp Bucca, those guys that ended up being the nucleus of the nascent ISIS, had been murdered instead of being released. Guerrilla wars and occupations are messy.

                2. This isn’t exactly the situation though.

                  I’m all for criticizing Trump and criticizing the government, but Trump isn’t currently a statist. He’s the presumptive nominee of the underdog party.

                  If it were even close to 1:1:1:1 Sanders:Clinton:Trump:Cruz (or whomever) critique-wise I think Nikki would have a point. As it is, this is like the third or fourth round of being tired of hearing about Trump and the only slightly less played out story Reason could publish is that if you right libertarian on a picture of Barry Sanders, he looks like a libertarian.

                  I heard, elsewhere, that there’s been some ground gained by Apple against the FBI. I’ve also heard that Clinton’s IT guy is cooperating with the DOJ. Guess these sorts of stories aren’t libertarian enough or just aren’t the existential threat that a loudmouthed blowhard politician is. The only logical thing to do is for Reason to give him more coverage.

                  It’s more like complaining about big asphalt and crony public works contracts and then using the roads, Blues-Brothers-style, to show everyone how bad it really is.

                  1. Re: Just like you can’t complain about government and use the roads. That makes you a hypocrite.

                    and ‘write’.

                    !@#$!@#! Edit button.

                  2. Trump isn’t currently a statist.

                    What on earth does “statist” mean to you? He’s running to be the fucking head of state.

                    1. What on earth does “statist” mean to you?

                      My mistake, I thought this was just about your pet issue. Your issue isn’t about the fact that he wants to kill Muslims or ship Mexicans back to Mexico en masse, it’s that he’s running for President. I was under the impression that you, and/or Reason didn’t opposed all statists equally.

        3. Yeah because none of the political class are odious and toxic bullies. Seriously Nikki, if your position requires you to affirm the virtues of the current political class, you need to rethink your position.

          ^ This is the guy begging for nuance regarding tariffs.

          This is a great AM Links thread.

          1. ^ This is the guy begging for nuance regarding tariffs.

            What does one have to do with the other? The debate on tariffs is an economic one. It has nothing to do with the quality of our political class. The fact that reality is not as simple as “tariffs cause trade wars” says nothing about our political class or system one way or another. It is just a fact of economics.

            So, I don’t see how you can possibly say that the statements “tariffs do not and have not always had serious adverse consequences to the economy” is in any way contradictory to the statement “our current political class are craven tyrannical assholes who are only angry about Trump not being one of them”. I really don’t.

            Now, I fully expect you to write some pithy piece of snark like “woosh” in response to this. And to that say, well yes. I have no clue what your point is here or how you could rationally see my two positions as being in any way contradictory or really having anything to do with one another.

            Maybe you see something I don’t. But if you do, explain it because it is not self evident to me at least.

    6. I think he would probably get impeached. I’m not sure which is worse a populist moron for president or an establishment of politicians who intend to replace him with someone just as bad that they weren’t able to get popular support for.

      1. At least removing him for office would set the precedent for removing presidents from office. What? Stop laughing.

    7. Given this fact, if it were to turn out that Trump was the new Mussolini, how exactly would the lives of the average American not involved in government change? I would submit to you not much. In fact, for some of them life might get better as the Trump tyranny changed its focus to new targets and left a few of the targets of the current tyranny alone.

      Trump says it’s perfectly okay to be a blustering bully going around attacking anybody who disagrees with you as a weak, effeminate loser. That’s fine for Trump – he doesn’t live where I live where the bully boys are exclusively white male trailer-park trash and the targets of their bullying are anybody that ain’t white male trailer-park trash. For too long the white males in this country have been kicked around by the niggers and the faggots and the Jews and the spics and the chinks and the goddam uppity bitches who don’t know their place is on their knees and all the weak girly men who support them – time for Trumpenator to take back the streets.

      That may not be a change for you, John, or that may be a change that excites and arouses you – but I’m old and tired and I really don’t want to have to go out there and start killing a bunch of fucking Hitler Youth rioting in the streets when Congress won’t bend over for whatever Nazi bullshit their fuehrer comes up with as a way to show everybody how big his dick is.

      1. This.

      2. Jerry,

        I would submit that is only a change for you because you for whatever reason don’t see the abuse the middle and lower middle class take from the elites in this country. It is perfectly acceptable to call the white middle class, racist, sexist, uneducated, stupid, and any other number of other insults in this society. And blacks in this class don’t have it much better. They are not the target of outright abuse but instead the target of horrid condescension.

        This is why it is so laughable when people like you and Nikki cry about how uncivil Trump is. The rest of America has been on the receiving end of a constant stream of abuse and condescension by the political and media class for going on 50 years now. And now that same class is claiming to be shocked by incivility?

        No, they are shocked by someone subjecting them to the same invicility they have been subjecting everyone else in the country. That is all that is going on here. You can’t tell me a political and media class as nasty as the one we have has a problem with bullies and incivility. They don’t because they engage in it every day.

        1. I would submit that is only a change for you because you for whatever reason don’t see the abuse the middle and lower middle class take from the elites in this country.

          I don’t want to speak for Jerryskids, but do you think I am in the middle class, or the elite? Seriously, this is fucking retarded.

          It also has nothing to do with people who cheer for a candidate who says he will force the military to carry out orders to murder children.

          1. I am in the middle class, or the elite? Seriously, this is fucking retarded.

            You may not have money, but you absolutely consider yourself as part of the virtuous elite. You are an atheist, you have a college degree, and you consider yourself tolerant and beyond the racism and prejudices that characterize this country as you see it.

            Meanwhile, you happily assume everyone who doesn’t fit that description is a ignorant, racist bigot. Sorry Niiki, you can’t square your consistent disdain and assertions of moral superiority of and over pretty much the entire country with you being a part of anything but the elite class. You may not have the cash but you are certainly a junior member and fellow traveler.

            And so am I for that matter. I am just honest enough to admit it.

            1. If you have to define people well within the middle class as “elite” to defend an alleged underdog “middle class” from them, maybe you need to wake up and realize you’re actually defending the lumpenproletariat from the middle class.

              1. If you have to define people well within the middle class as “elite” to defend an alleged underdog “middle class” from them, maybe you need to wake up and realize you’re actually defending the lumpenproletariat from the middle class.

                Okay. Now square your assertion that you are protecting the poor from the “middle class” with you being anything but part of our self described “virtuous elite”. Yes Nikki, you love the poor and consider yourself a protector of them from the evil racist, greedy middle class and are proud to tell everyone about it.

                But you think incivility and bullies are bad. There is nothing uncivil about considering the entire middle class your moral inferiors. No not at all. And nothing condescending about seeing yourself as having a duty to save the poor from the evil middle class.

                And yet, you can’t understand why the middle class doesn’t listen to your pleas about Trump’s incivility or how you could possibly have no moral standing to make such.

                1. Now square your assertion that you are protecting the poor from the “middle class” with you being anything but part of our self described “virtuous elite”.

                  When have I ever asserted that?

                  Yes Nikki, you love the poor and consider yourself a protector of them from the evil racist, greedy middle class and are proud to tell everyone about it.

                  When? What the fuck are you talking about?

                  1. When? What the fuck are you talking about?

                    that is what you did just now. I need to realize I am defending the “lumenprolitariat” from the middle class. Of course what you call the “middle class” I call the “virtuous elite” and what you call the “lumpenprolitariatt” the middle class.

                    We just use different terms. Regardless of what you call it, you think nothing of degrading, condescending to and insulting an entire class of people and then have the nerve to object to their champion as being uncivil, like you give a shit about civility when it comes to people you don’t like.

                    1. Regardless of what you call it, you think nothing of degrading, condescending to and insulting an entire class of people and then have the nerve to object to their champion as being uncivil, like you give a shit about civility when it comes to people you don’t like.

                      Correct, John, I think nothing of condescending to bullies because they’re bullies. If someone wants to go around being a dick, and then cry when someone else calls him on it, too fucking bad. They’re bad people supporting a bad person.

        2. That’s fine for Trump – he doesn’t live where I live where the bully boys are exclusively white male trailer-park trash and the targets of their bullying are anybody that ain’t white male trailer-park trash.

          Did you grow up in Nazi Germany? The white-trash rednecks I grew up with did a pretty good job of pounding on each other too. Not sure if your upbringing has faded as you aged or if you’re just conveniently stereotyping, but the Nazi Party, wasn’t exactly as monolithic, racially or culturally, as widely believed. R&oouml;hm was openly homosexual and initially staffed the SS, overwhelmingly, with homosexuals. Goering was notorious for being what could be regarded as a drag queen today. Blacks were generally considered inferior but not excluded.

          Also, I know your memory may be fuzzy, but was the Nazi machine really as well-organized and brutally efficient as everyone suggests? Seems like Trump consistently fails to succeed at anything except being a loud-mouthed cult of personality and that if the white male trailer-park trash were some untapped powder-keg of potential some politician would’ve tapped into that for their own purposes well before him.

          Anyway, welcome to the United States and 2016, when rioting occurs in the streets it, predominantly anyway, isn’t white male trailer-park trash.

          1. Anyway, welcome to the United States and 2016, when rioting occurs in the streets it, predominantly anyway, isn’t white male trailer-park trash.

            And if we’re lucky, it never will. White trash generally are armed and often know how to use the sights on their weapons.

      3. Jeezus, that’s a great example of apoplectic BS. Yes if Trump gets elected the streets will run with blood from race wars from trailer trash.

        1. Where’s Trump’s SA or SS? I mean, at least Obama could get the Black Panthers to show up at polls from time to time. And have the DOJ funnel money to Black Lives Matter. And have the IRS sicc’d on any conservative/Tea Party political group that dared apply for nonprofit status.

          But Trump’s the guy that’s going to bring on the dark night of fascism. Sure.

        2. Yes if Trump gets elected the streets will run with blood from race wars from trailer trash.

          Indeed. I only see that happening if Trump doesn’t get elected. They have so much of their self-image invested in him and his success that his failure would be such a shock to them that they would snap.

  15. multiple counts of pandering.

    How any elected official isn’t a convicted criminal is beyond me.

  16. Salon’s case for Trump’s two sons being the “epitome of ’80s style yuppie villainry” comes

    Unless they have a story of them beating up nerds, how can this standard come close to being met?

    1. It’s a Marcotte article, there are no standards other than her own delusions

    2. “villainRy”? WTF?

    3. And don’t forget when computers started to get popular nerds were less reviled.

  17. After a lengthy battle, the high priestess of the Phoenix Goddes Temple was found guilty of 22 criminal charges, including maintainging a house of prostitution and multiple counts of pandering.

    Everyone hates hookers. Whatever happened to them having a heart of gold?

    1. Pawned due to the current economy.

    2. There are long traditions of religious prostitution. But I’m sure that’s excluded from freedom of religion by the FYTW clause.

      1. Social conservatives are rightly alarmed at the divorce rate and the number of kids growing up in broken homes. How many divorces are caused by one party or the other losing interest in sex with the other or one party, usually but not always the man, not being satisfied with sexual monogamy.

        I would suggest that the acceptance of prostitution in society would save a lot of marriages. As it currently stands, there is virtually no stigma to divorcing for utterly selfish reasons and leaving your kids with a broken home. Meanwhile, someone who decides to stick it out but sees a hooker now and then to make up for whatever lack of sexual sanctification in their marriage is considered a criminal and a sex trafficker. I would submit to you that that is not a very rational set of societal mores, at least if you consider the welfare of children to be paramount over that of adults.

        1. While I don’t disagree, that would take a huge cultural shift. Monogamy has been the norm in the West for, what, 1000 years at least?

          1. Well, we have been trying to pretend that it has been, anyway.

            1. Sure, but I think that was John’s point. Trying to pretend monogamy is the only way in defiance of reality is the source of a lot of harm.

              Personally, I’m not sure I’d be down with a non-monogamous marriage, but I think I could be. Heinlein’s line marriages in Mistress intrigue me.

              1. I find pretty much all of Heinlein’s social organizational concepts repugnant.

                1. Well, i was gonna invite you to participate in this line marriage i’m putting together, but never mind.

          2. Monogamy has been the norm in the West for, what, 1000 years at least?

            I am not so sure about that. I would say monogamy has been the norm for woman but it hasn’t been the norm for men until maybe the last hundred years or so. Prostitution was legal in most places until the late 19th Century. In the middle ages the biblical prohibition against adultery was thought to only apply to women.

            What changed is people stopped viewing marriages as social obligations and invented this concept of romantic love and all of that. People didn’t used to get married for love. They got married for practical reasons and divorce was considered unthinkable. It was of course a horribly sexist system because really only men were allowed to have sex outside of marriage. But I really don’t think it was a system based on monogamy. It was one based on moral and societal obligation to have and raise children. Now our obligation seems to be to find our “true love” whatever that is.

        2. “consider the welfare of children”

          Oh, pleeeze.

        3. I agree. Though it would take a significant shift in attitudes. Seeing a prostitute is much less likely to lead to an actual romantic affair than picking up someone in a bar or something.

        4. I think it would save a lot of couples regardless of whether they’re married or have children. Humans simply aren’t wired for lifelong monogamy.

          1. No they are not. But even fewer are cut out to make real polygamy viable either. That is why prostitution is a realistic alternative. It overcomes the problem of some people not being happy with monogamy without creating the emotional and societal problems associated with polygamy.

            Our society is so awash in sex and so obsessed with sex, we have come to assume everyone must have some huge sex drive and varied tastes in such. Some certainly do but a lot of people don’t. If you are a woman (or a man if that makes you feel better), who thinks a nice dinner out some basic sex a couple of times a month is just fine but are married to someone who wants more than that but you are otherwise compatible, it rationally makes sense for your partner to go see a hooker now and then. It makes them happy, there is no danger of emotional attachment, and it eliminates a source of real conflict in the marriage.

            These issues, however, are not as everyone knows decided by reason but instead are decided by emotion.

            1. But even fewer are cut out to make real polygamy viable either.

              Oh, agreed. I near-monogamy with the occasional dalliance is probably the ideal for most people.

        5. The US divorce rate has slowly declined since (I think) around 1990. And the Venn diagram of socons who are concerned about divorce rates and would embrace legal prostitution looks roughly like a bad boob job.

          1. You are right. And that is my point. The SOCONs claim to care about divorce but really they seem to hate sex more than they hate divorce.

            And while the divorce rate has fallen, the number of single parent homes continues to rise. The divorce rate is going down because so many fewer people are even bothering to get married.

  18. The U.S. military has begun recruiting women for combat jobs.

    And they have insisted they will not lower standards for the combat posts or bow to pressure or quotas to get more women into the grueling frontline jobs.

    Not yet they haven’t, and they will. They always do when they’re not meeting their imaginary quotas and the bosses ask “why not,” instead of “why are we even doing this?”

    1. Other than just a mindless obsession with “equality” as some kind of ultimate end of all activity, why on earth would anyone think this is a good idea? Maybe a person just hates women and is bothered by them not being killed in equal numbers in war. Whatever the reason, it has nothing to do with readiness or any of the stated functions of the military.

      1. Or, somebody who wants to make combat units less effective.

      2. Nobody actually thinks this is a good idea except for the people with a mindless obsession with equality and the people sucking them off for a promotion.

      3. If they can do the job, why draw good soldiers from a larger pool?

        But I completely agree with the worry about eventually lowering standards.

        1. First, they can’t do the job. Women are just physically not the same as men. Second, the male female dynamic of the workplace does real damage to combat effectiveness. You put a bunch of young people together and they are going to fuck. It is as the commercial says; what they do. And once they start fucking the moral and discipline of the unit goes out the window.

          For this to work, we would have to create a class or warrior monks and nuns who renounce all interest in sex or carnal activities.

          1. As a whole, sure, women aren’t as physically fit as men for combat. But some individuals are.

            I’ll take your word for how the sex thing would impact morale.

            1. But what about a unit made entirely of women?

              1. It’s an experiment that would be worth a shot, in my opinion. I’d actually be very interested to see how that turned out.

                I was rather fond of Heinlein’s set up in Starship Troopers (the book, not that shitty movie), though whether it would work in real life is something I’m not sure of.

                1. I could see it being an effective propaganda tool against some enemies.

                  How much worse would it be for ISIS to get it’s ass kicked by a bunch of American women?

                  1. Yeah, I’m willing to believe the book is better (haven’t read it) but I quite like the movie for its entertainment value if nothing else.

                2. In the book, part of the reason for the division of labor was that women generally made for better starship pilots than men.

              2. Misogynist segregation!

                No, really, that’s what they’ll claim, regardless of how these units are deployed.

                1. Which typically comes from the type of people who believe they know how others think and that instincts can be forced into some sort of cute little container and eliminated.

                  Fuck those people.

            2. As a whole, sure, women aren’t as physically fit as men for combat. But some individuals are.

              Personally, I am reluctant to risk the combat effectiveness of military units on a search for the 0.1% of women who have the physical tools to be combat soldiers.

              And you know, you just know, that standards will be lowered, either for everybody, or just for women. Let’s not pretend that they won’t be, not in the real world.

              If you support putting women in combat roles, whether you like it or not, you are supporting lowering standards. Its a foreseeable consequence, and you have been warned.

              1. The Marines looked at the idea of bringing women into combat. They found that your top performing on armed forces’ physical fitness tests female candidates, barely made out of the lower quintet of male performers. Even worse, women simply do not have the physical strength required for ground combat positions. Nor do they have the physical structure to endure in a high-strength demanding environment.

                Bluntly, even if they can initially maintain readiness and contribute to the unit, they suffer a tremendously higher rate of, e.g., stress fractures and illnesses that cause them to not be able to serve as long as a man can.

                This isn’t even getting into the whole unit cohesion difficulties mentioned above in the thread. It’s a spectacularly bad idea.

          2. Maybe they could get some kind of Sacred Band of Thebes thing going. Or perhaps an army of eunuchs.

          3. Serious question: doesn’t the Israeli military put women in combat? Or am I just completely wrong on that? If so, what has their experience been like?

            1. They are only placed in the support roles for their special operations brigades and a couple of border battalions. Granted, they do see some combat operations, but it would be more akin to the Border Patrol encounters with a cartel.

              A somewhat thorough rundown by The Washington Times. Take it how you want.

            2. That is a myth. They only did it at the beginning when they were so outnumbered they didn’t have a choice.

            3. Mustang’s essentially right. What the Israelis did with units like the Caracal Battalion, is make them almost exclusively female (wiki says 70% female; I had thought it was even higher), with some male officers, and give them less demanding duty. Last I checked, they were on the Egypt-Israel border, where they’ve served with distinction.

              Integrating women with male units failed spectacularly.

          4. And once they start fucking the moral and discipline of the unit goes out the window.

            Is there any same-sex drama, I wonder? Obviously it wouldn’t be as prevalent but it’s difficult to believe it wouldn’t occur.

            1. There already is, yes.

            2. Just to be clear though, it’s not necessarily drama that is specific to the gay community (if there is such a thing, I’m not sure). It’s the same type of drama as heterosexual relationships; don’t want to leave the significant other for war, so and so cheated on so and so, etc. There are allegations of harassment, just like any other scenario as well.

              The only issue that I’ve had with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is that now I’ve got to go through all this bullshit sensitivity stuff and be careful I don’t offend someone for fear of getting a complaint and losing my job. That, and they have gay pride parades and sell t-shirts for gay pride month or whatever it is, but I have that complaint about any of the “diversity” bullshit initiatives. Would rather just let people be themselves as long as they’re combat effective and not shoving their personal lives down my throat (metaphorically speaking).

            3. Is there any same-sex drama, I wonder?

              Yes but mostly among women. There are just not that many gay men who want to be in the military. And the culture is masculine and inhospitable to being openly gay. The gay men that are there are pretty circumspect about who they date.

              There are however a larger number of gay women. I have heard of some units with a significant number of lesbians and there being some real sexual drama as a result. I have never seen that happen with gay men. Maybe it has but I have never seen it.

        2. Granted, my evidence is anecdotal, but based on what I’ve seen and the experiences of quite a few others, the individuals who are able to pass the standards initially will burn out. They might be able to reach that type of physical condition for the testing phases, but are never able to maintain the stamina and mental endurance necessary for the long haul.

          1. Exactly right. I’ve known some pretty hardcore chicks that have been able to do some pretty stellar things in the middle of some pretty demanding situations. I think they may have been able to make it through selection (or indoc, or phase 1, or what have you) if they were allowed to attend, but the rest of the pipeline would destroy them. Not to mention what comes after, when you’re no longer just in training and it’s your job to go live in a hide site for weeks in the middle of nowhere, doing things far in excess of what you were trained.

          2. There was an article awhile back by a Marine corp officer (Colonel, I think). She was a female, had been on combat patrols in Afghanistan or Iraq, and her take was that women simply don’t have the physical resilience to be as combat effective as men.

            1. That stuff breaks you down in a hurry. I was a fit rugby player when I left for Afghanistan – I came home tired, hurt and took 3 months to get back into it.

              I am 6′ 3″ 223lbs and sometime I could barely haul all the kit dropped on us.

              1. *gently erases Swiss from “Kick His Ass” List*

    2. The Obama administration knows what it is doing, it has carefully studied the documentaries, “Zena Warrior Princess, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and GI Jane, among others and know that women can kick ass.

      1. know that women can kick ass.

        +1 Hit Grrrl!

    3. I’m sure there are a few out there, but 10 years between the Marines and National Guard I never met a woman in the service who wanted to be in the Infantry. Most avoided anything even approaching Infantry training whenever possible – such as – sleeping outdoors, walking any significant distance or carrying their gear from the bus to the barracks in one trip.

      1. 20+ years I’ve met a couple who thought they wanted to. Then they had to make repeated 10-12 mile marches, carry equipment that weighted a significant percentage of their body weight, and all the other horrible, awful, stressful, exhausting things grunts have to do.

        I have nothing but respect and awe for the women who have made it through Ranger school so far; it is something I would have struggled to do 18 years ago, and I certainly couldn’t do now without a couple years of prep (assuming I’d even be allowed to attempt it). But graduating is just the first step. Now they get to do that for 5-10 years.

        In my, limited, experience it is never the single soul-crushingly exhausting activity which breaks people off. It is that they get to do it again, and again, and again on 4ish hours of sleep that does people in.

        1. Yes – In Marine Infantry school we marched 20 to 40 miles every other day, for 2 months. Young men’s bodies were able to adapt to it and eventually it became easier. I think most women – even the ones who carry 70 pounds on the first speed-march – would eventually break down from this. If not their muscle recovery, then their backs, knees, and hips.

    4. They already are, unless PT standards have been converted to gender neutral. That’s how they’ll have their cake and eat it too.

      The standard will be something like carry a weapon, a ruck and complete a foot march. For a male, that will mean humping a 240, full ruck for 20 miles in 5 hours. For a female, it will be carrying a M9, just a rucksack, for 5 miles in 2 hours. Any group standards’ failures will on the entire group, not any one individual.

      1. The standards for the Spec Ops community are currently “gender neutral”. That probably won’t change, they’ll just lower the standards based off some magical studies that confirm their biases.

      2. The standards used to be that you carried your weight and kept up with your unit wherever they went.

        If you failed to do so without be legitimately sick or injured, you received consulting statements, extra PT, were put on a diet, etc… Eventually, those who couldn’t hack it were booted out of the unit and maybe the service. The smart ones found a new non-combat MOS first.

    5. The U.S. military has begun recruiting women for combat jobs.

      And they have insisted they will not lower standards for the combat posts or bow to pressure or quotas to get more women into the grueling frontline jobs.

      Is the new test for screening for flag rank going to be who can read the quoted sentences without laughing out loud?

      Of course they’re going to lower standards. Or lie. Probably a lot of both.

  19. Why the Critics of Bernienomics Are Wrong

    1. “Well, do the numbers add up?”

    Yes, if you assume a 3.8 percent rate of unemployment and a 5.3 percent rate of growth.

    2. “But aren’t these assumptions unrealistic?”

    They’re not out of the range of what’s possible. After all, we achieved close to 3.8 percent unemployment in the late 1990s, and we had a rate of 5.3 percent growth in the early 1980s.

    3. “What is it about Bernie’s economic plan that will generate this kind of economic performance?”

    His proposal for a single-payer healthcare system.

    Flawless.

    1. Yes, if you assume a 3.8 percent rate of unemployment and a 5.3 percent rate of growth

      It is like one of those real estate investing schemes that will totally work if you assume you start out with enough money to purchase an apartment building.

      1. “First, assume a can opener…”

      2. Like the old Steve Martin joke about how to be a millionaire: first, get a million dollars

    2. Robert Reich is as intelligent and insightful as he is tall and handsome.

    3. On his day, Reich manages to be more of a moron economically than Krugman.

      1. Krugman is just playing a moron. Reich really is.

        1. Yea do you think krugman for the nyt is an act?

          1. I honestly have no idea. But he was a good economist at one point. And the work that won him the Nobel didn’t exactly support the crap he is peddling now.

    4. That is a brilliant, diamond of derp!

    5. And they say capitalism is a pipe dream based on unsustainable rates of growth.

    6. 1980s huh? Wonder if Robert would embrace Reagonomics?

    7. “Yes, if you assume a 3.8 percent rate of unemployment and a 5.3 percent rate of growth.”

      If I assume I can fly, jumping off this building won’t kill me.

      Note: No developed country has ever had 5% GDP growth for an entire decade so his assumption is based on something which has never occurred in the history of the human species.

      1. And somehow single payer healthcare will lead to this magnificence

    8. Is robert reich really this loony or is he trolling so he can make a lot of money?

      1. He’s as dull as he is short.

    9. “They’re not out of the range of what’s possible. After all, we achieved close to 3.8 percent unemployment in the late 1990s, and we had a rate of 5.3 percent growth in the early 1980s.”

      Oh my God, we had 5% GDP growth for like 3 years, not an entire decade. He’s also arguing that this will totally work assuming we have GDP growth and unemployment rates equal to the best GDP growth and unemployment rates we’ve had in the last 40 years – and that we’ll manage that for an entire decade.

      Wonderful logic.

      1. An economically illiterate Sanders will bring about all these wonderful things?

        Why don’t we raise min wage to 30 dollars and poof, utopia!

        I love this argument….it happened before therefore Bernie’s plan will mean it will happen again.

    10. Reich claims that WW2 got us out of the depression permanently…a couple questions:

      1. What does WW2 have to do with single payer healtchare?

      2. If WW2 drove us out of the depression, doesnt that make the “New Deal” look bad?

  20. Minneapolis spent $18M upgrading our main terminal. We got rid of 6 old, lame checkpoints and replaced them with 2 massive, new, wonderful check points.

    The local rag dutifully republished the TSA’s press releases telling everyone how wonderful and efficient it would be. Wait times would be down. It would even “feature skylights, an expanse of windows and sand-toned terrazzo flooring.”!!!

    Fast forward a month, and people aren’t so happy. Lines are huge, people are urinated off and the TSA had decided the problem isn’t with them it is with YOU the fucking traveling public.

    For those in the general lanes, Dankers said passengers have to shoulder some of the blame for slower lines. They are bringing more carry on bags through security and that bogs things down. Another factor in lengthy wait times is that many travelers are unprepared for the screening process and unnecessarily hold up lines by bringing prohibited items to the checkpoint.

    “These rules are not new and it’s time for people to take responsibility and bring things that are only allowed,” Dankers said. “TSA is not focused on getting people through quickly. They are focused on security. That is the priority and that will not change.”

    1. Every TSA line I’ve been in – minus the really small airports – have been a zoo. Flying out of DC? Argh!!

      The small airports, like my local one, are uber-security freaks because they have so much time on their hand. Only time I’ve gotten shit from the TSA has been here.

      1. The Allentown airport is nearly always a breeze for me. Next week I’ll test them when I’m not holding an adorable child, and then on Friday I’ll experience what security is like in Baton Rouge.

      2. I fly from MSP to Chicago a lot, and I have learned not to try to get the early, early morning flight because then the precheck line isn’t open and since I always opt out of the rapescan the regular line takes forever.

        When I was bitching about not having the precheck line open in the early morning, the TSA groper tried to give me a comment card and told me I should tell them to give the TSA more funding for more screeners. He wasn’t happy when I refused to take the card and told him that more TSA employees would be the worst possible thing I could think of.

        1. Did he then ask you to “Please step over here, Sir”?

          1. No I was done with the groping. If he had been smart enough to give it to me before the grope, I would have put it in my pocket and pretended that I would do as he asked.

      3. My buddy and I tend to send photos to one another showing a line out the door at the checkpoints, with only one guy checking tickets and 5 or 6 agents standing against a wall “monitoring”. It always seems to get worse around budget time. I wonder why that is?

    2. Nashville has two lines too – I few out of there in January and it was a fucking clusterfuck. I was in line for well over an hour. People were freaking out as they missed flights.

    3. Dankers? The name fits. Are we living in an A. Rand novel?

    4. If Trump promised to eliminate the TSA he’d win in a landslide.

      1. Fuck, Huckabee or Santorum would win in a landside if they ran on that promise.

    5. They are bringing more carry on bags through security

      Which also hasn’t been new, either.

      bringing prohibited items to the checkpoint

      And this is rarely the reason why things are slow. I haven’t flown out of the new checkpoints in MSP, but if it’s anything like everywhere else, it’s insufficient TSA staffing at peak times, arbitrary lane closures, local rules that the TSA staff make up such as additional prohitibited items, enforcing the airlines baggage policies, if non Pre traveling companions can accompany Pre travelers. Or like my last flight, conducting OJT training on the X-ray machine with live passengers.

      And let’s talk about those prohibited items. The liquid rule is idiotic and so is making people take off their shoes and belts and going through the rapiscanner.

      1. The liquid rule is really fucking stupid.

        I have a bag full of small plastic bottles that I fill up with Jameson before flying. No one ever says anything about them because they are in 3 oz bottles and in a plastic bag.

        The other stupidity that goes on is that if you end up getting groped by the TSA they never check the bottoms of your feet.

        1. They do check the bottoms of my feet sometimes, but definitely not 50% of the time.

          1. Interesting. I never would have guessed that the TSA employed so many lesbian foot fetishists.

            1. I’m a semi-frequently flyer and always opt out of the rapescanners, and I’m kind of surprised at how not-uniform the pat-downs seem to be.

        2. I have never separated my small liquids into a clear plastic bag. I keep everything in my dopp kit and I’ve never had any problems.

    6. I had a really long layover in MSP airport several years ago and the security checkpoints were some of the quickest and nicest I’ve been through. I don’t see how anyone could believe that making them fewer and bigger would improve it.

      Strange coincidence that passengers fucking up the flow just happened to coincide with the new checkpoints.

      1. What scares me Zeb is how hard they are pushing the precheck option on people. Up til now, the precheck line was great. I’d whiz through in 10 minutes tops.

        My worry is that a lot of people will wise up and realize that $85 for five years is pretty cheap and begin clogging up the precheck line.

        Then I’m sure the TSA will begin offering the ultraCheck line and swindle more money from me.

        1. When I went thru Atlanta, the pre-check line was clogged up almost as much as the regular line.

    7. Jesus. Even Columbus has 3 separate security checkpoints.

      1. Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria?

    8. Maybe the airlines charging for checked luggage by the bag has something to do with people having more carry one?

      1. Logic! Amazing, ain’t it?

    9. I was in Minneapolis on business last summer and the airport right outside of the Mall of America was pretty quick, actually. Maybe I wasn’t there on a busy day. It should be noted that I do live near Washington DC, so maybe my version of “quick” is anything faster than the traffic here, which is the worst in the country.

  21. Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server

    the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before a congressional panel in September, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.

    “We’re sure you’ll say the right things.”

    1. Looks like SOMEBODY’S family is about to get murdered.

      1. Clinton’s Closet.

        Directed by Wes Craven.

        1. ‘The email’s coming from *inside the house*!”

          1. The plot reveals Hillary had killed her first boyfriend Bill and kidnapped and married at knife point a man named Terry and renamed him Bill II. She then tricked an evil sorcerer into having her baby and convinced Bill II it was his. Mordredina wields her sinister magic to take over the family power structure with reckless abandon telling her mother the email servers were all legit knowing all along it was not true.

            It took one lonely, slightly retarded staffer addicted to cocaine and Pepsi who no one believe to uncover and disentangle the truth!

            1. *blinks twice*

              … I need some coffee.

              1. Wait until you get to the parts with the sex scenes!

      2. If this guy winds up dead, I am totally reconsidering my skepticism of the old Clinton era conspiracy theories.

    2. These are essentially strict liability crimes. And unlike the Lois Lerner case, they got the server and the electronic evidence. So, the people under Hillary will have no defense. The proof is there in the electronic records. They will, however, have mitigation, namely that Hillary or someone above them ordered them to do it. That doesn’t get them off the hook but it does make them less culpable than the people at the center of the conspiracy.

      This is going to go right up the chain to those closest to Hillary. All of them are going to end up being indicted. And even if they clam up and take the fall for Hillary, I am not sure how it does Hillary any good. It might keep her out of jail but all of her closest aids getting indicted will prevent her from saying this is some made up scandal or that she is in any way fit to be in office.

      1. This is the weirdest election ever. Every day it becomes harder for even Democrats to ignore her crimes. She set the whole thing up for the express purpose of selling of U.S. secrets and our Foreign Policy to the highest bidders.

        http://www.americanthinker.com….._1917.html

        1. I had forgotten about the whole Clinton-chinese ICBM conspiracy theory.

        2. Hillary’s complete irresponsibility and brazen criminality may end up giving us President Trump. If Hillary were even a Joe Biden level, sure he is stupid but he isn’t a felon and knows which fork to use, level candidate, she would be unstoppable. She is without question the worst major party candidate in American history.

    3. I had earlier speculated that President Obama would offer her a pre-trial pardon in exchange for her quitting the race. I just had a queasy, nightmare thought that he might just give her the pardon with no conditions.

      1. Holy Crap would that would be nuts.

        1. Here is the problem with that. If that happened, I think it would stick the Democrats with Bernie. No way in hell are the Bernie Bros going to let the party choose Biden or some insider over Bernie if Hillary dropped out. They would rightly claim that their guy finished second and should be the nominee after the winner drops out. I don’t think any appeals to “but TRUMP” or “RACISM” would get them to not go third party or stay home.

          Oh and lets not forget all of the feminist Hillary backers who are going to be massively butt hurt over it not being a woman’s turn and seeing some white guy like Biden or Bernie get the nomination. It would be a complete disaster.

        2. Drake, not if you consider what’s in her “Fuck you, Barack,” file.

          I’ve said all along that she’s getting a pardon. Whether that torpedoes her campaign remains to be seen.

      2. I guess it depends on whether there is any dirt on his administration on those email servers. So far this has been successfully painted as a rogue SecState doing her own thing. But who knows what sorts of communication and cooperation is in evidence.

  22. Pitt Students ‘In Tears’ and Feeling ‘Unsafe’ After Milo Yiannopoulos Event

    “This is more than hurt feelings, this is about real violence. We know that the violence against marginalized groups happens every day in this country,” claimed social work and urban studies major Claire Matway. “That so many people walked out of that [event] feeling in literal physical danger is not alright.”

    1. Every day these “students” prove themselves more and more unfit for life.

      I blame the academia.

    2. Those poor dears. Real violence, indeed.

    3. They obviously don’t know what a real threat is. They’re pathetic excuses of actual functioning adults. Makes me sick.

      1. ^This. America really need to create alternative education and career training institutions that emphasize responsibility, self-reliance and harden the fuck up values.

    4. “That so many people walked out of that [event] feeling in literal physical danger is not alright.”

      Man, the real world is gonna hurt for this poor young woman.

      1. What scares me, TM, is that in a few years this will be considered normal behavior. We are truly witnessing the suicide of our society. I weep for America.

        1. Man, I hope not. I think there’ll be some cultural backlash coming wherein it becomes more fashionable (for lack of a better term) to be tough and insensitive. Like someone said here the other week, it’s like the conservatives are all of a sudden becoming the cool, dangerous, edgy ones now. All the countercultural types from the last few decades have taken over the institutions and now the stuffy traditional types are the hip kids on the outside.

          But I dunno. Just spitballing here.

          1. You may be on to something. The youth are always looking to rebel against something, and the academy is often on the receiving end of that. This may take a couple of decades to happen.

          2. Yeah, in the future, some loud and crass millionaire could have a good run for president. Stranger things…

        2. This is nothing new. My work brings me in contact with lots of old people. Plenty of them are whiny and entitled.

          1. To be fair, I’d whine too if I was stuck in Florida.

            1. HAHAHA. Everyone knows we close the border behind Yankees to trap them here. Some how they left their shit hole state to come to Florida but can’t figure out how to fucking leave. I can’t wait to retire and move north so I can’t bitch out loud about how the place I moved to isn’t the same as the place I left.

              1. It’s because it’s warm there, FM. Old people like it warm, like Lizards.

                If you think you have it bad, try going to Arizona in the winter when all the snow birds from Minnesota migrate down for the winter.

                1. I lived in Arizona for 3 months. I really liked it.

                2. Anyone who leaves Minnesoda during the winter is a fucking pussy!!!

                  It is our best season. You can sit around the house drinking heavily and not have to worry about being an alkie because the alternative to drinking is going out into weather that can kill you.

                  Make sure to look me up when you retire here FM. Tundra and I will make you our famous Lemon Drop cocktail (made with yellow snow to give it that extra zing).

                  1. That’s the dumbest thing people complain about. “I’m miss snow, it’s not Christmas without snow.” Moving towards the equator, how do it fucking work?

                    1. Wait, complaining about no snow…in Florida?! WTF – go back to the joys of snow in New Yahk City then.

                    2. I’m not saying Florida is perfect, but the complaints I hear about Florida are asinine. Literally one guy’s complaint is he use to go to a bar owned by his friend in Pittsburgh and we don’t have that. Really? You thought your friend was going to move his fucking bar to plantation, FL because you moved here?

                    3. My grandma moved from the north down to FL with her new husband at the time – she hated it, for all the same reasons I would (the heat, the bugs….)

                      Not everyone lives where they do willingly….

                    4. Because she loved her hubby.

                    5. I’m not a love or it leave guy, but I wouldn’t come to your home and then talk about how my house is much nicer. It’s just rude. I would say “Thank you for having me over.” I’m sorry the state doesn’t agree with your grandmother. Hopefully she can find something she likes here.

                    6. There are always snow cones. They also come in useful for routing traffic.

          2. Are they boomer generation? That generation have always been coddled whiners. Their parents endured the depression and fought WW2. They wanted the best for their children and were able to give it to them in the prosperous, post-scarcity USA. Unfortunately the Greatest Generation ended up raising a generation of self-absorbed whiners.

            1. I’m not saying all of them are whiners, I’m saying generational collectivism is as dumb as astrology.

            2. Some of US boomers went to ‘Nam and then had to endure years of cheap Mexican pot.

              It was rough. The Mexican pot I mean.

              1. “Were you in the shit?”

                “Yeah. I was in the shit.”

        3. “What scares me, TM, is that in a few years this will be considered normal behavior. We are truly witnessing the suicide of our society. I weep for America.”

          It isn’t even common on college campuses. Most college kids are like they’ve always been – they want to get laid, get drunk, and get a degree.

          I graduated 4 years ago and this sort of behavior was not that common. My brothers are both in school right now, and it’s still not common among all but a small minority of students. The people behaving this way are just so loud that they seem more numerous than they are.

          1. So there’s a … silent majority?

          2. And I think they will end up causing a great deal of their fellow college students to react by completely rejecting progressivism.

    5. I kept looking for a tag that this was originally an Onion parody…

      1. If only…

    6. We know that the violence against marginalized groups happens every day in this country

      You mean everyday, as in all the quotidian shit the rest of us brush off you lunatics take to heart.

    7. That can’t be Pitt, there was only one Asian in the pictures and none in the video.

      1. The Asians don’t roll with the grievance mongers.

        1. Engineering degrees don’t leave a lot of time for fucking around with bullshit.

          1. Then why do the Hit ‘n Rungineers believe in so much bullshit?

            1. Specialization of discipline?

              Hitler?

              1. Hitler was an art-major. Let’s go with Pol Pot, he studied radio electronics.

                1. Ok but there’s not Godwin equivalent for Pol Pot.

    8. **sheds tear for alma mater**

      15 years ago the cultural difference beteween the engineering school and the rest of the campus was noticeable. Leaving the engineering building now must be like stepping off the resort in the Dominican.

    9. The only real safe space is in a casket.

    10. No, that level of paranoia on a mass scale is not alright. Those students need psychological help.

  23. I went thru Atlanta security recently. There were 2 DHS guards standing outside the line who had the stereotypical assault thug image down to a tee.

    1. @PopeJimbo

      1. I’d take that. MSP always has big fat tubs sitting around. At least a thug-wannabee might scare kids into behaving a bit.

        The worst part of the MSP fiasco is that they claim they don’t have the funding to man all their new screening lanes -hint, hint call your congress critter because the TSA budget is being debated right now- but when you go through you see 5-6 TSA types taking their breaks.

        In the private sector, most employees know that if they are going to take a break during a busy time, they should at least find a spot to hide so the customers don’t get really pissed.

        1. When I worked as a teller and needed a break from a busy Friday line, I would grab a random sheaf of papers and stride purposefully to the stairwell.

    2. Do Delta employees still harass you to sign up for their credit card every 100 feet there?

      1. Didn’t encounter that, but I checked in online and avoided all subhuman contact to the extent possible.

        1. My ex-wife works for Delta and she always had plenty of stories about daily encounters with the subhumans on the other side of the counter. Try to not be an asshole to the line employees of the airlines just because you’re having a shitty day or you think that you’re entitled to be treated like minor royalty on holiday amongst the peasantry.

          1. Oh, I don’t doubt it. I spent a summer working in an amusement park.

            My theory on airports is to minimize all contact.

          2. I travel constantly for work and being nice to the gate people is one of the best things you can do to make travel easier. We’re required to book lowest fare travel and that usually includes a connection somewhere. Hit up the gate person with a smile and voila, a spot opens on a direct flight there, back, and they’ll usually wave any fees.

            1. Check out this guy, catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.

              1. Why do you want to catch flies? I use hairspray and a lighter to burn them out of the sky.

                1. And even if you did – rotting meat is better bait for flies than either honey or vinegar. (At least the flies that tend to give me trouble)

                  1. Dude, personal hygiene is a thing, you know.

                    1. You offend Grandfather Nurgle.

    3. It’s a nice way to skirt around posse commitatus.

  24. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

    This wonderful paper was published in the journal Judgment and Decision Making (Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp. 549?56).

    1. The abstract: Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingen- uous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bull- shit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our re- sults also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.

      1. I’ll define pseudo-profound bullshit as anything uttered by a speaker at the myriad number of executive motivational speaking tours.

    2. Thank you.

    3. I have a book called ‘On Bullshit’ or something.

      1. I’ve read that, it’s pretty interesting

  25. I’m thinking of a screenplay. It’s Bastiat as a small child and he is befriended by a caring adult Paul Krugman. In the money shot he says to Krugman, “I’m ready to tell my secret. I see unseen costs.” At that point Krugman sees himself bleeding out splayed on a single bed like a spent lover.

    1. Heh.

      But needs a raunchy sex scene involving Hillary somewhere in there.

  26. OK, I’ve dismissed Kasich as a VP wannabe. Any thoughts on whether he’d be a good compromise candidate to stop Trump?

    1. Even this far into the race, my reaction is “Who?” as is that of a great many voters.

      As such, it’s the perfect stupid party move to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

      1. I had completely forgotten that he was in the race, or even existed, until he came in second in New Hampshire.

        Then i forgot about him again.

    2. I prefer a straight up authoritarian to the usual veiled ones.

      When do the vagina inspections start? I’m looking for a government job.

    3. Don’t think he’d fly – he is not even sure why he is still running…

      1. GoP needs Ohio. That’s how he punches his VP ticket.

        1. ^This. Perhaps he was hoping for VP, but now sees a glimmer of hope of getting the nomination in a brokered convention.

    4. Vote and support for whoever you want, Tonio. Trump’s still getting the nomination regardless, if all of those polls having him winning the winner-take-all states are correct.

  27. Trump would force the U.S. military to carry out war crimes if elected president.
    The U.S. military has begun recruiting women for combat jobs.

    The takeaway: women are now eligible to commit war crimes on behalf of the Trumpenf?hrer.

  28. Salon’s case for Trump’s two sons being the epitome of ’80s-style yuppie villainy” comes down to them defending their dad and one maybe accidently giving an interview to a white supremicist.

    In fairness, that’s more ’80s-style yuppie villainy than most people achieve.

  29. “The remaining Republican presidential nominees discussed dick size, hand size, the KKK, Trump University, worker visas, and how Trump would force the U.S. military to carry out war crimes if elected president

    In this way, our emperors are chosen.

    1. I would prefer the old fashioned way. Form their supporters into Legions and let them fight it out somewhere in the Midwest.

      1. I nominate Southern Illinois.

        1. I vote Everglades. The gators will clean up the losers.

        2. The Teutoberger Wald Shawnee Forest?

          1. Shawnee Forest

            Yeah. That one. A very scenic place to die.

        3. Hey that’s my turf…that means I get front row seats right?

    2. Trump’s greatest gift to the Dems is being so awful, it obscures how horrendous Hillary is.

  30. I really hope that the GOP elite is talking to Gary Johnson now . I don’t think Libertarian could be perceived as any kookier than what went down last night.

    1. Gary Johnson brings nothing to their table they don’t think they already have.

  31. “Activist” shuts down dam project, since the river is “sacred”, gets murdered.

    “Honduran activist Berta Caceres, who led fight against dam project, shot, killed by gunmen who broke into her home”
    […]
    “…Honduran indigenous leader Berta Caceres, who won the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize…”
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..-1.2552454

    I don’t think coercion is the answer here, either, but she was more than willing to use the coercive powers of the government to enforce her religion.

    1. Yet Vandana Shiva is still kicking.

  32. I didn’t watch the debate, but this scorecard is hilarious.

    He then added some substance to his foreign policy platform by declaring that he would force American soldiers to break the law and murder children.

    On other issues, he was less reassuring.

    1. Cruz’s lip booger moment could effectively end his run.

      1. I didn’t think wax dummies could have lip boogers. What will those ILM guys think of next?

  33. Disney employees being forced to train their H1-B visa foreign replacements here on American soil.

    And the Shitt Flopneys of the world can’t figure out why the peons are fed up with him and his ilk.

    1. Shitt Flopneys

      Oh my god did you just

      1. I didn’t make that one up by the way. Someone else came up with that years ago.

    2. Fuck them, and fuck you. The value of your labor is inflated by 20,000 dollars.

      Deal with it.

      1. “Let them eat cake.”

        This is how civil wars get started, by the way.

      2. Yes, why pay for free people when you could have indentured servants?

  34. As for that prostitution temple in Phoenix….

    You know what the state legislature should do? It should pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, so that people can defend their unconventional religious practices in court despite conflict with the secular law.

    I bet Reason would fully support such a law.

    /sarc

    1. I can’t imagine why Arizona hasn’t passed such a bill already.

      1. I mean, they once had such a bill

        “SB 1062 was intended to amend Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which prevents “any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies” from “substantially burden[ing]” a person’s exercise of religion, unless the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a “compelling government interest”. SB 1062 would have revised it by expanding the definition of person in the article from “a religious assembly or institution” to also include “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church,” “estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity”…”

        But Reason saw through all of that – “But SB 1062 backers have made it clear, from the beginning, that this is all about their dislike of one group. This isn’t about paring back government; it’s about using legislation to slap at gays and lesbians.”

        1. But governor Brewer vetoed the bill – victory!

          You have to lock up a few temple prostitutes if you want to defend the LGBTs.

          1. Yet another short-sighted, cultural signalling position by Reason, unable to see past the fashionable cause du jour to the knock-on effects of their position.

            1. Yeah, the logic in that piece is absolute bullshit.

              I just don’t think that a religious freedom law would actually allow for temple prostitution because they’d find some justification (like sex trafficking!) to not allow that.

              1. Me neither, but still.

                A bill specifically to protect people’s beliefs and associations from state penalty is opposed by libertarians, because some people might exercise their freedom in ways the soi-disant libertarians don’t approve.

    2. Eddie, if they passed a bill like that, I guarantee you the bill would not allow for temple prostitution.

      The state would do what the state always does. “Well, sure you have religious freedom, but there are LIMITS MAN!!!”

      1. The law they have seems limited – the proposed amendment would have strengthened it.

        Which means the temple prostitutes would have increased their odds of victory.

        Which is what RFRA is about – increasing your odds, not guaranteeing victory.

    3. Whoa, and this from the person who claims to be libertarian, but is against prostitution because some married man might cheat on his wife?

      1. Tonio, some people’s political ideas are a tad too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.

        1. Let me see if I can write a bumper sticker giving my views.

          Prostitution Bad.

          Religious Freedom Good.

          [then, in smaller type] Sometimes these principles come into conflict and it is necessary to balance the two.

        2. Let me see if I can write a bumper sticker giving my views.

          Prostitution Bad.

          Religious Freedom Good.

          [then, in smaller type] Sometimes these principles come into conflict and it is necessary to balance the two.

        3. Nice distraction and projection with the “bumper sticker” thing, Eddie.

          Am I remembering your position correctly? Do you still hold that position?

  35. Psychologists and massage therapists are reporting “Trump anxiety” among clients:

    To the catalogue of anxieties her patients explore during therapy ? marriage, children, and careers ? psychologist Alison Howard is now listening to a new source of stress: the political rise of Donald Trump.
    In recent days, at least two patients have invoked the Republican front-runner, including one who talked at length about being disturbed that Trump can be so divisive and popular at the same time, said Howard, who practices in the District.
    What had happened to Trump during his childhood, the patient wanted to know, to make him such a “bad person?”
    “He has stirred people up,” Howard said. “We’ve been told our whole lives not to say bad things about people, to not be bullies, to not ostracize people based on their skin color. We have these social mores and he breaks all of them and he’s successful. And people are wondering how he gets away with it.”
    Hand-wringing over Trump’s rapid climb, once confined to Washington’s political establishment, is now palpable among everyday Americans who are growing ever more anxious over the prospect of the billionaire reaching the White House.

    1. Gonna go out on a limb here and say that the people who like spending money on shrinks and massage therapy are exactly the sort who would have some special panic at the thought of a Trump presidency.

    2. Are shrinks allowed to disclose this?

      1. I don’t see a problem so long as you don’t breach privacy by naming names. Saying ‘I have clients who have said X’ is not a breach of confidentiality.

        1. I imagine it depends on how identifiable the info is.

          Suppose a friend of yours is really worried about Trump, and a therapist your friend is seeing says “I have clients who are worried about Trump.”

    3. “In recent days, at least two patients have invoked the Republican front-runner, including one who talked at length about being disturbed that Trump can be so divisive and popular at the same time”

      Well, it’s not like we’ve had a president like that before.

      “The structure of job approval in Obama’s and Bush’s sixth years in office was remarkably similar — with 79% approval among supporters of the president’s party, and 9% from supporters of the opposition party. Not surprisingly, Bush and Obama had by far the most polarized sixth years for presidents who served into a sixth year. In Bill Clinton’s sixth year, there was an average 53-point gap in his approval ratings, 17 points lower than those of his immediate successors. Clinton’s polarization score was a bit lower because his overall approval rating in year six, 64%, was much higher than Bush’s (37%) or Obama’s (43%). The other presidents serving into a sixth year had polarization scores below 50 points — including Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, who were popular at the time, and Richard Nixon, who had historically low approval ratings. Nixon resigned in August 1974, in the middle of his sixth year in office.”

  36. NYT: Clinton email server logs said to show no signs of hacking

    Derpbook progs are already spinning lack of evidence as evidence of lack, ignoring that this report comes from “sources close to” the investigation, and claiming that this also proves there was no classified info.

    1. Query:

      How many ways are there to access the content of an email account that won’t leave signs of “hacking” (whatever that means) on the server?

      What kind of shape was the server in after being “wiped”, anyway, and what does that do to any subsequent audits?

      What kind of audit was done on the server, and what kinds of hacking would it miss? Talking to our IT folks, their constant refrain is that no audit is perfect, nor firewall is impenetrable, etc.

      1. OK, I haven’t read the article thoroughly, and I doubt that the article contains enough detail to make a judgement, but there are lots of different types of server logs. I’ll try to read and get back to you.

      2. There are myriad ways, RC. Some of which leave traces of some sort, but not necessarily traces of hacking.

        Given that they had potential physical access to the server, one easy way would be to cause a power outage then once the server is down to simply clone the hard drives using one of the so-easy-even-a-cop-can-use it HDD cloning forensics devices. I’m skipping over some minor obstacles that could be easily overcome. Physical access is the key.

    2. The physical sever was unsecured! Nobody needed to “hack” it externally when anybody could stroll into the cleaners and have direct access to the box.

      1. Yeah. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think “Signs of hacking” is evidence of an intrusion, like a Trojan horse or some other program that someone managed to get onto the system that allowed unauthorized entry.

        From everything I am reading, no such program would have been necessary. The system was open meaning a simple brute force password hack would have gotten them into the system. And that would have left no trace.

        Moreover, foreign intelligence services have the ability to read unsecured email traffic and with access to that, I can’t imagine it would have been to hard or taken too long to pick up someone getting a new password after they had lost theirs. The system was unsecured. Once the foreign intel figured that out, they just had to start listening and wait and then get access to the entire thing.

        1. I agree, but my point is that even that wasn’t necessary. Her server wasn’t sitting in a guarded military facility – it was in a fucking dry cleaner. It doesn’t take a master spy to break into a Denver dry cleaning shop. Once in with unfettered access to the physical server itself – all bets are off. There are all kinds of ways to extract, forward, and or monitor it’s contents.

          1. Holy shit. It was in a dry cleaner in Denver? I had never heard that. I thought it was on the Clinton compound in New York. You mean it wasn’t? It was just sitting in a dry cleaner in Denver?

            As unbelievable as this story is; if that is true, it is the most most unbelievable aspect of what is the most unbelievable political story of my lifetime.

            Yes, if you can get access to the physical server, you just quietly break in and mirror it every once in a while and make sure you cover your tracks.

            Wow.

            1. Woops – I mis-remembered.

              It was in a bathroom cleaning closet in a Denver loft apartment.

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-held.html

          2. There are all kinds of ways to extract, forward, and or monitor manipulate it’s contents.

            Send an email to a NATO affiliated ambassador saying ‘Fuck the Ukraine, let Putin do whatever!’ and put the ‘original’ on the server.

            This, arguably, elevates it from minor security failure to mission-specific incompetence.

            Not that, at this point, it makes any difference.

            1. I can only assume that Snowden’s former-supervisors’ heads are on pikes somewhere for nearly this exact level of incompetence.

      2. You wouldn’t even have to touch the server, just sniff the traffic from the network connection. That’s the kind of brute force thing that even a complete computer illiterate (ex-)KGB thug could be trained to do. “Look, Boris, you just plug this little box in here.”

    3. OK, finally read the whole NYT article. My initial impression was correct. They don’t give specifics about what they mean by “security log” that could cover a lot of things. The reporting is based on anonymous sources. The Clinton camp is screaming about how the logs don’t show anything, which is perhaps true, but the fact that these particular logs are claimed to not show anything is inconclusive. There could be different logs which haven’t been analyzed, and as I noted above, there are ways to get to the data that wouldn’t show up on the logs.

      Drake, the article says the server was in the Clinton compound in NY. I’m not seeing anything about a dry cleaner in Denver. More info, please.

      This issue is looking more and more like a sticky trap – which doesn’t mean nothing happened, but it will be damn difficult to prove anything. Much like how some people went batshit over the parentage of Palin’s son.

      1. Drake, the article says the server was in the Clinton compound in NY. I’m not seeing anything about a dry cleaner in Denver. More info, please.

        Is it in reference to articles like this one, that claim the server was one of Platte River Networks’, and it was run out of,

        “…an old bathroom closet in a downtown Denver loft,”

        1. Holy crap. Thanks.

  37. Home income source by collider.. I’m making over $5k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they ZH can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
    This is what I do, http://www.payability70.com

  38. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

  39. OK, finally read the whole NYT article. My initial impression was correct. They don’t give specifics about what they mean by “security log” that could cover a lot of things. The reporting is based on anonymous sources. The Clinton camp is screaming about how the logs don’t show ????? ????? ???????
    anything, which is perhaps true, but the fact that these particular logs are claimed to not show anything is inconclusive. There could be different logs which haven’t been analyzed, and as I noted above, there are ways to get to the data that wouldn’t show up on the logs.

  40. ????? ????? ??????? :

    anything, which is perhaps true, but the fact that these particular logs are claimed to not show anything is inconclusive. There could be different logs which haven’t been analyzed, and as I noted above, there are ways to get to the data that wouldn’t show up on the logs.

  41. we could with confidence state that the Mobdro programmers https://mobdroapp.meta.watch Android Tv devices, Blackberry phones, Android OS based phones.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.