Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson on Foreign Policy & War: We Need to Involve Congress in Decisions

The Libertarian nominee pitches himself to a mainstream audience

|

Gary Johnson
PBS

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson appeared on PBS' NewsHour this afternoon to answer questions about libertarianism and his candidacy from Judy Woodruff.

Asked whether he'd join NATO if Russia's Vladimir Putin "were to go into a country in Eastern Europe," Johnson pointed out the U.S. was involved in "many treaties with foreign countries where we are obligated to defend the border," but that these treaties weren't ratified by Congress.

While the North Atlantic Treaty that established NATO was ratified by the U.S. Senate, Johnson's broader point about Congressional involvement stands. "We need to involve Congress in all of these [foreign policy] decisions that they've abdicated to the executive and the military," Johnson insisted to Woodruff.

Johnson, who has called himself a "skeptic" of intervention, and whom Woodruff called a "non-interventionist but not an isolationist," is poised to enable Congress to reassert its role in foreign policy decision making, and specifically the decisions to go to war. Members of Congress should consider Johnson's stance whether or not he gets elected—a Congress that takes its responsibility in the war decision making process seriously is critical in a potential Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump presidency, presidencies that would largely be driven by cults of personality and the idea of an imperial presidency.

In response to the Putin question, Johnson also insisted that as president he would "avoid drawing lines in the sand," pointing out that President Obama often drew lines in the sand and then allowed them to be crossed, weakening U.S. foreign policy.

Woodruff pressed Johnson to find something about Hillary Clinton that would warrant the kind of criticism Johnson's vice presidential running mate, Bill Weld, levied at Trump, comparing his immigration plan to Nazi policies that led to the Holocaust. "I believe that Hillary Clinton is going to grow government, that government is all about giving out things," Johnson said. "Nothing is free, somebody pays for that." Eventually, Johnson landed on the foreign policy criticism, calling Clinton "a primary architect of our foreign policy, which has made the world less safe." For all of Trump's rhetoric, Clinton is the one with blood on her hands already, a point that could be useful for Johnson to make between now and November as he tries to peel votes away from both sides.

On the domestic front, Johnson insisted he would not phase out Social Security, saying it was "absolutely fixable." He also rejected questions by Woodruff about issues like seatbelt laws (he says he wears them) and texting while driving laws, pointing out those issues were for local and state governments. Asked about food safety, he said that his proposal for a 20 percent reduction in federal spending was "not the end of the world" and that he'd welcome any legislation from Congress that shrunk the role of government, while insisting government existed to protect people against government, corporations, and other entities. He also called on eliminating the income tax and corporate taxes and replacing them with a federal consumption tax. Abolishing the corporate tax, he said, would lead to the creation of tens of millions of jobs.

NEXT: Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

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. Presidents *already* involve Congress in their warmaking decisions.

    “Hey, I’ve started this really cool war that all real Americans ought to support! Now give me some money to fight the war, or are you a traitor?”

  2. and texting while driving laws, pointing out those issues were for local and state governments.

    As I said, I’m born again on texting laws. Now that everyone texts while driving, the issue turns out has nothing to do with accidents, but with getting traffic moving. Everyone’s doing 1/3rd the damned speed limit, sitting at lights, missing signals because they’re texting.

      1. The roads should be left to pretty much me and Richard Branson. Everyone else should be on public transit.

      2. “Oh god yes.”

        Case in point, Ed is texting while getting a hummer.

    1. I don’t care if you go to church or pray to God or enlist in the army or or feed to homeless or run for city council, your first and most important moral and civic imperative is to watch the goddamn arrow if you’re first in line.

      1. If you get caught snoozing at the head of a line in an intersection, the punishment should be an electroshock implant in your seat that “persuades” you to pay attention.

    2. Everyone’s doing 1/3rd the damned speed limit

      It’s the same for pedestrians, believe me.

      1. It’s really really easy to push those people in front of a bus, they are so unprepared and off balance.

  3. He also called on eliminating the income tax and corporate taxes and replacing them with a federal consumption tax.

    My wigga.

    1. I agree with this plan.

    2. I don’t believe in a consumption tax.
      I do believe in eliminating corporate income taxes altogether.
      I also believe in having a single flat Income Tax Rate with ZERO exemptions/deductions on ALL INCOME and is charged to EVERYBODY !!!

      I say eliminate sales tax and consumption tax and all of that garbage and simply have one type of tax: Income Tax.

      Although I disagree with Gary Johnson on this and other points, he’s my guy for President.

      1. You see, Alice, you’re in favor of an income tax because you don’t want to pay your fair share.

        1. Exactly. Now if it really wants a single flat income tax rate. How about we take the Federal Budget. Divide by the number of adults and send each one a bill for that amount. Talk about SHTF.

          1. I also believe in having a single flat Income Tax Rate with ZERO exemptions/deductions on ALL INCOME and is charged to EVERYBODY !!!

            Translation: I don’t got no taxable income.

            1. Do it by % of Salary.

              Cool with me. My income consists of profit, royalties, rent, contracting fees, and interest, so none of it would be taxable as “salary.”

          2. One of the beauties about the flat consumption tax is that you’ve effectively eliminated the need for the IRS.

            Imagine the boost of well being that could give to millions of Americans once that great evil is gone.

            1. Encourage both working and saving. Imagine that.

      2. I say eliminate sales tax and consumption tax and all of that garbage and simply have one type of tax: Income Tax.

        Income taxes are immoral. They are the prima fascie justification for domestic spying.

        As a libertarian I cannot abide an income tax because it taxes human effort. And the glaring issue that people who support a flat tax can’t provide an argument for is: what’s income?

        If you can give me a 500 word (or less) description of what counts as income, you’ll do better than any human being on the subject.

        1. That’s easy. Cribbed from Wiki because I’m lazy:
          Income is the sum of all the wages, salaries, profits, interests payments, rents, and other forms of earnings received in a given period of time.

          The government likes to water down what constitutes income as a way to curry favor with voters. A flat tax simply seeks to align taxable income with actual income.

          1. Incomplete. The use of a car or cell phone, or even living quarters can and is considered “income” payable in dollars. Gifts, inherited art works, furniture, and endless other types of “personal property” that come into your possession can be considered “income” by the IRS. And the IRS wants its share in cold… hard… cash.

            1. This is an important point. With an income tax, I can’t give my brother $30k without the government deciding they need a cut.

              Real scenario: My wife’s sister lost her house to a fire. The annual exclusion at the time was $12k. They needed on the order of $25k pretty quick and the rest of her family didn’t have any real money. So they got $24k from us – 12 each – and the rest of the family chipped in a couple of hundred bucks.

              Without the exclusion limitation I would have been able to send them more money. But I was able to tell the wife that we were done at $24k because of the IRS. So what I am saying is that the income tax on gifts is a good thing? Wait, I think my point got derailed somewhere along the way.

      3. Why is an income tax morally superior to a consumption tax?

        1. From a prog point of you, the more you make the more they take. And they can play the little EIC game where the give people who don’t pay taxes “tax refunds” which is a program rife with fraud as you can imagine. Of course the whole system is. Filing fraudulent tax returns is a full time job for some people in prison. Consumption tax much cleaner.

          1. I was hoping Alice had a reason, but whatever. I could only add to your list that with an income tax the State gets to initiate violence on the individual.

        2. The idea is big in certain circles because:
          1. Poor people spend a higher percentage of their income. (not actual dollar amounts, of course, just percentage)
          2. Government is greedy

          1. Those ‘certain circles’ are not bastions of Freedom, I’m afraid. (Accepting the pro income tax premise.)

          2. Plus consumption taxes are scary to big government lovers as you can (with some difficulty) control the purse strings by controlling your excess consumption – putting more of the money you earn into the bank is easier to do than forgoing extra income opportunities for most people.

            1. What are you going to do w that $ in the bank?

              This fetish for focusing on either prod’n or consumption is silly. Either way, you’re taxing people’s std. of living.

              1. No tax forms, no tax preparation companies, less fraud. Everyone pays something for their government and therefore are aware of what their government cost them every time they take out their wallet. Less ability for the government to play games.

                1. Then there is the attractiveness of hiding the actual tax liability each person faces.

                  We have that problem with the income tax to an extent:

                  How much did you pay in taxes this year?

                  I didn’t have to pay, I got two grand back!

                  Depending on how it is presented on the receipt, it might be hard to tell what you paid on one shopping trip (particularly if hidden as a VAT). But more importantly, how in the world are you supposed to see just how much money you are sending off to Washington in total? At least your 1040 lists your total tax liability.

                  Not that this is sufficient to promote an income tax over a consumption tax.

                  How about we cut spending to 8% of GDP and then the arguments over what type of tax to use become much easier….

          3. You can eliminate food from the consumption taxes and keep them low on utilities and it would still be a pretty progressive tax. Rich people buy more expensive things.

            1. You can’t. Once you open the door to exemptions you sow the seeds of the schemes destruction.

              One tax on every purchase – that’s it.

              1. Fair Tax. Per capita “prebate” of your taxes up to the poverty level, and everything* is taxed at X%

                *that is eligible

              2. If it’s on every purchase, then it’d have to be something like a VAT, else items that changed hands a lot would be multiply taxed.

                1. Companies pay taxes which are passed on to consumers so that happens now.

                2. The Fair Tax mentioned above only applies to new items. So if money’s tight, you buy used.

              3. Well I’m fine with that but I mentioned it because I’m pretty that it would be implemented that way if it came to fruition. At least the food portion of it.

              4. “You can’t. Once you open the door to exemptions you sow the seeds of the schemes destruction.”

                Florida state sales tax does not apply to food. Been that way for a long time. Works fine.

                1. Ohio is the same way

                  1. Same in TX, but the games they play with what counts as taxable food get…ridiculous.

                    1. In Florida, i becomes taxable once it goes into ‘preparation mode’, for example in a restaurant or buying deli sandwich at the grocery store.

                      Non-taxed is at the grocery store retail level.

                      Still very easy to define and implement.

              5. We have consumption tax exemptions now and they’re far… FAR less onerous than ‘income tax exemptions’.

      4. You can go fuck yourself if you think I should have to pay the government for the privilege of supporting my family. Slaver.

    3. I’m all about it.

  4. “We need to involve Congress in all of these [foreign policy] decisions that they’ve abdicated to the executive and the military,” Johnson insisted to Woodruff.”

    What is this Constitution madness you libertarians keep talking about?

  5. GayJay had a much larger audience tonight on Fox’s Special Report With Bret Baier

  6. Krauthammer asked him when he stopped smoking dope.

    1. What does Krauthammer mean in English?

      1. It’s a tool commonly used to make cole slaw.

        1. Common mistake. It’s actually a clitoris.

      2. “””What does Krauthammer mean in English?””

        Warmongeringshithead

        1. Close. Warmongeringlyingshithead

  7. “Asked whether he’d join NATO if Russia’s Vladimir Putin “were to go into a country in Eastern Europe,””

    We should drop out of NATO. We gain nothing from it. We can create individual treaties and alliances as needed when threats arise. As far as what we would do if Putin did this or the Chinese do that. Only an idiot shows his hand. When we’re ready to negotiate through the media, we’ll let you know. Until then, bugger off.

    1. Not sure how much worse Putin can be than Brussels.

      1. really. wdatpdim. Payoff the the Russian mob every year or prostrate and face Mecca 5 times every day.

        1. Mecca 5 times a day and the Brussels Nanny bot army up your arse 24/7, never stopping in their evil ambition to think up new and even more bizarre machinations with which to torment you..

  8. So we need MORE congressional intercourse?

    1. Bill Clinton looks forward to reaching across the aisle and bringing interns together.

  9. …We Need to Involve Congress in Decisions

    Whether they want to be or not.

  10. I have a question for libertarians:

    BAre you a fan of simply getting rid of all social services?
    – Social Security
    – Medicaid/Medicare
    – Welfare
    – Food Stamps
    – Unemployment Benefits
    – Public School Grants
    – Public Schools and Public Hospitals

    Should we get rid of all of this and only keep the police department and the court system to protect property and the Military to protect our borders?

    This would lower the taxes people would have to pay.
    We can even eliminate all taxes altogether and have charities pay for the police department and the court system.
    Or, they can be voluntary like some towns have Volunteer fire departments.

    1. It’s almost like you’ve never actually read any libertarian literature…

    2. We pay SS, you know that, right? I’m in favor of privatizing it because the government is looting the cookie jar.

      Most libertarians are in favor of a safety net also, for people who really need it. But the system is being played and there’s tons of fraud and corruption. Things like welfare were never meant as a replacement for work, but now you have people who don’t even look for work, young healthy people, and they just collect benefits and never even look for work and have no plans of ever doing so.

      1. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we were to get rid of all of it.

        This would probably put over 1,000,000 people out of work by getting rid of all these programs.
        I’m wondering what people would do if there were no jobs and no where to turn for help.

        1. Many of them would make new jobs, if the government didn’t do everything they could to prevent this from happening.

          1. Make new jobs doing what?

            These aren’t our Bill Gates/Steve Jobs people, these are the ladies at the DMV and shit.

            Like I said, I would love a Donald Trump or someone to come in and just remove all of it and let’s see what happens to AMerica.

            1. The ladies at the DMV are not on welfare nor are they administering welfare programs so why would they lose their jobs if welfare programs were cut?

            2. All of those jobs are a net drain on the economy because they are funded by tax payers.

              Are you saying these people are so worthless they can’t find a real job?

              Just tell us you can’t imagine a world without DMV employees, Alice. Go ahead, I want to hear this.

            3. Make new jobs doing what?

              Anything their little hearts desire. Grow pot, sell cupcakes, start an urban CSA. Buy a laundromat, invest in the stock market. Design and release a tablet pre-loaded with a comprehensive k-12 educational software that a child can complete at their own pace anywhere, and put public teachers out of work too!

              Amazing things, and you want them shackled to Window 4 at the food stamp office. Set them free, Alice.

              1. Freedom is slavery.

        2. I don’t think it’s feasible politically to end everything all at once anyways. You start by not growing and cut the workforce through attrition like is done in the private sector all the time. You can’t tell people close to retirement, guess what you get nothing. It will be phased out and the jobs can be phased out along with it. I don’t think it’s going away completely anyways. It would probably be something like you would get a form from your 401K or IRA company at the end of the year, and you could get some sort of credit against your SS deductions and get some of that back which in turn reduces your SS benefit.

        3. If those people are put *out of a job* because we’ve eliminated welfare programs then those people *were administering the welfare programs*.

          Government is not a jobs program. Jobs are a cost, not a benefit. Cut back on regulation and these former program administrators can find their own work. Maybe not at the comfy salary they were getting before but who fucking cares.

          1. At least maybe they’ll become productive members of society, maybe. I don’t even want anyone telling me that the malcontent assholes at the DMV are doing anything to benefit society in any way, at all.

        4. Here’s a quote from an article you should read, Alice Bowie:

          I was an undergraduate when the Cold War ended. I still remember talking about military spending cuts with a conservative student. The whole idea made her nervous; she had no idea how a market economy would absorb the discharged soldiers. In her mind, to lay off 100,000 government employees was virtually equivalent to disemploying 100,000 people for life.

          If a well-educated individual ideologically opposed to wasteful government spending thinks like this, it is hardly surprising that she is not alone. The public often literally believes that labor is better to use than conserve. Saving labor, producing more goods with fewer man-hours, is widely perceived not as progress but as a danger. I call this the make-work bias, a tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of conserving labor. Where noneconomists see the destruction of jobs, economists see the essence of economic growth: the production of more with less.

          The 4 Boneheaded Biases of Stupid Voters

        5. “This would probably put over 1,000,000 people out of work by getting rid of all these programs.
          I’m wondering what people would do if there were no jobs and no where to turn for help.”

          You don’t think eliminating:

          Social Security
          – Medicaid/Medicare
          – Welfare
          – Food Stamps
          – Unemployment Benefits
          – Public School Grants
          – Public Schools and Public Hospitals

          and leaving all those trillions of dollars in the hands of private business and individuals is going to be a boost to the economy of staggering proportions?

      2. I’ve collected unemployment before but I’m no longer in favor of it. Last time I was laid off, as an experiment, I didn’t apply for it. As a result I found a job in record time. Safety nets diminish your motivation to improve your situation.

        1. To answer Alice’s question, I’d be in favor of getting rid of everything on the list minus law enforcement and defense. Although they are in desperate need of reform.

          1. But is it ok if we get rid of ALL Taxes and have law enforcement and defense funding by charities and volunteers? Since tax is theft.

            1. You’ve read libertarian literature, right? You’ve been here long enough that I don’t really think its profitable to spend time reiterating basic libertarian positions. You can find this stuff in a freaking Wikiwalk.

            2. Is it ok? It’s ok by me, but the only way were going to see that in our lifetimes is if we go the route of Venezuala first which I suppose could happen.

            3. Read Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick if you want a tutorial about how it could work. I’m not an anarchist and I find discussing things that are likely never to happen kind of a waste of time. I guess one could dream.

              1. I have that book, gift from my son-in-law.

                I don’t think Alice can learn anything from that. Alice is just being cynical here, she wants libertarians to say eliminate all government so she can yell ‘anarchy, anarchy!’. That’s all Alice is doing here, Alice is not here to learn or even listen.

                1. Yeah, I know you’re right. That’s why I usually don’t even bother.

            4. let me ask you AB – what do police do for you?

              For me? Where I live they hand out traffic tickets, sleep through their shift in the cul-de-sac, take a report when the local convenience store has had someone do a beer-run – and then apologize because the guys who did it were NA’s and have slipped back onto the reservation so they’re not going to bother to go after them.

              Yeah, I’d be willing to self-fund local security.

              1. I’m not arguing with that. I’m well armed. My point is that if I look at where this country is at today, there is a long way to go from where we are now to a world where we are privatizing the police force. We can’t even cut their pensions for fuck sakes. That’s why I find this whole libertarian utopia philosophizing kind of a mute point. I just want to get to the point where we can start cutting government. How do we get there? How can we cut the government even a little bit? If we can’t even get to that point then wtf are we talking about private police forces for?

                1. Sometimes contracting out gov’t services has been proposed as a facilitating step. At 1st it costs as much as it always did, but then the contractors can start doing it cheaper & cheaper.

                2. How about eliminating the Departments of Education and Energy and repealing ObamaCare first? If that’s too aggressive for a first step, at least eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and cut out the bullshit studies at the CDC. Fact is that, even with a Republican President and majorities in the House and Senate, our worthless politicians couldn’t even do that.

                  1. They can’t do anything because they’re cowards. Just the threat of the left calling them racist, sexist, bigot, etc is all it takes for them to hunker down in fear. If Trump is good for anything, it’s that he’s shown them that you can stand up to this pc non-sense and the left will be left speechless and looking impotent. The GOP and libertarians had better take this cue and run with it. Sure we should do it with more class and with actual facts, but it needs to be done. We need some people with character, strength, and no fear, enough of these pussies.

                  2. at least eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts

                    Yes, PLEASE. The only reason for the NEA is for people who believe themselves so much more sophisticated than the slope-headed morons of the public, to be able to sell what no one would willingly buy.

                    Beethoven, da Vinci, and Mozart had patrons. The NEA-grubbers can get themselves to YouTube, Patreon, and KickStarter. Which should make for an interesting social experiment. If you can’t get anyone to support you, maybe your work is just shit.

            5. “But is it ok if we get rid of ALL Taxes and have law enforcement and defense funding by charities and volunteers? Since tax is theft.”

              The government’s function is to protect the individual rights of the citizens. So, first do a check of what our individual rights are or are supposed to be defined as. Then you can easily figure out what government functions are legit (and must be payed for by the citizens) and which should be axed.

              Have you never really thought about this before?

      3. How many young healthy people have no plans to look for work? Very few, I think, but then they find out how inflexible the job market is, & suffer from some inflexibility themselves when they’re ill prepared.

        I think people just get discouraged when they find out their training & experience ain’t woith shit in any job they might be trying to get, and where to get anything more than a token job in a field (of which there are hardly any available) requires orienting oneself for a career in that field, which means shutting yourself out of others, and by the time you’re prepared, the field may be much less lucrative. And it’s not just about young people.

        So they do odd jobs, on or off the books, maybe having someone w the right credential sign off on it. And they collect benefits because they’re poor, at least on paper, & probably to some extent in reality.

        1. And then they get busted for some low level drug offense which is now on there record and limits their options even more

        2. “but then they find out how inflexible the job market is”

          What does that mean, “inflexible job market”? I remember in my grandpa’s day people commonly worked 45 years at one company.

          By “inflexible” do you mean that most employers won’t pay you to stand in the corner reciting Robert Frost if your job is to install the right turn signal on a Ford Mustang?

    3. Doing all of the above would devastate the economy. The only benefit I see is that I would have about another $15,000 per year in my pocket. But that is just my opinion.

      Since the only benefit I really use at this point is the public schools, I personally would make a lot of money on the deal. However, I’d have to rely on zero safety nets. But at the point I’m at in my life, I really don’t need any of those benefits.

      1. Correction, doing all of the above and not keeping it in check at all IS devastating the economy.

    4. I’m for decentralizing power to the greatest extent possible. From a Federal level, that would mainly involve having a military (defensive), and I think there can be major cuts overall there. I can see some federal role in other areas as well. Certainly the feds can bring money and manpower to situations where state and local governments are in over there heads. I’m not all that focused on the details of what my Libertopia would be since we’re so far away from that. For right now I would be happy with as much scaling back in money and power from Washington as we can get. Smaller military, end the WOD (for all kinds of reasons), scale back the DOJ, end the surveillance state, gtfo of the middle east. Budget wise, we should be able to cut a Trillion dollars right now since TARP and the “Stimulus” should never have been made part of the baseline budget. I could go on but as I said, it’s about moving forward for now. Anarchist have all sorts of ideas about eliminating all government and handling LE and courts,etc. but I’ll defer those arguments to them.

    5. Should we get rid of all of this and only keep the police department and the court system

      Yes, and those too. This isn’t working.

      Secure the common defense via a volunteer military. That’s the only function I’m sold on.

  11. “Nothing is free, somebody else pays for that.”

    FIFY

    And, “feature, not a bug” says the proglodyte.

  12. We Need to Involve Congress in Decisions

    No Gary, you don’t. If *you* think we should go to war, likely so do some people in Congress. Let them sort it out. Its their *responsibility* after all. If they don’t do anything, that’s a fucking decision – respect it.

    There is, IMO, not a single scenario where its appropriate for the President to present a case for conflict to Congress. Not even self-defense – after all, if we’ve already been attacked then Congress knows *that*.

    Keep the military ready and, when the word is given, tear the enemy a new asshole, but if its not don’t be running around with your warboner out trying to get someone to stroke it.

    1. It’s not just that. It’s if you’re running for prez, & asked about foreign policy, bringing up Congress’s responsibility or authority in that regard sounds like begging off. You do have ideas about foreign policy, don’t you? There may well be matters of foreign policy that require acts of Congress, but even then you should say which acts you’d like to sign & which you wouldn’t. If you have ideas regarding treaties, then although the senate is to ratify them, it’ll be your ministers negotiating them. And as pointed out, you don’t need & shouldn’t even seek Congressional assent to repel invasion.

    2. It’s answers like that that make me suspect he’s memorized a stock list of answers he’s been told are libertarian.

  13. United States refuses to have it’s own great revolution and join the rest of the modern progressive world. Women hardest hit:

    Viva la revolucion!

    1. Prices, motherfucker, prices. You hipsters can’t even extended order anymore.

    2. At least it was a member of the “security force” who shot her and not another dirty peasant. Thank God for sensible gun control.

  14. OT: Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination.

      1. “She will become the first female nominee for a major US political party.”

        What about James Buchanan?

        1. It has taken a long 227 years to get even this far.

          Christ, identity politics is nauseating. You’re going to look at this corrupt, out-of-touch establishment authoritarian and tell me her nomination to a cynical party machine is a boon to womankind?

          1. And note that they said *major* US political party.

            The first female Presidential candidate was Victoria Woodhull, who Hillary probably thinks was too conservative.

      2. They had to hurry up with that before she loses Cali tomorrow.

    1. Also, I think you just lit the buttplug signal…

      1. Good, I like reminding him to provide proof of his bet after every post he makes.

    2. “OT: Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination”

      I know what you are saying, but she isn’t nominated until the convention, same as Trump.

      1. ^I read “conviction” instead of “convention” here. Got excited but alas…

    3. But rival Bernie Sanders said Mrs Clinton had not won as she was dependent on superdelegates who could not vote until July’s party convention.

      Thank God, he’s going to drag this out till the convention. Please please please let there be riots.

      1. I feel kind of shitty about it but I am kind of hoping for riots as well.

  15. I was reading the comments of the Stubblefield case in the NYT.

    My God, are they retarded people that comment over there.

    Depressing as hell.

      1. I hadn’t even known there was a Stubblefield case…but in order to say whether or not the court did the right thing I’d have to look at the same evidence the court looked at…a daunting prospect.

        Or read a discussion by someone who has been following the case and isn’t a deranged SJW.

        1. Have Gavin explain it to you!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnb-tE0QwkQ

          1. That was interesting, thank you.

            I’ll go out on a limb and say she’s a sex offender.

            1. Another SJW psychopath.

          2. Holy shit, Gavin don’t fuck around or pull any punches. And as usual, he does a great job of mansplaining the derp.

            1. This is a Gavin gem I recently came across. Don’t be drinking anything near the end of the clip.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqwxIlm293I

              1. I laughed out loud at that one. If I’d been drinking anything I may have choked.

              2. Lol, that was great.

        2. I’ve never heard of this before.

          In late December, Anna Stubblefield ? a former chairwoman of the philosophy department at Rutgers University in Newark….was found guilty of raping a man with disabilities on the floor of her campus office.

          “I was deeply in love,” she wrote from prison, referring to the person she was convicted of assaulting ? a black man with cerebral palsy known as “D.J.” in the news media. “I believed that he and I were intellectual equals [*this may be true – G], and that our romantic relationship was consensual and mutually loving. I intended no harm, and I had nothing to gain.”

          Anna claimed that the “rape” was nothing of the kind, but rather a long-simmering and unlikely romance that, after much sensitive discussion, had at last been consummated. D.J. can neither talk nor dress himself, but Anna argued that he was able to communicate using a keyboard, as long as she was there to hold his hand and give support.

          Fortunately Robby can surely explain to us exactly how many years is the “right” punishment for this non-consensual sexual-act.

          1. Would if she more closely resembled an evil elf.

            1. What are you waiting for?

              slap some pointy ears on that and you’re good.

              1. I’m surprised she did not take the victim back to the tree where she bakes cookies.

                1. She looks like she just found out that once again she was not getting the starring role in the Paramus Playhouse’s annual presentation of Peter Pan.

                  1. you’re killing me.

                    her prison cell will of course be a nest of magic thorns.

                2. oh my.

                  neither here nor there, because i just can’t muster the give-a-shit levels anymore… but it seems from a ‘technical, legal POV’ what this woman actually did was *far* more significant than what the Privilege-Having Stanford Swimmer actually did.

                  e.g. – he and his victim were shitfaced; he never got his dick out; he was convicted of basically dry humping and fingerbanging her while she was passed out.

                  this woman, from what i’ve gathered…. tried to brainwash a cripple…. then stripped them nude and mounted him while he had a seizure… then afterward tried to pretend that her fantasy-pen-pal life with Potato-brain was actually a ‘secret love affair’ which she substantiated with her own interpretations of his meaningless handwaves.

                  or something to that effect.

                  I know people aren’t much into the whole “cold and heartless application of law”, but the fact is, Dude A is not “technically” a rapist, while Evil-Elf B most unfuckingdoubtably is, and not only that = tried to rationalize her own crimes by acting like it was charity.

                  I’m not surprised the former “got off easy”, and the latter is facing hard time.

          2. Anna claimed that the “rape” was nothing of the kind, but rather a long-simmering and unlikely romance that, after much sensitive discussion, had at last been consummated. D.J. can neither talk nor dress himself, but Anna argued that he was able to communicate using a keyboard, as long as she was there to hold his hand and give support.

            That is without a doubt the funniest passage of purple prose I’ll read this week. “Your honor, we were fraught in the throes of passion! Well, not him so much, but I certainly was.”

          3. I don’t recall it either.

            The sad thing is knowing that there are people who because of such a condition may be capable of having & enjoying sexual relations, but will never be allowed to do so, because they’re incapable of consenting to it. You could just as well question their consent to being fed, or their consent to cease being fed.

      2. What a despicable human being

        1. Some of the derp that she attributed to the guy having typed is just so over the top stupid, the judge should have thrown the book at her just for that. Lock up this psychopath before she goes on a mass murder spree.

          1. My daughter is a nurse and helps take care of a young man with that condition whom I’ve met. That’s just beyond belief to me that anyone could be that fucked up in the head. I can’t come up with a better word than despicable.

    1. NYT posters are the worst. They actually think they sound intelligent, that’s what makes it so much worse.

      1. Yeah the smug-derp is strong at the NYT.

  16. Hint: When you’re running for president, don’t say you need to involve Congress. When you’re running for Congress, that’s when you say you need to involve Congress.

    And don’t waste your time on alternate tax forms. Eliminating a corporate income tax, or anybody’s income tax, won’t create jobs if the tax is replaced by another broad-based tax designed to bring in the same amount of $.

  17. OT: on Don Boudreaux’s blog some dude in the comments rejects Don’s arguments on the grounds that some of the words may elicit an emotional response. Shhhhhhhh. Don’t use words like “terrorism” when making an analogy about goods being made scarce by protectionism.

    Times like this I wish I was on Facederp because that’s the only way to participate on the comments. But the feeling passes, and when it does I’m often relieved. As if I just passed gas.

    1. Passing a tariff murders no one and puts no one in fear for their lives.

      Apparently this guy doesn’t know what cops do for a living. Or maybe he’s lost on the road paved by good intentions.

    2. Yeah, Facebook is a complete waste. I get pics of the granddaughter, otherwise I wouldn’t have it.

  18. Ali on Donahue.

    Without knowing the full context of the show, I have no idea if he had a point; he probably did. But he was kinda harsh on the women it seems.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEbgTdCvdbk

    1. Meh, there big girls.

      1. they’re

  19. John Oliver is never going away: he pulverized debt

    Why comes about my det?

    1. We need to launch the Det Offensive!

    2. I get a lot of fake collection and lawsuit calls. Just got one the other day claiming to be the IRS suing me. Dipwads.

    3. Sounds an awful lot like charity… Something his kind says doesn’t exist without the state

      1. Yeah, I think there would be a lot more if the government wasn’t so heavy into the foreign aid and redistribution of wealth.

    4. John Oliver basically makes shitloads of money by reciting Progressive beliefs back to them with a (sanitized) British accent.

      They LOVE accents. it makes their ideas sound so much more sophisticated and worldly. Its also like jacking off with a numb hand. It feels like someone out there from another place is *affirming them*, rather than simply repeating things they already think they know.

      Something on the sidebar there =

      Donald Drumpf: A Funny Label, but Is It Fair?

      I scanned it, but still got no answer to why it was funny.

      1. Like a broken clock, he occasionally nails a topic. Nukes being the most noteworthy one that comes to mind.

      2. In fairness, I love to listen to Charles Cooke, not so much for the accent but because he uses words good and shit.

    1. That is a happy place.

    2. Would

      have no idea what she’s hollering at me.

    1. How may libertarians are compelled by the statement ‘it forces congress into action’? Every time those fuckers go into action about anything I gird my loins with the atomic nut punch armor and head for the fallout shelter.

      1. Ikr?

        The best part about Congress? When it goes into full-blown gridlock mode. Those assholes have a chronic disease when it comes to spending other people’s money. Not to mention how almost anytime Congress gets involved in something, someone somewhere loses their liberty.

        Not a good answer from GayJay. The one major appeal of libertarians was supposed to be that even if you disagreed with libertarianism, you could be sure that a libertarian wouldn’t ram things through and/or abuse authority.

        Now? We’re fucked.

        1. I don’t care if Johnson/Weld are the better of 3 evils. I don’t even care if they’re a lot better. It’s not good enough and I’m embarrassed that they call themselves libertarians. If I’m going to cast a protest vote, which is all it is, I need a good reason, I need to believe in that candidate. I don’t. I’ll stay home.

          1. I’m not going to fervently campaign for Darrell Castle (Constitution Party), but I think I’ll go so far as to point out his existence from time to time.

            1. I’ll check him out, I don’t know anything at all about the guy.

          2. Same. Not a chance that I’d vote for Clinton or Trump, but if GayJay keeps this up, I’ll either stay home or write-in Rand Paul.

            1. I have a bad feeling that not only will he keep it up, but that it will get a lot worse. Damnit, this really bothers me a lot, after all the bad publicity or no publicity that we’ve gotten for so long, now some idiot is going to lead people to believe that libertarians are ‘just like the other teams’, infuriating is what it is.

              I might write in Rand, he was always my top choice this election.

              1. I might write in Rand, he was always my top choice this election.

                ^This^

                Even when he was still running in the primaries to please the SoCons/neocons. Some of my libertarian buddies started calling him “phony” or a “fake libertarian,” but I knew that Rand was just trying to be smart by playing the long game. I don’t think he would have invaded another country over ISIS, it’s just that perpetually frightened GOP voters needed to hear “DO SOMETHING!!!!” so Rand made them feel safer.

                I never considered him to be a liar or flip-flopper, just pragmatic/sane and focused on advancing libertarianism. People say that he’s bad on the stump but I think that that was just a result of him not having his heart into it.

    2. I was just warming to him, but again he whips out his namesake and pisses all over conservative voters.

      1. Are you sure that’s urine?

        1. Why do I keep encouraging you people?

          1. Old habits die hard?

        2. ewwwwwww. /teenage girl

    3. I can’t say they I’m surprised. Johnson is not a libertarian. He’s just much closer than the other two. At his core he believes in government which is what always sends one down the horrible path.

      1. I’m starting to wonder if statements like those are a result of:

        A) The marijuana in his brain

        B) Having been out of government for 13 years, he’s itching for power (in the name of “getting things done”)

        C) Actually being closer to a lefty Repub than a genuine libertarian

        D) A combination of A through C

        1. I think it’s as simple as what I said. He believes in government. He believes government can make the world a better place. He is mistaken.

          1. I still like my idea that marijuana *might* have fried his brain.

            Or that GayJay has no interest in doing anything and is just a plant to further the “libertarian = pot-smoking Republican” meme.

            1. He says he just quit. You know people who have used a drug heavily for a long time, and I’m not saying Gary was a pot head, a heavy user, I don’t know. But anyway, some heavy drug and alcohol users (I consider alcohol a drug) when they suddenly go cold turkey, they go into a sort of and on and off psychosis where their brain is sort of short circuited. I was talking to a guy who drank heavily for like 20 years and had just quit cold turkey. He told me that he never once was really drunk, never staggered a step once, and he was a very functional drunk. I know all of this to be the case. He told me a few weeks after quitting that he was constantly confused, staggered like a drunk when walking at times, would be driving to work and stop at a light and just suddenly forgot where he was going, would lose stuff, like put his watch in the refrigerator and his keys in the spice rack, just crazy stuff like this. Anyway, maybe that’s what is happening to Gary? He’s acting strange. Like how worried he was that he wasn’t going to be Weld for a running mate and lose his chance to be president. I was thinking, what is wrong with this guy, he’s acting weird.

              1. Indeed, I wonder if GayJay is going cold turkey. He told some babe on the local news that he had been off marijuana for five weeks (I think).

                Maybe he should get stoned more often.

                1. There’s an actual medical term for what I was talking about. I can’t remember it now, but I guess it takes a few months for the person’s brain to go back to normal function without the drug.

                  1. There’s an actual medical term for what I was talking about.

                    There’s a actually a few relevant to this, and you provided quite a bit of data about your friend.

                    First, your friend is presenting aspects of Korskakoff Syndrome, which is primarily a vitamin B1 deficiency endemic to heavy drinkers (but not limited to). Alcoholics tend to have poor diets, but even with heavy drinkers who have balanced diets, it’s the booze that precludes optimum absorption and utilisation of B1. (A related condition is Wernicke-Korsakoff, but that requires encephalopathy r/t thiamine deficiency).

                    If I were TX-ing your friend, I would put him on a 6 week Ativan/Adderall pyramid titration to help him work through the neural instability and help him to focus, and I would do the same with GayJay (his med HX permitting).

                    Second is, “Neuroplaticity,” is defined as the brain forming new neural pathways. Since your friend was/is working through not having alcohol and alcohol metabolites running through his veins near constantly, his neural network is saying, “WTF!? Where do these impulses go?”

                    Third is, “Synaptic pruning,” meaning synapses that functioned whilst alcohol was present are now null, and the brain now lets these synapses atrophy since they are no longer patent. and goes hand-in-hand with neuroplasticity.

                    GayJay is experiencing a similar phenomenon, and I would have strongly suggested he go cold turkey the year before running for Pres, not four weeks before the LP Primary.

                    1. Wow, you’re back Groovus?! When did this happen? How’s Odessa? (At least, I thought that’s where you were going to practice medicine, or was it Kiev?) Did you end up marrying that Ukrainian doc with the scary father?

                      And if you’ve been back for awhile—I’ve been frequently absent here—then welcome back.

                    2. Yes, been back for a little over a week, almost two.

                      Yes, I married the-now Dr. Zhena Groovova, my FIL is still scary. I was originally practicing in Donets’k, but that became….dangerous (and it still is – Separatists are still running around there, causing grief and destruction). So’s, we fled to Odessa, where we live now and practice, and it’s relatively calm now.

                      I avoid Kiev as much as humanly possible…

    4. The LP just had to choose a sideshow circus freak like Gary Johnson instead of a cerebral, principled entrepreneur like John McAfee. They’ve become blinded by half-ass Republican-resumes. Fortunately, the Republican electorate Just said no to another washed up has-been Republican and went with some new blood, outside the Party, from the private sector, with fresh ideas and who promises to Make America Great Again. Choose wisely, libertarians

      1. A whiny loser like Trump? ROFL!

    5. 1 goodie linked: “I would really take a hard look at how students might, I don’t know, receive some sort of benefit or reduced interest rate. I mean, if we can–if the Federal Reserve can bail out all the big banks, it seems to me that we might arrange lower interest rates for these loans to get paid back.”

      Another: “NAFTA. Would I have signed it or not? My skepticism says that maybe I wouldn’t have signed it, because these trade agreements are just laden with crony capitalism. Would I have signed or implemented the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I’ve got to tell you, I think it’s laden with crony capitalism. Free market really is the answer.”

      But if that choice isn’t presented to you, you won’t sign something like NAFTA, because crony capitalism? Because freer trade would benefit some, but not others, fie on everyone?

  20. Why do we need Congress? Can someone explain that to me, I must be missing something? They don’t even pass a budget any longer. They just spend everything that they take in and no matter how much that is, it’s never enough, so they borrow even more. We have way more laws than we need and have for at least a couple decades. We have way more regulations than we need and have for at least a couple decades. I’m asking a serious question here, why do we need congress? When’s the last time they did something good or even necessary? They don’t keep the other branches in check, that ended with Obama. Why are they there?

    1. To funnel all of the money to the “right” people.

      1. Of course, I meant why do ‘We The People’, you know, the ones they forgot all about they’re supposed to represent a long time ago, need Congress? Because I can’t figure it out.

        1. That I do not know sir

    2. Why are they there?

      USI, I’m guessing. (Unwarranted Self-Importance)

      Blame the voters. No matter what the issue — “illegal” immigration, Muslims, Iran, climate change, “campus rape,” income inequality, gun violence, etc. — the voters across the political spectrum tend to have the same mentality: “DO SOMETHING!!!!

      1. “DO SOMETHING!!!!”

        Rethuglicans the Party of No! Yeah, don’t we wish. That could get my vote every time. I’m in favor of them all going home, unless they’re going to repeal something, that’s the only thing they should be allowed to do.

        1. The one thing that they’re likely to repeal is the Fourth Amendment. That meddlesome thing gets in the way of “catching terrorists” don’t you know.

          1. Or the first and the second.

    3. From time to time the courts force Congress to do its job by saying “this is something only Congress can do.”

      But that can’t be relied on.

      On many issues, Congress figures it just rides things out without taking a stand, and eventually the courts or the administrative agencies will come up with a resolution.

      1. Say, Congress can crap out some random bill and when the actual, literal language of the bill might cause some kind of constitutional or fiscal problem, Roberts steps in and says “here, Congress, let me fix that for you.”

    1. passiveporcupine (7,692 posts)
      26. Sorry, can’t count the supers yet.

      And you can’t even claim presumptive until the primaries are over.

      Someone is unfamiliar with the meaning of presumptive.

    2. Berntards are going to go on a rampage. Especially after Bernie wins CA tomorrow. Which he will still be short. He didn’t win, he came close because Hillary sucks so badly.

      1. Too bad about Bernie. Socialism’s a riot.

        http://hotair.com/archives/201…..-the-norm/

        1. On a lark I searched DU for Venezuela as a topic… there are maybe ten posts from the past day, and each generated an entire one comment apiece.

          1. We shall not speak of that, let’s talk about Sweden, socialist paradise with only white peop… uhh, wait, let’s no talk about that… uhh, where was that other socialist paradise I was thinking about?

            1. uhh, wait, let’s no talk about that… uhh, where was that other socialist paradise I was thinking about?

              Denmark?

              Though I hear they’re starting to become more capitalist/free-market.

              Uhh…

              North Korea?

              1. Denmark or none of the Scandinavian countries will do, too many white people. We have to pick a country more aligned demographically with the USA. Brazil? Oops, they just ousted their commie president. This is not going well at all, we just have to go back to calling people racist and wait for the next great revolution, sigh, wreckers and kulaks, it’s always wreckers and kulaks…

    3. It’s really nothing short of hilarious seeing these people, many of them I can only imagine being young and recently initiated into politics, rooting with all their hearts for one of two aging authoritarians.

      I despise Trump’s voters as myopic and willfully mislead, but for Clinton’s and Sanders’ I almost feel pity.

  21. Berninator!!!

    LMAO, look at that picture of Bernie, holy fucking shit, I fell out of my chair. He looks like an angry Yoda!

    1. ROFL

      Bern has the “Get off my lawn!” look down pat.

      1. To be fair, this announcement this evening is pure bullshit, it only happened because Hillary knows she’s going to lose Cali and is probably hoping that this will persuade a lower turnout. It’s like the media work for her.

        1. And it might actually backfire.

          1. I’m actually hoping the Berntards get out in full force tomorrow as a rebuke to Clinton, such that she loses by an even mider margin.

            You know what I say? Fuck it. If the Trumpalooza is going to blow up the GOP and destroy any chance that libertarians had, and if GayJay is going to keep disappointing libertarians despite being the *actual* LP nominee, then I just want to see as much chaos as possible. (Just without violence; innocent people shouldn’t get hurt.)

            Go get ’em, Berntards!!!

            1. “… any chance libertarians had [of taking over the party and making it more libertarian]”

              Posted too quickly.

            2. Yeah, it’s hard to not take pleasure in Hillary losing, even to a communist, she’s just the most evil person in politics this country has seen, I mean in my lifetime.

              1. Eh, I don’t know if I’d call her the most evil. I mean, she does a ton of nasty shit and is genuinely disliked by people on all sides, so it’s not as if she gets off scot-free. Now take someone like Obama or Bill Clinton, who are still beloved. Obama in particular assassinates Americans without giving them any sort of legal representation and the media just yawns or fawns (or both!). Especially when he gives that shit-eating grin and brags about how good he is at killing people.

                Not that Clinton wouldn’t get away with the same shit if/when she becomes POTUS. Otherwise she’s just Nixon in a pantsuit.

                1. Hillary is worse than Bill Clinton, Obama, and Nixon all together. I’ve oft called her Nixon on steroids. She’s just nasty.

                  1. Agreed. I don’t know what got into me!

              2. She out-evils FDR?

    2. The media is trying to “End the primary” before the California results. They know they’re not going to be “decisive” and want to establish that “they don’t really matter” despite the fact that its the largest state in the union and hugely reflective of Dem political sentiment.

      imagine she actually loses CA? i don’t think its even remotely possible. but imagine the shitshow.

      even if its just another ’48/45′ type split, she still looks weak

      The media was carping about how Trump was doomed in the General because he couldn’t break 50% (in a 4 way race); but now Hillary can’t do the same in the most Blue states in the country.

      everything i read in the mainstream press reeks of desperation

      1. It’s very remotely possible. Hillary went from +20 to +2 in a few weeks in the CA polls. She’s only showing as +2 against Bernie right now. Every time there’s been a primary when it was that close, Clinton has lost.

      2. The media is trying to “End the primary” before the California results. They know they’re not going to be “decisive” and want to establish that “they don’t really matter” despite the fact that its the largest state in the union and hugely reflective of Dem political sentiment.

        I completely agree with both you and Hyperion on this. Utterly shameless of the MSM. AFAIK, the superdelegates counted in her column are utterly unbound to her for either the first or subsequent ballots, right? They’ve just expressed support for her and aren’t obligated to actually vote for her on the first ballot, unlike the other delegates she has?

        The convention is going to be really interesting. Both of them, if whoever’s financing the anti-Trump violence thinks it’ll help Dem turnout to keep the fighting going at the GOP convention.

        I wonder who’s going to be Hil’s VP candidate?

      3. The media is trying to “End the primary” before the California results. They know they’re not going to be “decisive” and want to establish that “they don’t really matter” despite the fact that its the largest state in the union and hugely reflective of Dem political sentiment.

        I completely agree with both you and Hyperion on this. Utterly shameless of the MSM. AFAIK, the superdelegates counted in her column are utterly unbound to her for either the first or subsequent ballots, right? They’ve just expressed support for her and aren’t obligated to actually vote for her on the first ballot, unlike the other delegates she has?

        The convention is going to be really interesting. Both of them, if whoever’s financing the anti-Trump violence thinks it’ll help Dem turnout to keep the fighting going at the GOP convention.

        I wonder who’s going to be Hil’s VP candidate?

  22. My brother is on the porch telling his girlfriend that Trump is going to inaugurate a pogrom on businessmen who have contracts in Mexico. Seriously, he told her Trump is going to be the American Stalin.

    And then she asks who Stalin is.

    I am done with this cycle. This is why I can’t talk politics with people I know, because the amount of remedial instruction they’d need to get to the point at which we can begin to have a bare-bones conversation just adumbrating politics in the last couple years… I may as well teach a reasonably informed Russian English and discuss American politics with him. Even with people who are engaged but just kinda dumb or have on blinders, it’s like speaking a different language. Because they have a curious parlance, and once you decipher it you realize they’re just speaking talking points. Bernie’s going to tax the rich. Hillary is the only sane one. Trump is going to build the wall. There’s no thought, it’s just idiot prattling. It’s the gatorade scene from Idiocracy.

    1. And she’s crying now because of his apocalyptic description.

    2. My brother is on the porch telling his girlfriend that Trump is going to inaugurate a pogrom on businessmen who have contracts in Mexico. Seriously, he told her Trump is going to be the American Stalin.

      And then she asks who Stalin is.

      how old?

      1. Late twenties. She’s very sweet, if a little neurotic, but dumb as a stump.

        1. I’ve related a story before about how i sat at a bar next to Sy Hersh’s son (who was a ‘fact checker’ for the New Yorker at the time). He never mentioned his pedigree but i figured out later. He was basically the definition of NY’s “young intellectual elite” who was surrounded daily by big-brains having big thoughts.

          In a short conversation, it became clear that he had never ever learned that public schools were largely paid for by property taxes…. and that he’d never even ever come within *spitting distance* of the concept of “Municipal General-Obligation Bonds”, etc.

          He was effectively entirely ignorant of the underlying financial basis for things like “Roads and Schools” …which he said he considered “the most important parts of society”.

          He assumed they were paid for by congress, like everything else.

          We also talked about Foreign Policy, and things didn’t get better at all. Of course, that’s what he does for a living now (for HuffPo). I can imagine the conversations he has with people in Beirut.

    3. . I may as well teach a reasonably informed Russian English and discuss American politics with him.

      Every time i’ve traveled abroad i’ve always been impressed by the political-hipness of the average people i meet.

      that said – much the same could be said about many working-class municipal union-members in the US

      i don’t mean to suggest either are ‘intelligent’ or ‘informed’ – but that they’re completely free of the sort of “middle-class suburban ignorance” which allows people to really get agitated about tranny-bathroom-rights and how important we need electric-car subsidies and yadda yadda yadda…. meaning, they know ‘politics’ on a very barebones, simple level = these are corrupt people who hand out favors. Democrats hand out favors to “Us” = Republicans hand out favors to Big Business. they don’t worry themselves with all the feelgood bullshit that middle-class do-gooders mix their brains up with.

      when i talk to some random dude in Croatia about politics? they intimately understand it the way they understand the Mob that runs their import/export trade, the bosses that run the union, the former-army guys who control politics, etc.

      first-world politics suffers particularly from the mammoth naivete of the comfortable-middle-class, and the delusions of self-styled intellectuals in journalism & education.

      1. Indoctrination is further advanced in the US.

    4. I may as well teach a reasonably informed Russian English and discuss American politics with him.

      Don’t bother; my still is a refusenik WRT learning English (she understand quite a bit, but refuses trying to speak it) and she has little interest in USA politics, and politics in general (though apathy =/= ignorance).

      Mentioning Stalin, however, is grounds for getting a Borshh pan thrown in my direction. *grins*

    5. Correction: “…my wife is still a refusenik…”

      **DUCKS BORSHH PAN**

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.