Trump Mulls Support for Minimum Wage Hike, Former Ron Paul Aides Convicted, Turkey Prime Minister Stepping Down: P.M. Links

|

  • Donald Trump
    Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

    Today in Donald Trump reversals: He's open to raising the minimum wage, an idea he opposed during the primary debates.

  • Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will support Trump as the nominee, keeping his stated promise to support the primary winner, whoever it was.
  • Three former aides in Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign have been found guilty of corruption for hiding a payment to an Iowa state senator in exchange for an endorsement.
  • Criminal charges have been dropped in the case of the Arizona high school football player who exposed himself as a prank in a yearbook photo that was published. He faced dozens of charges of indecent exposure, but police said the parties involved (his fellow football players) did not want prosecution.
  • A Trump-supporting tow truck driver reportedly refused to provide his services to a stranded motorist in North Carolina because she had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker.
  • Turkey's Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced he's stepping down, permitting President Tayyip Erdogan to consolidate his power further.
  • The lawmaker responsible for orchestrating the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has been ordered to step down to face corruption charges.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Muslim Students Want San Diego State President to Resign for Failing to Protect Their Feelings

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. He’s open to raising the minimum wage, an idea he opposed during the primary debates.

    Sure, now that he’s got the nomination.

    1. God there late and you still did it.

      1. How dare you. Shackford was right on time. Call him Il Duce.

        1. Look at the Obama commutation thread – tell who was first there!

          1. You’re not the boss of me.

    2. Hello.

      What does he care? He doesn’t pay his bills.

      1. Neither does the government.

    3. It wouldn’t be hard for him to waffle on this. Say it doesn’t make sense to have a national minimum wage, but local ones are fine. Something like that.

      1. HE DOESN’T NEED TO JUSTIFY HIS WHIMS TO YOU.

  2. Trump Mulls Support for Minimum Wage Hike, Former Ron Paul Aides Convicted, Turkey Prime Minister Stepping Down: P.M. Links
    Scott Shackford|May. 5, 2016 4:30 pm

    THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT, ROBBY.

      1. Damn you.

    1. On time, fairly substantive PM links, complete with appropriate, occasionally snarky linktroductions?

      How much of this stuff do he think we can stand?
      So much rhythm, grace, and debonair for one man

      1. These links are pungent. Stings the nostrils. But in a good way.

    2. On time, fairly substantive PM links, complete with appropriate, occasionally snarky linktroductions?

      How much of this stuff do he think we can stand?
      So much rhythm, grace, and debonair for one man

      1. I definitely don’t need you to say that again.

        1. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

      2. How well you spin!

  3. …keeping his stated promise to support the primary winner, whoever it was.

    “I promise to hold my nose for whomever.”

  4. Progderp of the day, Cinco de Mayo edition: So this SJW friend posts this whiny little screed on derpbook about how you better not put on no sombrero today. This friend is not Mexican. This friend has ho Scottish ancestry, either, yet loves to wear a kilt out in public.

    1. “Ho Scottish ancestry”?
      Go on…

      1. You really don’t want to go there.

      2. NO Scottish ancestry, dammit. And damn this cursed Saxon tongue.

        1. Don’t you mean “Sassenach tongue”?

      3. “The English took all of our sheep and all of our women! And then they gave them back, which was worse!”

      4. Better a ho than a sheep.

    2. I’m a fan of Cuatro de Mayo myself

      1. Miracle Whip for me

      2. All of the celebration supplies were used up on Cinco de Cuatro.

      1. Dammit, RTS! I’ve been waiting all day to post that video! Fuck! Damn it! Curse you!

        1. I exist to annoy.

          (If someone could translate that to Latin for me, I’d put it on my family crest)

    3. A kilt? That fucker is appropriating my culture. Quick stone him.

      1. Quick stone him

        Muslim culture would like a word with you.

        1. Killing things with rocks is kinda pre-cultural isn’t it?

        2. Maybe he said this piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.

    4. Kilt?

      You’ve just summoned Alamanian!

      1. Fuck!

    5. As an aside, my kilt goes great with my sombrero.

    6. Did you point this out?

      1. No. Don’t hate me. I only post family and funny stuff on the fb.

  5. N.J. troopers arrest woman for remaining silent during traffic stop

    Two New Jersey state troopers cuffed a woman along a Warren County roadway and hauled her in on an obstruction charge because she refused to answer questions during a routine traffic stop, according to dashboard camera footage obtained by NJ Advance Media.

    They advised her of her right to remain silent when arresting her… the ironing is delicious.

    1. the ironing is delicious

      Sexist!

    2. +1 bartman

    3. From comments:

      “It seems to me she was just looking for an excuse to file the lawsuit. There was no reason for her not to answer the simple question. All she had to do was answer that she didn’t realize why she was pulled over. If she was speeding, then all that had to be done was for the trooper to issue the ticket and she’d have been on her way.
      FlagShare”

      “So an attorney refuses to answer a simple question, no doubt to provoke a response. Suspend her license to practice law for 6 months”

      This jerk off is willing to take someone’s livelihood away for exercising their rights. Stew on that, Stewie.

      I don’t think these two dopes know what ‘you have a right to remain silent’ means. I think they believe it’s a quaint suggestion.

      1. Sounds like copsuckers to me. Those police apologists have a really good network and get in on the comments of anything like this. Took us years to dislodge you-know-who.

      2. The only reason cops ask these seemingly inane and harmless questions is to get you to incriminate yourself later. The vast majority of people psychologically don’t want to disappoint others so you get them answering questions like “do you know how fast you were going” and then say “do you mind if I search your trunk?”

        1. I had a cop ask me “Do you mind if we look in your trunk?”. I took the keys out of the ignition switch and he said, “I don’t want to look in your trunk. I’m just asking if you mind”.

  6. Donald Trump may have my vote after this tweet.

    1. LOL

      The Donald will cinco Hillary in Novermber!

      1. What do you call four Mexicans standing in quick sand?

        Cuatro Cinco

        1. What do you call four Mexicans, Chad Johnson, Cytotoxic, Tulpa and Joe from Lowell?

          Ocho Cinco

    2. Mis pensamientos y oraciones est?n con ustedes.

    3. I love Hispanics! We have the best Hispanics at Trump Tower!

    4. Check out the full sized picture on FB. Look in the bottom right hand corner and notice that he’s eating lunch on top of a pic of his ex-wife, Marla, in a bikini. That’s not weird at all.

  7. Western medicine is for retards who buy into what the man tells them to do.

    People in the know cure their cancer with carrot juice.

    1. Isn’t that how Steve Jobs died? He had some very treatable form of cancer but thought Western medicine was for suckers and took some snake oil cure instead?

      1. Yes.

        If Steve Jobs was so smart, why is he dead?

      2. It always has amazed me how otherwise brilliant men fall for such idiotic nonsense.

        1. I remember someone telling me once “If you keep too open a mind, it may fall out.” I’ve bitten my tongue not to say those words more than any other, I believe.

          1. +1 for the American Cancer Society.

        2. I’ve noticed that many otherwise brilliant people have blind spots.

      3. Well, he did try Western medicine with his liver transplant. Buying the attending surgeon a house was a nice touch. (See, e.g., the 12-8-2013 article in Fortune on the surgeon who performed the procedure, the gifts he received from Apple, and the ensuing ethical controversy) Thought he also put an entire new wing on the Memphis hospital where he had the procedure performed.

        They need to just abandon the hypocrisy and put a price tag on organs already.

      4. “While pancreatic cancer survival rates have been improving from decade to decade, the disease is still considered largely incurable. According to the American Cancer Society, for all stages of pancreatic cancer combined, the one-year relative survival rate is 20%, and the five-year rate is 6%.” He lived about 8 years after his diagnosis.

      5. There was a case recently in Alberta where a couple treated their child with meningitis with homeopathy. The naturopath claims she told the parents to go to a hospital.

        The child died.

        1. Cherokee hair tampons…

    2. Carrot juice cured my stage 4 fibromyalgia.

      1. It also cured my stage 4 constipation.

      2. Is stage 4 the one where you desperately seek attention by complaining to EVERYONE around you?

    3. I know some otherwise intelligent people that fall for this shit contstantly. Coconut oil aint going to cure my cancer buddy, and if it ever did, the news of this miracle wouldn’t be provided with a text link to some chakra-healthy-living website to buy it from some asshole who jars it in his garage.

      1. You mean the people who fall for the standard allopathic cocktail of chemo and radiation?

    4. Yes, I’m gonna marry a carrot.

      That line always cracks me up.

    5. Carrot juice cured my hemorrhoids.

      1. Those aren’t hemorrhoids.

        1. I do need a second opinion.

          *sends Crusty pics*

  8. A Trump-supporting tow truck driver reportedly refused to provide his services to a stranded motorist in North Carolina because she had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker.

    She didn’t need a choice of more than one mode of transportation when children are hungry in this country. He built a wall around her and made her pay for it. And so on…

    1. Yeah, my derpbook has been lighting up about that. They are pissed, they just can’t figure out why, exactly.

      1. They have no problem boycotting people who don’t share their views on “transgender” WCs or gay marriage or whatnot, but get pissed when the boycott goes the other way round.

        1. Because all their causes are pure, noble and good, and so it’s completely different, or something.

        2. True, but this was a refusal to provide service, initiated by the service provider. Boycotts are initiated by consumers. But you do raise a point there that I’ve never considered before. Boycotts and refusal of service are different sides of the same coin.

          And the best retort: I guess he was just boycotting her.

          1. Having the right to refuse to provide service is the hallmark of not being a fucking slave. I don’t care about his reasons. Maybe it was a dick move, maybe not. But no one’s rights were violated. At least not until the harassment campaign and legal proceedings start.

            1. But no one’s rights were violated

              Ohhh, you just tell that to her mother! She’ll let you have it with both barrels for suggesting such a thing.

              I mean, didn’t you know that it’s legislation THE LAW?!?!?

              1. Did someone just nominally draw a distinction between legislation and the law? To the statutory gallows with him!

                1. So, I’m to be hung, am I?

                  I bet you couldn’t possibly fit me in until Monday, right?

                  /Euphemisms-they’re not just for jerkin’ it any more.

            2. Odds are greater that someone with a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker is going to try to get out of paying compared to someone with no bumper sticker at all.

          2. I agree, although it should be noted that there is certainly liberal precedent for refusing to provide service to people who have the “wrong” values – Springsteen et al were not “boycotting”, they were refusing to provide their goods and services to people from a group they saw as wrong.

  9. Criminal charges have been dropped in the case of the Arizona high school football player who exposed himself

    *** snort ***

    So much for the Rule of Law.

  10. A Trump-supporting tow truck driver reportedly refused to provide his services to a stranded motorist in North Carolina because she had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker.

    It’s not news until it hits the Beltway rag

  11. Today in Donald Trump reversals: He’s open to raising the minimum wage, an idea he opposed during the primary debates.

    The left wants the U.S. to become more like Europe. Well, Trump is essentially a European “conservative.” A lefty that hates immigrants.

    Good work, Republicans.

    1. Berlusconi had better hair plugs.

      1. And from the looks of it, better Bunga Bunga parties.

    2. It would have to go through Congress, which I seriously doubt it would. And being “open to it” is not the same as supporting it. Trump is just trolling the Democrats here. When he says something like “hey I am open to raising the minimum wage”, it takes away their line of attack. What are they going to say? They don’t support it anymore?

      Your typical GOP retard would have come out and talked about how he would never do that and make it look like he doesn’t give a shit about anyone making minimum wage.

      1. Great job spinning John. I expect a lot more to come.

        1. Am I wrong? If so, tell me how. Does “open to it” mean the same thing as “I support it”? It doesn’t to me. And do you not agree that this is exactly the kind of issue that Republicans usually step on their dick over?

          I can’t read his mind. Maybe you can. But if what I am saying is unreasonable, rather than something you just don’t like because it doesn’t fit the narrative you want to believe, explain why. I would be curious to hear.

          1. Are you open to a threesome with your wife and another man?

            1. Sure. That doesn’t mean I would do it. It just means that I would consider it under the right circumstances. Does the other guy have enough money to offer? Does the other guy have some kind of leverage over me such that I have no other choice?

              Being open to something means nothing other than you would think about it. Again, Trump hardly is shy about speaking his mind. If he wasn’t just trolling here, why did he use a weasel word? Why didn’t he just say “I support it”?

              1. What exactly are the “right circumstances” for telling Party #1 how much of their property must be given to Party #2 for Party #2’s labor?

                1. If the Democrats offered to end the drug war in return for a $18 minimum wage, would you do it? I sure as hell would. I am not saying that is what Trump would demand. I have no idea. He might be lying and not accept anything. Only he knows.

                  But don’t worry your pretty little head with what the words actually mean. Just shit your pants and scream a lot. Its easier.

                  1. I’m not screaming about it. I’m just wondering what principles cost. Call me an ideologue but I don’t consider a choice between theft and unjust imprisonment a choice at all.

            2. Say what you want about John, but he’s never regretted any of the gay relations he might have had.

              1. Why should I? I love how the very first thing you people go to is homophobic slurs. Says a lot about what you actually think about gays and how phony most of the “we love gays” bullshit that goes on on here actually is.

                1. That was an entirely positive comment about you, John.

              2. He’s also a whore.

                1. We are all whores Ted. We just have different prices.

            3. Ted S., you seem like kind of an asshole. Open to it =/= I support it.

              1. I’m proud to be a crotchety asshole!

          2. “Open to it” means you gave away everything but a utilitarian argument against it, when the supporters for it are making emotional appeals. It is a first step to a ” me too” position.

            1. If it were a college debate sure. In politics, not so much. In politics, “open to it” means “what do you have to offer for it?” It makes you look reasonable without committing you to anything.

              The point of politics is to win not score nerd points in the big economic debate in the sky. Would Trump raise the minimum wage? I have no idea. What I do know is that what he said here doesn’t mean he would. You guys just want to believe it does because it makes you feel good. Well, the truth doesn’t always do that sadly.

          3. Am I wrong? If so, tell me how. Does “open to it” mean the same thing as “I support it”?

            No. But you’re the only one to bring up the idea that “open to it” means he supports it. That’s why it qualifies as spinning. You have lit up a strawman to distract from the point that Trump is “open to” raising the minimum wage.

            Seriously, do an alt+F4. You are literally the only person who has used the word “support” in this context. FFS

        2. John is right. Trump basically dodged the question.

          1. Of course I am. That is why they are all shouting insults. They have nothing else to say. “Open to it” is not the same as “I support it”. The former is a meaningless commitment.

            1. I can see what your saying… Carrie `s st0rry is great, on monday I bought themselves a BMW 5-series from bringing in $7600 this – four weeks past and-a little over, ten k lass month . with-out a doubt this is the easiest work Ive ever done . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home at least $72, p/h . browse this site…O9..

              ——- http://www.Report20.com

      2. LOL, okay John. Trump’s a secret free marketeer, despite all of his behavior up until now.

        1. I will ask you the same thing, why is my explanation unreasonable? If Trump supports it, why didn’t he say “I support it” rather than the illusory statement of “I am open to it”?

          Why do you find it so difficult to engage in rational discussion over this topic? Even if Trump is trolling them and I am right, that doesn’t mean he is a good candidate. Don’t worry no one is going to question your opposition or think you are not the right kind of person if you try and have a rational discussion about this topic.

          1. I essentially agree with you.

            It’s amazing how up until this last declaration lots of people were saying “Oh, Trump’s just saying that to get elected!!” But now with this minimum wage thing it’s “Trump definitely means he wants a higher minimum wage!!”

            1. When he says something they like, he is lying to get elected. When he is insufficiently against something right and true, he is really a communist leftist.

              The whole thing is absurd. Even if you hate Trump, that is no reason to stop rationally evaluating what he is saying.

            2. “It’s amazing how up until this last declaration lots of people were saying “Oh, Trump’s just saying that to get elected!!” But now with this minimum wage thing it’s “Trump definitely means he wants a higher minimum wage!!””

              The difference, of course, is that Trump has continuously supported statist economic policies. When I said Trump was bullshitting social conservatives about abortion, that was based on the fact that Trump has continuously supported abortion and suddenly decided otherwise when he needed Republican votes.

              Since he has a history of loving statist economic protections (go see what he was saying about free trade in the 80s when his enemy was the Japanese instead of the Chinese), his support for minimum wage seems like an actual belief he would have in a way his sudden opposition to abortion wasn’t.

              1. I agree with your point on his abortion views, Irish, but Trump’s been a businessman his non-reality TV working life, employing hotel workers, garment workers, groundskeepers, and a bunch of other low-wage labor. Why would he advocate raising the minimum wage, and thereby cutting his margins? I can’t see a guy like that getting behind a $15 minimum wage. He knows he, and other business owners, would have to cut employment/automate in response to that wage pressure? Why would he bring that on himself?

            3. For me, it’s more that he isn’t trustworthy at all.

      3. You’re right, Trump and his supporters aren’t your typical GOP retards. They’re like genetically-enhanced super retards. The Uruk-Hai of retards. An army of retards, bred for one purpose: to destroy the world of man.

        1. You can’t engage in a single rational discussion about the subject without virtue and social signaling but they are the retards.

          I will tell you the same thing I tell Irish. Don’t worry. No one thinks you are one of those people. You are cool. So just relax. You signaling has been received and is acknowledge. Now live on the edge and think a little bit.

          1. You can’t engage in a single rational discussion about the subject without virtue and social signaling but they are the retards.

            I have long ago given up on the idea that any discussion involving you will be a rational one.

            1. Don’t bait the Johnmenter!

              1. Not a single person has been able to explain why what I said was wrong or even unreasonable. They don’t know why what I said is wrong but damn it they know it is!!

                It is entertaining although a bit pathetic.

            2. Since you are unable to have one, that is probably a good idea on your part. A good man knows his limitations.

              1. Listen, punk. To me you’re nothin’ but dogshit, you understand? And a lot of things can happen to dogshit. It can be scraped up with a shovel off the ground. It can dry up and blow away in the wind. Or it can be stepped on and squashed. So take my advice and be careful where the dog shits ya!

          2. Yeah, we’re the ones being irrational. You’re the one who thinks that when Trump expresses left-wing ideas that are in-line with things he’s been saying for decades he’s actually playing 9th dimensional chess and trolling the democrats.

            I’m going to go with Occam’s Razor – he actually believes in leftist values and you’re in denial because you don’t want to admit you’re supporting a democrat.

            1. Sure lets do Occam’s razor. If he supports this, why didn’t he say so? Why did he use a weasel word?

              He didn’t express leftwign ideas. He dodged the question. Explain how he didn’t or shut the fuck up. Or if not, at least give me a thank you for giving you the opportunity to virtue signal here.

              1. If he supports this, why didn’t he say so? Why did he use a weasel word?

                Because he needs to not completely alienate the 55% of Republican voters who wanted nothing to do with him, but he still needs them to get off their ass and vote for him or he’ll definitely lose in November? Could that be why he weaseled around it?

                I don’t think he’s thought about minimum wage laws much one way or the other as a candidate, and probably opposed it as a businessman. To be frank, I don’t think Trump’s thought much at all about issues qua issues, though I think he usually has the brains and drive to memorize and regurgitate what his experts have written for him on the issues. Like the planks of his platform on his website.

                He probably tried to duck the question, and if he did think further about it, probably thought that explaining the issue like we would have here, “It kills jobs, idiot, and we need more jobs when we have a U6 of 10% plus,” would have alienated voters.

                1. You may be right Ghost. If he wasn’t trolling the Dems here, he was most certainly dodging the question. Either way, his answer doesn’t say much of anything about his position on the minimum wage, if he even has one.

                  Why so many people on here are driven to rage and invective by that contention is beyond me.

                  1. Why so many people on here are driven to rage and invective by that contention is beyond me.

                    Because you have many GOP supporters, myself for one, who think that Trump is a bullshit artist and a liberal crony capitalist, yet have a bunch of giddy Trump supporters who claim that Trump’s a conservative and a Republican, so we should all pull together for him. And they’re busy trying to convince people who suspect that Trump doesn’t have a conservative principle in his body, that Trump won’t turn around and sell out most of the Republican party platform should he win.

                    Playing footsie with being OK with a minimum wage hike, (or single-payer health care, or an assault weapons restriction, or touchback amnesty) makes many of those Republicans suspect they were right in thinking this guy wasn’t a conservative, or worse, a Trojan Horse for the Clintons.

                  2. Imagine your reaction if Rubio had won the nomination and was quoted as saying he was open to accepting refugees from Iraq should the conflict there grow worse.

          3. You told me that!

            (crosses fins and stamps flipper in annoyance)

      4. He’s going to pass it via Executive Order for federal contractors.

        It’s gonna be YUUUUUGE. He’s going to make the minimum wage $20.16 for 2016.

        1. Did he say that? And didn’t Obama already do that? I don’t see anywhere in the article it says that. Are you one of those white trash Trump people and have some kind of inside knowledge?

        1. Again, you are the 4th person with a shot to explain why what I said was unreasonable. You want to take a shot at it? Or is it just something you can’t face?

          1. I take issue with the fact that I don’t think anyone knows what Trump is going to do, so to sit here and pretend anybody has any fucking clue what the man is going to do based the things he says that change minute to minute. I don’t think there is a grand plan. He’s seemingly crafting his campaign based on talking a lot of shit and seeing what sticks.

            1. he says that change minute to minute *is a fools errand.

            2. I am not saying I have any idea what he will actually do. I am just looking at what he said and taking it for what it is, which was a dodge and an illusory promise.

              Maybe he is a communist. Fuck I don’t know. But that doesn’t change what happened here.

          2. Nobody can disprove what your saying, because what your saying isn’t provable. It’s like suggesting god exists.

            1. Explain why he didn’t say he supported it and instead used the weasel word open to it? Does Trump have a problem speaking plainly? Not last I looked. My explanation is that he used that term as a way to troll them and dodge the question. What he said doesn’t commit him to anything.

              What is your explanation other than “I hate Trump and it must mean whatever I think it should”?

              1. Jesus John how the fuck are you going to parse the words of a man who talks like the way he talks. He throws out random gibberish all the fucking time.

                1. I am parsing anything. I am listening to the words and applying their meaning. “I am open to” is not the same as “I will do” or “I support”. It just isn’t. If you want to read his mind and think he really meant something else, fine. Since I can’t read his mind, i can’t say you are wrong. All I can do is look at what he said and judge from that. He may really support raising the minimum wage, but he didn’t say it here. And the only reason I can see why he didn’t was he was trolling the Democrats.

                  I don’t understand why a contention that obvious and reasonable elicit an entire thread off insults and invective. Why is what I am saying inconsistent with Trump being as horrible as you think? In fact, doesn’t that make him the kind of shrewd demagogue that you people all say he is?

                  Fuck, I never said anything good or bad about Trump. I just looked at what he said and made a reasonable conclusion about what he was doing. I didn’t even say he really doesn’t support this. I don’t know. I just observed what is going on.

                  Does anything short of full on dark night of fascism pants shitting good enough to get you guys to listen?

                2. I agree with John on this one. He’s not parsing Trump’s words saying “Trump is saying X” he’s looking at Trump’s words and saying “this phrasing is ambiguous, Trump is not necessarily stating X”. It looks to me like John is the one advocating uncertainty where Trump statements are concerned.

  12. Follow up from my Gucifer link this morning:

    Why Did NBC News Sit on Explosive Story About Clinton’s Alleged Hacked Email Server For Weeks?

    As you can see from the transcript, Lazar is openly admitting to hacking Clinton’s private e-mail account. The same private e-mail account where federal officials found over 2,000 e-mails that contained classified information, including at least 22 deemed to contain “Top Secret” information. That is pretty explosive information. To note, Clinton’s campaign has already fired back, in a statement saying “There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell.”

    Now, this is where things get a little strange. As was noted earlier, NBC News says Lazar made these claims to McFadden during an interview in a Bucharest prison and we know Lazar was extradited to the United States on or about March 31, 2016. So, it stands to reason that McFadden conducted the interview before he was extradited to the U.S. which means NBC News was sitting on these explosive claims for more than one month. Which begs the question, why would a major news network sit on such an explosive allegation ? especially when the claim directly relates to a presidential candidate and the biggest story the 2016 presidential election cycle?

    1. Which begs the question., why….

      You may have just awakened Nikki from her Cthulthu-like slumber you idiot.

      1. The stars have become right…

      2. He should of not done that.

        1. He should of towed the lion.

          1. Idle Hands needs to get on the straightened arrow.

            1. Irregardless, the article raises some good point’s.

              1. Its’ a moo point tho.

            2. Noone can loose that image.

        2. For all intensive purposes, it’s mostly the same thing mostly.

      3. Hey, it’s his own *.

    2. WDATPDIM?

    3. Why Did NBC News Sit on Explosive Story About Clinton’s Alleged Hacked Email Server For Weeks?

      Because the MSM are all-in for Hillary. Or are rightly scared of her.

      1. I’m sure they have their own Douglas Stamper going around *threatening* people like Frank Underwood has.

    4. Why Did NBC News Sit on Explosive Story About Clinton’s Alleged Hacked Email Server For Weeks?

      Because they are pathological liars and presstitutes?

      NBC Admits It Rigged Crash, Settles GM Suit

        1. You may have just set a new record for number of SF’d links in a row.

    5. They couldn’t confirm Guccifer’s claims of hacking the server, so they applied a sense of journalistic ethics and decided they couldn’t run such a sensational story based entirely on the say-so of a single, self-interested source?

      1. Yes and they cited the fact that he didn’t post any evidence online after making the claim too. Never mind that he’s in prison. Totally legit objections from NBC…

    6. When is the LA Times going to release BO’s speech video speaking at the Khalidi gathering? Why won’t they release it?

    7. Why Did NBC News Sit on Explosive Story About Clinton’s Alleged Hacked Email Server For Weeks?

      They only came out with the story at all because Fox picked up on it the day before.

      “Sorry Hildawg, we tried to keep it underwraps. But don’t worry, our article will downplay the legitimacy of his claims by asking important questions like, ‘Then why didn’t this guy (who is locked up in a fucking prison cell) get on the internet to release any corroborating evidence like he’s done in the past?’

    8. CYNTHIA McFADDEN:

      When Hillary Clinton says that her server is absolutely safe ? you’re laughing.

      MARCEL LEHEL LAZAR (GUCCIFER):

      That’s a lie.

      McFADDEN:

      That’s a lie?

      GUCCIFER:

      Yes.

      McFADDEN:

      It’s not safe.

      GUCCIFER:

      It’s not safe at all.

      # # #

      As you can see from the transcript, Lazar is openly admitting to hacking Clinton’s private e-mail account

      uh, that’s not what the transcript says at all. It says he didn’t think it was ‘safe’. Unless there’s some other portion of the transcript which i didn’t see.

  13. …but police said the parties involved (his fellow football players) did not want prosecution.

    It was up to his fellow pranksters?

  14. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will support Trump as the nominee

    When he was running against Trump in January, Paul was a harsh critic of Trump, saying “a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag,” and that “a speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president.” Paul also said Trump was disqualified for his eagerness to use nuclear weapons.

    And it’s true that Hillary Clinton would still be worse.

    1. I think the “Trump is eager to use nuclear weapons” thing comes from him “refusing to rule out” anything, which is of course something different.

      1. Maybe he’ll use nuclear weapons to raise the minimum wage.

    2. Fuck. I has a disappoint.

  15. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will support Trump as the nominee, keeping his stated promise to support the primary winner, whoever it was.

    C’mon Rand.

    Trump couldn’t keep his “till death do us part” promises. You should have broken yours.

    1. Trump couldn’t keep his “till death do us part” promises. You should have broken yours.

      Nope. This is one of the reasons why Rand Paul will have a long and successful political career, including keeping that Senate seat as long as he wants to. He keeps his word. Ironically, honesty is a big trait among Congresscritters. At least between each other. People want to know that they can make deals and trust that the other party will perform. Very little happens in Congress without deal making.

      He’ll be back. I don’t think American voters want his message, but he’ll be back to deliver it, all the same.

      1. And no matter what happens in November, four or eight years from now, no one is going to care that Paul supported Trump as the nominee. This was the smart play. Libertarians are only but hurt about it because they never make the smart political move.

        1. A valid criticism – often too principled to play the game. Which is why so many libertarians abandoned him when he started courting traditional conservatives.

          I admit that it was off-putting to watch but I would have gladly voted for him in the primaries if he had survived until Virginia.

    2. You leave Rand Paul alone! *Brittany fan boy voice
      Actually Rand has a great career ahead and can possibly bring libertarianism to the masses. I don’t want him to break any promises.

      1. If his support of Trump consists solely of saying “I support him” then sure. Actually providing REAL support to Trump would preclude “bringing libertarianism to the masses”, since Trump himself is pretty much the polar opposite of a libertarian.

      2. If his support of Trump consists solely of saying “I support him” then sure. Actually providing REAL support to Trump would preclude “bringing libertarianism to the masses”, since Trump himself is pretty much the polar opposite of a libertarian.

  16. A Trump-supporting tow truck driver reportedly refused to provide his services to a stranded motorist in North Carolina because she had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker.

    The politicization of EVERYTHING.

    1. Yeah, I would have simply added a socialist surcharge.

      1. “You look like you make more than me. I’m upping your charge 20% for the purposes of reducing income inequality.”

    1. Note that you can watch Miami Connection free on Vice and on Popcornflix (which works on Roku and whatnot).

      The cold open is a bit of a slog but it is a masterpiece thereafter.

  17. “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will support Trump as the nominee, keeping his stated promise to support the primary winner, whoever it was.”

    Fuck off, Rand

    1. Yeah, that’s disappointing.

      1. Why? Because he keeps his word? Why is this ‘disappointing’?

        And we wonder why we get creatures like Trump.

        1. I had no idea he made that promise in the first place, but he can go fuck himself for making it. “I’ll support my party’s candidate no matter what” is partisan idiocy.

          1. In 2012, Ron never actually endorsed the lp. He might not have supported Romney, but he sure didn’t take a grand stand.
            He said people should vote their conscience.

          2. It was publicly made back at the first debate that non of the R candidates would run third party if they didn’t get the nomination. It’s not like Rand has replaced Christie as Trump’s bitch.

          3. Why the fuck join a party only to abandon party support? That sounds like something an SJW would do. Support is not the same thing as enthusiastically endorse. Contrast Paul’s low-key support to Ted Cruz’s bizarre behavior. Which approach do you think would get a few extra Senate votes on the next liberty-advancing legislation Paul introduces?

          4. I’m necrotizing, but this needs to be said–

            The promise was made a big deal because everyone wanted to force Trump to say that he wouldn’t run third party and fuck things up when he inevitably fizzled out. He hemmed and hawed, and finally made the promise–after everyone else.

            Some of the former candidates have already broken that promise.

            Rand didn’t.

            Rand has honor.

      2. Not breaking your word is a good thing.

        1. Making partisan promises like that is idiotic

          1. I don’t see that, Irish. Unless you can point out that such promises of support are unprecedented, Paul’s promise sounds a lot to me like the vow you take as part of a political caucus to support the candidate the caucus nominates. You agree ahead of time to bind yourself to what the caucus determines, and if you don’t, you don’t get to participate in the caucus. If you repudiate it afterwards? Good luck getting invited to any other party functions.

            These types of partisan promises you guys decry are the bread and butter of how political parties marshal cooperation and get things done. Not all surprising that Rand Paul does these things, and consequently, might actually be relied upon to get things done in Congress.

    2. He is just one of those people Irish. He is not one of you.

      1. Be more butthurt, John. I’m sure the nation’s white trash are pleased with your noble protection.

  18. The lawmaker responsible for orchestrating the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has been ordered to step down to face corruption charges.

    Who will corrupt the corrupters?

  19. McCain: Trump damages my reelection hopes

    Chin up, John. Everyone knows that “captured hero” stuff was bullshit.

    1. Didn’t the fucker previously say this was going to be his final term?

    2. That almost makes me like Trump.

    3. Did Cotton Hill ever get those shin prosthetics?

  20. This may be one of the better expose’s on the Obama foreign policy team written yet. Tidbits include how the narrative was created for the Iran nuclear deal, how little they think of the press, how insular Obama is and how everyone who disagrees with their assessment is a mouth-breathing retard.

    1. it’s long but well worth the read.

      1. It even mentions cocktail parties at one point.

        1. Ben Rhodes is a complete asshole, but he might be on to something:

          One result of this experience was that when Rhodes joined the Obama campaign in 2007, he arguably knew more about the Iraq war than the candidate himself, or any of his advisers. He had also developed a healthy contempt for the American foreign-policy establishment, including editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, who at first applauded the Iraq war and then sought to pin all the blame on Bush and his merry band of neocons when it quickly turned sour. If anything, that anger has grown fiercer during Rhodes’s time in the White House. He referred to the American foreign-policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.

      2. Apparently ben rhodes lived down the street from me.

    2. “There were staff people who put themselves in a position where they kind of assumed where the president’s head was on a particular issue, and they thought their job was not to go through this open process of having people present all these different options, but to try to force the process to where they thought the president wanted to be,” he says. “They’d say, ‘Well, this is where we want you to come out.’ And I’d say ‘[expletive], that’s not the way it works. We’ll present a plan, and then the president can make a decision.’ I mean, Jesus Christ, it is the president of the United States, you’re making some big decisions here, he ought to be entitled to hear all of those viewpoints and not to be driven down a certain path.”

      Cult of personality

    3. Yeah, I saw this in the National Review as well. Pretty telling quote:

      As Rhodes admits, it’s not that hard to shape the narrative. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” Rhodes said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

      1. I need a drink.

        1. Grab a bottle of mezcal and fucking get started guero.

      2. That is true, and I am glad someone is finally saying it, but I hope Ben realizes that being part of the “drone murder and Special Forces” military strategy for seven years isn’t something that should garner respect.

        1. Though it’s still more respectable than being a journalist.

      3. Interesting as a confessional by the NYT that it is staffed by low-information journalists.

  21. Oakland PD apologizes for warning about drunk driving on Cinco de Mayo

    The Oakland Police Department issued an apology for warning people not to drive drunk on Cinco de Mayo ? because apparently, even acknowledging the fact that people often do drink on Cinco de Mayo is racist against Mexicans.

    It’s important to note that there was was absolutely nothing offensive about the warning. In fact, its second sentence actually reminded everyone that “historically, the fifth of May commemorates Mexico’s 1862 victory over France at the Battle of Puebla during the Franco-Mexican War” before explaining that that since “present-day celebrations often lead to drunk driving,” there would be increased DUI enforcement on the road, and people should remember to arrange safe transportation if they planned to celebrate.

    1. Every St Patty’s Day is like a holocaust with all the PSAs. But it’s okay, Irish people are now accepted members of the oppressor class.

      1. Except for the gingers

        1. Correct. Those people should be rounded up and taken to an undisclosed location to… treat their condition.

          1. Bring the hot ginger chicks to my house.

              1. I’ll be in my bunk

            1. I’ll bring you the ones that are pasty white canvasses highlighted by bright blue veins. Maybe a few with those milk teeth genes.

              1. I’m saving this for when I go bed tonight

    2. Victory over France? No wonder most Mexicans don’t give a fuck.

  22. A Trump-supporting tow truck driver reportedly refused to provide his services to a stranded motorist in North Carolina because she had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker.

    Fuckin’ freedom of association, how does it work? And I don’t want to talk to a legal theorist, ya’ll motherfuckers lyin’ n’ gettin’ me pissed.

    1. I’m guessing since he works in hippie central it will work just fine.

    2. Fuckin’ freedom of association, how does it work?

      It’s freedom OF, not freedom FROM. I can have the state force you to associate with me.

      /proglogic

  23. Government is just another word for the things we do to defraud foreigners together

    Ultimately, the students said that because the Department of Homeland Security’s website certified the University of Northern New Jersey, they believed the institution was legitimate. In addition, the website of the New Jersey Education Department listed it as approved. So did the website of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, a national body. Its director, Michale S. McComis, later said he had certified the university in order to cooperate with the government’s investigation.

    At the university’s office in a nondescript building off the Garden State Parkway in Cranford, a man presenting himself as the institution’s president, Steve Brunetti, signed the form. He told A. how proud he was of all “his students” and gave him a souvenir.

    It was a slick T-shirt with the letters UNNJ on the front. On the left sleeve was an American flag.

    A. said he did not think the experience was odd. “I just figured that was the way it was done,” he said.

    1. I can explain. I thought the cop was a prostitute.

  24. Three former aides in Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign have been found guilty of corruption for hiding a payment to an Iowa state senator in exchange for an endorsement.

    I wonder how common this sh1t is, and how many times this happened in the 2016 primary cycle – with BOTH parties.

    1. To bad that state senator wasn’t a convention delegate, you can bribe the fuck out of those people all day long with no foul.

      1. Now THAT’S freedom!

        My vote is always available to the highest bidder. But I’m always the one who winds up paying.

    1. Well, when you freely admit that you’re too crazy to have a job. Trying to think of a situation where you couldn’t work because if your mental health but you should own a gun. Drawing a blank.

      1. A crippling case of agoraphobia? Took me just 3 seconds to come up with one.

        1. But your going to go to a gun store and submit to a background check?

          1. They make gun stores in both cavernous (Bass Pro Shops) and cramped (shooting sports, Tampa fl) sizes…now I’m not sure they can guarantee spider-free so you may have me there

            1. My thing is that if you can take all the necessary steps to aquire a gun, practice with it, and handle it safetly you should be able to get the gun but probbly be kicked off disability cause if you can do all that, you can work. My biggest issue is how do you get off the list if your mental situation improves.

              1. Personally I’d be cool with eliminating background checks and being able to mail order any gun you want from Amazon. I’m just saying that if your claiming that society has to pay your way because your mentally unable to take care if your shit then my outrage meter is probably not going to max out on red.

      2. Trying to think of a situation where you couldn’t work because if your mental health but you should own a gun. Drawing a blank.

        There are plenty of mental health issues that may debilitate someone from obtaining consistent employment, yet not cause them to pose a threat of serious bodily harm to themselves or others.

        How the fuck this isn’t a giant violation of the spirit of HIPAA, never mind taking a giant shit on doctor-patient confidentiality, I don’t know.

      3. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

      4. These are people who have delegated their finances to their kids. I have no idea if this was a hostile decision to label them incompetent, or if that’s simply the easiest way to get it approved.

      5. Just because they know you have (or had) a mental health issue doesn’t mean they’re granting disability on account of it.

  25. Breaking:

    Romney skipping GOP convention

    Bodes well for President Hillary Clinton.

    Say it with me!

    President Hillary Clinton!
    President Hillary Clinton!
    President Hillary Clinton!
    President Hillary Clinton!

    1. Why should anyone care?

    2. WDATPDIM?

      1. OK, third good thing about Trump. There should be a deluge of WDATPDIM commercials this fall.

      2. OK, third good thing about Trump. There should be a deluge of WDATPDIM commercials this fall.

    3. ::stabs self in eye with rusty fork::

  26. When Empiricism Fails To Produce The Outcome “Everybody Knows”

    Stanford University was under the gun. Its alumni were outraged threatening to withhold donations. What could cause the graduates of an elite school on the wrong coast to feel such anger? Results that didn’t confirm their bias.

    Moreover, Stanford’s chosen methodology and presentation of data produces misleading results. For example, Stanford has made much of the finding that just 1.9% of its students experienced sexual assault, but the 1.9% figure averaged together the experiences of men, women, and gender-diverse students. Similarly, the 1.9% figure ? as well as other statistics ? is derived from a considerably narrower definition of sexual assault than the definition used by the AAU survey and most of our peer institutions. Under Stanford’s definition, some behavior that would constitute a felony would be classified as “sexual misconduct,” rather than as assault.

    These and other problems seriously undermine the value of the survey in addressing sexual assault at Stanford.

    1. It’s not that Stanford’s administration and faculty didn’t understand the problem, and the depth of feelings. And they did the best they could to calm things down.

      “Nearly 40 percent of our undergraduate women experience a nonconsensual sexual violation ? nearly 40 percent,” [President John] Hennessy said. “That is disgraceful. We have a serious problem. We have documented it, and we must aggressively address it through education, prevention, support and adjudication. We need to get on with changing our culture and educating our community.”

      1. “Nearly 40 percent of our undergraduate women experience a nonconsensual sexual violation”

        I love these longwinded terms that could mean anything. What is a ‘nonconsensual sexual violation?’ I’m pretty sure I’ve experienced some of those and yet I somehow managed to live.

        1. Everyone who has ever read a creative SF comment on this board?

        2. Getting whistled at? A drunken kiss at a party?

        3. “Nearly 40 percent of our undergraduate women experience a nonconsensual sexual violation”

          I believe that. It is probably higher. It has happened to me, and I am disgusting.

          1. Noncensensual? I’m skeptical.

            1. Like Irish said, the definition of a sexual violation is so expansive now that it can mean anything a woman determines she does not, or did not want. Kissing a woman when she did not want you to kiss her, touching her, and not not necessarily a breast, but a leg or a thigh or a back or a whatever else. It is probably 95%.

              1. I was questioning your personal claim that you experienced a nonconsensual sexual sitution, emphasis on nonconsensual.

            2. Under ‘yes means yes’ rules anything not verbally consented to is nonconsensual. So no matter how much Crusty might have actually wanted it, it was still nonconsenual.

          2. The number is much higher – any co-ed that isn’t flat out gross has probably had her ass grabbed in a club or had creepy massage guy try to hand out a free unsolicited back rub hoping things might go a bit farther. That doesn’t mean they were raped or even sexually assaulted.

      2. I’m confused.

        Let’s say you sign a consensual sexual agreement form and you go and fornicate.

        What happens if the guy ejaculates on the girl’s (or guy – don’t want to discriminate) face (by choice../wink or error) without her consent?

        I see problems.

        1. Unless your forms contain a buyer’s remorse clause, you don’t need to even go that far.

    2. Its alumni were outraged threatening to withhold donations

      Why do I find this highly unlikely?

      1. It was more likely the alumnae threatening to withhold donations.

    1. Well, at least he didn’t shoot it.

      1. Some damn earthling pulled off my helmet!

  27. Progressives Continue to Insist = Europe Does Everything Better
    Europeans Themselves Think They’re Doing Everything Wrong

    The presidents of Europe’s three main institutions on Thursday presented a bleak picture of the European Union, saying the 28-nation bloc lacked leadership and was descending into petty, nationalistic politics.

    “In former times we were working together … we were in charge of a big piece of history. This has totally gone,” he said, complaining that EU citizens did not understand what the European Union was trying to do.

    1. “In former times we were working together … we were in charge of a big piece of history.

      But then the colonies revolted.

    2. I wonder if this includes EU laws that largely ban abortion after the first trimester?

  28. “Criminal charges have been dropped in the case of the Arizona high school football player who exposed himself as a prank in a yearbook photo that was published.”

    Honestly surprised if it was published that they didn’t go after the publisher for child porn.

    1. Here’s the original picture. Talk about an overreaction.

  29. Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have been interviewed by federal investigators as the FBI probe into the security of Clinton’s private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN.

    1. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.

      Well, to be fair, it’s not like finding the Higgs Boson.

      1. Why must it be “willful”? Aren’t the secrecy laws written to a lower standard?

      2. Why must it be “willful”? Aren’t the secrecy laws written to a lower standard?

        1. Not for Party Members, just for the Proles.

        2. Indeed they are. The laws around secrecy are basically strict liability laws.

          John could probably give more detail on this.

  30. Has this been posted yet? It seems like something that would have been.

    Bulldozers battle it out on Chinese street as rival firms clash

    1. Maybe its a way to get their state firms to buy new bulldozers when the ones they have are getting old.

    2. Badass. It’s like mech wars or something.

    3. I thought China passed sensible bulldozer-control legislation.

    4. But according to the Krugman, the Chinese economy is awesome because the top men made it so firms didn’t have to compete for business.

  31. Today in Donald Trump reversals: He’s open to raising the minimum wage, an idea he opposed during the primary debates.

    ? But I see your true colors
    Shining through
    ? I see your true colors
    And that’s why I love you

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will support Trump as the nominee, keeping his stated promise to support the primary winner, whoever it was.

    Just like Arthur Wellesley made good on his promise to marry miss Catherine Pakenham despite his disappointment.

    A Trump-supporting tow truck driver reportedly refused to provide his services to a stranded motorist in North Carolina because she had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker.

    Feel the Bern, lady!

    Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced he’s stepping down, permitting President Tayyip Erdogan to consolidate his power further.

    ? Tayyip Erdogan Lebe lange!
    Ehre sei sein Eigentum!
    Seine holde Scheitel prange,
    Voll vom Jubel, voll von Ruhm! ?

  32. The North Carolina AG is refusing to defend HB2. We can, of course, expect the same reaction to this as we had to Kim Davis not handing out marriage licenses — correct?

    1. Jokes about his multiple marriages?

    2. A private audience with the Pope?

      1. Throwing his ass in jail?

  33. No spoilers:

    Fuck yeah, Europa League.

  34. CIA Chief in Pakistan Thinks He Was Poisoned After Bin-Laden Raid

    Two months after Osama bin Laden was killed, the CIA’s top operative in Pakistan was pulled out of the country in an abrupt move vaguely attributed to health concerns and his strained relationship with Islamabad.

    In reality, the CIA station chief was so violently ill that he was often doubled over in pain, current and former U.S. officials said. Trips out of the country for treatment proved futile. And the cause of his ailment was so mysterious, the officials said, that both he and the agency began to suspect that he had been poisoned.

  35. Apparently Debbie Wasserman Schultz tweeted that she didn’t think independents should be allowed to vote in primaries, or perhaps it was only the primary of her party. Prog friends outraged, fail to realize what primaries actually are and that the parties don’t even have to have those.

    1. There’s a decent chance that DWS gets primaried this year. It would make me so happy.

    2. I’ve been making that argument with a few friends. It’s not government keeping independents out. It’s the party. Just like caucuses are different.

    3. They should pay for their own primaries.

  36. Ilya Somin = Hillary Clinton is a Lesser Evil Than Donald Trump

    I withhold judgement until i see a direct “evil-off”, preferably using force-lightning

    1. On the most recent Wethefifth podcast, Moynihan and Welch made a similar argument, while Kmele was saying that Trump is just another awful politician in a line of awful politicians. I lean heavily toward Kmele’s point of view.

      Hillary has her version of James Carville whisper horrible things to a reporter over a drink in a bar, and that reporter reports the horrible thing. Trump says (or Tweets) some horrible thing directly. Is that the difference?

      1. Yeah Kmele is fucking awesome and is right on the money in this instance. My theory is Trump is a guy that literally has no political ideology he’s just a craven power hungry individual who will do and say anything to become president. I don’t see how that separates him from really most politicians other than he seems to be more transparent about it.

        1. . My theory is Trump is a guy that literally has no political ideology he’s just a craven power hungry individual who will do and say anything to become president.

          Which is the exactly how I would describe Hillary. I loathe them both, I just cannot get behind the argument that one is that much worse than the other.

          1. Well Hillary is a known felon.

        2. Agreed, but I see the argument that him being more obviously unmoored from any sort of principle makes him a scarier proposition. With Clinton and most other politicians, there’s at least an illusion of predictability, even if it is predictably awful, and that is more comforting.

          1. an illusion of predictability, even if it is predictably awful, and that is more comforting.

            This I understand, but that is not the argument many seem to be making.

            1. It’s more an explanation than a justification. Though I am open to the idea that there is some benefit to relative predictability.

              The larger problem is that a major Trump loss likely means Clinton in power with a Dem Senate and possibly House. That broader picture should scare libertarians more than the Hair.

          2. I would say that the lack of ideological principles means that he’s probably not going to make huge changes, because he doesn’t have some central philosophy guiding him to make huge sweeping changes the way that an ideologue would.

            So most likely under Trump, there will be some shuffling around of Top Men. But huge sweeping reforms would require a lot of work, and who would bother with those changes unless one was ideologically committed?

          3. the argument that him being more obviously unmoored from any sort of principle makes him a scarier proposition

            How anyone can even imply that Hillary isn’t obviously unmoored from any sort of principle is incomprehensible to me.

            She ran a fucking money-laundering operation for bribes from foreign countries while she was SecState. How do you get more unprincipled than that?

            1. She does have some political principles, just not any apparent moral principles.

      2. the most recent Wethefifth podcast

        … you mean “The Fifth Column

        I’m confused… was that the same thing as what they did on Sirius radio?

        1. Yes, sir. I was confused. The podcast’s website is http://www.wethefifth.com/

          My bad, yo.

          1. And to be clear I was vastly paraphrasing their discussion. However, neither Matt nor Nosferatu put forth an argument that I found compelling, and I like and respect both of them, so I wanted to agree with them; I am a people please-er.*

            *’Sup ladies?

      3. Hillary planned to use her allies to paint Monica Lewinsky as a deranged stalker even thought she knew Lewensky was telling the truth. Had Lewensky not kept the blue dress, she would have been branded a delusional nut. And Hillary was going to use all of the power of the White House to do that.

        Trump says Mexican immigrants are not the best Mexico has to offer and he is so much worse than someone who was willing to ruin a 20 something interns life for telling the truth.

        I don’t care what you think of Trump, he hasn’t been in politics or had access to the kind of power to have shown himself to be anything like as awful as Hillary. Welch and Moynahan are as always beltway morons.

    2. Ach, what bullshit. “Why, he wants to enforce immigration law! Fascism!!!”

    3. preferably using force-lightning

      No love for force-choke? David Carradine is rolling over in his grave.

      1. No love for force-choke? David Carradine is rolling over in his grave.

        Yeah, to hide the boner you just gave him!

        Ah, wait, yeah, that’s the joke. My bad.

    4. Hillary or Trump is a choice between two Democrats.

      1. One wants to ditch Obamacare. The other wants it expanded to cover illegal aliens.

        Can you detect a difference…?

        1. From here.

          The Pundit Class instigators of the #NeverTrump movement are incentivized differently than those whose careers and reputations are not dependent on a Trump loss; their counsel is tainted and their calls for Pyrrhic victory self-serving. I fear amidst this self-serving infighting we have lost sight of who the enemy is, and it isn’t just Hillary Clinton. Clinton is but a comparatively familiar veneer on a frothing, violent left that has completely departed from America’s values. Our American culture is now a fractured one, without the unifying appreciation for freedoms that used to connect us across shallower divides. We face coming generations, indoctrinated in the public-school and university systems, who seek radical, destructive revolution and dissolution of our national sovereignty. Reversing their gains begins with leadership that unapologetically declares that our American story is a good one, that our people’s sacrifices for freedom, for others, and for principle make our story different and worth cultivating anew. Any pundits who claim there is little difference between Trump and Clinton are wholly removed from what is occurring in America’s universities and schools, the tenor of what is happening in the protest movements, and the destructive aims of the left.

        2. “One wants to ditch Obamacare. The other wants it expanded to cover illegal aliens.”

          One says he wants to ditch Obamacare in the rare moments he isn’t advocating total socialized medicine.

          1. If the choice is between 1) someone who certainly wants a bad thing, and 2) someone who says they don’t want a bad thing most of the time, I’ll take door #2, Alex.

    5. Somin is an idiot. The presidency, while nominally powerful, relies a great deal on three things to maximize its potential for destruction and tyranny: bureaucratic support, media sycophancy, and Congressional spinelessness. Hillary has all three in the bag. Trump can’t even figure out the rules to a primary. Doesn’t matter how evil he is, his incompetence and lack of support from DC will cancel it out.

    6. Sorry. Hillary has a long history, including any number of obvious felonies, of sheer, mendacious, bare-faced awfulness that I can’t agree that she is a lesser evil than anyone by Cthulhu. And that’s debatable.

  37. “Today in Donald Trump reversals: He’s open to raising the minimum wage, an idea he opposed during the primary debates.”

    Now that he’s playing for swing votes rather than registered Republicans, we’ll see a lot more like this.

    Just wait ’til you get a load of what he thinks about “assault weapons”!

    1. I see him offering universal background checks before assault weapons restrictions, but yeah, it’s all going to be on the table for the dealing with this guy. And unlike if Hillary/Sanders/whoever proposes them, Trump’ll get quite a few GOP guys to support him in the name of party unity.

      Christ, we’re in deep shit. 2008 and ’09 already told me that saying, “I told you so,” afterwards is not at all satisfying.

      From conversations I had in the spring/summer of 2008:
      “But Obama’s going to clean up Washington and stop Bush! He’s an outsider!”

      “Let me get this straight. You’re relying on a Chicago politician, who got his Senate seat by opening his opponent’s sealed divorce court transcripts through God only knows what kind of corrupt persuasion, who’s previous experience has been a ‘community organizer’/rabble rouser: You’re relying on this guy to clean up Washington? Good luck.”

      November happened, Kevin Johnson’s little bribery scandal that got swept under the rug, and we were off to the races.

      1. If Trump is some kind of American Peron populist demagogue, I seriously doubt gun rights will be something he chooses to fuck with. If he is some kind of closet left wing fellow traveler, then he isn’t a populist demagogue.

        1. If he is some kind of closet left wing fellow traveler, then he isn’t a populist demagogue.

          I don’t see the two sets as exclusive. He is a NY crony capitalist, who has contributed to Democratic politicians in his state and others, both by his words and by his wallet. He is also a populist, who says rude things about Mexicans, illegal and otherwise. His economic policies, to the extent they can be characterized at all from one day to the next, are protectionist and populist.

          None of those things prohibit him from advocating for “reasonable” kinds of gun control. I do not think he will seek out to enact those kinds of laws, but I definitely think he’ll offer those concessions if he thinks he needs to in order to enact something he really wants. A principled defender of the Constitution wouldn’t do that, but that’s not Trump and it never has been.

          Trump’s only principle is to do what’s best for the principal. If it puts his name in lights, so much the better.

  38. Further evidence that iowahawk still visits the comments?

    Every internet thread eventually devolves into an argument about pizza or craft beers. #DavesLaws

    1. I would add barbecue to the list.

  39. i liked this little tidbit at the bottom of an article about the recent SEAL killed in Iraq =


    At a press briefing on April 25, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the administration’s promises that there would be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq did not mean U.S. soldiers would never be involved in combat, only that there would be no “large-scale conventional ground combat operations”.

    1. As always, they’ll get a pass on bare-faced lies, even when they basically brag about them in press conferences.

  40. This is interesting:

    It has been alleged that, during her term of service as Secretary of State, Clinton violated a provision of the federal statute mandating government record keeping. Section 2071 of Title 18 of the United States Code provides:

    “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa…..id=2679512

    1. Does Congress have the power to pass a law prohibiting people from holding office? I would think the Constitution would need to be amended.

      1. The linked paper seems to cover that very issue.

  41. re: the above-linked Ben Rhodes Mega-piece in the NYT, i took note of this =

    What has interested me most about watching him and his cohort in the White House over the past seven years, I tell him, is the evolution of their ability to get comfortable with tragedy. I am thinking specifically about Syria, I add, where more than 450,000 people have been slaughtered.

    “Yeah, I admit very much to that reality,” he says. “There’s a numbing element to Syria in particular. But I will tell you this,” he continues. “I profoundly do not believe that the United States could make things better in Syria by being there. And we have an evidentiary record of what happens when we’re there ? nearly a decade in Iraq.”

    Iraq is his one-word answer to any and all criticism.

    Here’s the thing though, Ben; You’re the guy who came up with the line “Assad Must Go“, which, alongside the shiploads of weapons you were sending the Syrian Rebels, basically said to them,

    – “We’ve got your back 100%… and will end Assad’s regime just like Libya”

    And as tens of thousands died monthly, the US ‘re-evaluated’ its role.

    Now you act like you “avoided a bigger mistake” by ensuring the US didn’t invade? Classy.

    1. the writer manages to hone in on some of the inherent gaps in ‘reality-acceptance’ by the Obama regime at the end there =

      raq is his one-word answer to any and all criticism. I was against the Iraq war from the beginning, I tell Rhodes, so I understand why he perpetually returns to it. I also understand why Obama pulled the plug on America’s engagement with the Middle East, I say, but it was also true as a result that more people are dying there on his watch than died during the Bush presidency, even if very few of them are Americans.
      What I don’t understand is why, if America is getting out of the Middle East, we are apparently spending so much time and energy trying to strong-arm Syrian rebels into surrendering to the dictator who murdered their families, or why it is so important for Iran to maintain its supply lines to Hezbollah. [Rhodes] mutters something about John Kerry, and then goes off the record, to suggest, in effect, that the world of the Sunni Arabs that the American establishment built has collapsed. The buck stops with the establishment, not with Obama, who was left to clean up their mess.

      It is clearly time for me to go.

      He doesn’t quite nail Rhodes on the Syrian-handwaving… but he certainly does throw the entirety of Obama’s Middle East policy under the bus in that paragraph. He points out that for all Rhodes’ success as a spin-meister… the reality of the world he’s been stage-managing is an utter shitshow.

    2. Remember that “Red Line” Obama drew? That if Assad used chemical weapons in the war, the US would promptly give him the treatment they gave Gaddafi. Within weeks such an attack actually occurred, purportedly by Assad, against some toothless villagers somewhere for no real military purpose or in any discernible way to Assad’s benefit.

      Now think about that in this context. There were no chemical weapons used before he drew that Red Line and there have been no chemical weapons attacks since he made clear that his Red Line wasn’t actually real.

      I don’t think it was Assad that used chemical weapons. I think it was a rebel group that stood to gain most from US involvement, that being these “moderates”, Obama’s guys. I don’t think Obama ordered it, I think he caused it by opening his big incompetent mouth while going out on a limb for barbarians.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.