A.M. Links: Clinton Leads Trump in New Poll, Vice Presidential Debate Tonight, Physics Nobel Prize Awarded

|

  • White House / Flickr.com

    New poll: Hillary Clinton 47 percent, Donald Trump 42 percent, Gary Johnson 7 percent, Jill Stein 2 percent.

  • Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence will face off tonight in a vice presidential debate.
  • Hurricane Matthew, a Category 4 storm, is bearing down on Haiti.
  • Joe Biden: Donald Trump is "not a bad man," but "his ignorance is profound."
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, and J. Michael Kosterlitz.
  • "Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday told U.S. President Barack Obama to 'go to hell' and said the United States had refused to sell some weapons to his country but he did not care because Russia and China were willing suppliers."

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

NEXT: Happy Birthday, Botswana

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. Hillary Clinton 47 percent, Donald Trump 42 percent

    FORTY-SEVEN!

    1. But, but she’s a 1%er!!1!

      1. Truly 1% of the population is in prison, but she’s dodged that….so far.

    2. Hello.

  2. Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence will face off tonight in a vice presidential debate.

    ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ huh what?

    1. I predict the VP debate will be MUCH dirtier and low-down than the POTUS debates.

      1. Yep. *So* looking forward to it.

      2. I predict that Tim Kaine’s eyebrow will rise higher and higher over the course of the debate, until it detaches from his head and levitates all the way to the ceiling of the auditorium.

        1. LOL

          He really is a cartoon character.

        2. But not before it gives him the ‘middle finger salute’ as it inches away.

      3. In this debate I want Pence to float the blatant conspiracy theory that Kaine was promised the future VP nom for stepping down as DNC chair in favor of Herself’s old 2008 Presidential campaign co-chair. Make it look like the deck was stacked against Sanders far in advance.

        Not that it’s necessarily a credible theory, but I’m predominantly looking for entertainment at this point in the race. A bunch of loudly whining Sanders supporters is just the ticket for that.

  3. Hurricane Matthew, a Category 4 storm, is bearing down on Haiti.

    Like a shotgun full of wind!

    1. Like Fist into the morning links, more like. Jesus, dude. Have you considered decaf?

      1. Coffee is for closers. I’m an opener. I don’t drink coffee.

        1. Well, you are a conversation starter, Fist.

    2. Will Hillary suspend her campaign to work the fundraising phones for the Clinton Foundation?

      Seems like too good an opportunity to waste. It also isn’t as if any of her supporters would change their minds about voting for either.

      She’d just send out her talking points about how this demonstrates her compassion and within an hour, that would be gospel.

      1. Plus she wouldn’t have to stand up for a while.

    3. More like Hate-y, amirite?

  4. 6 ‘Anti-Racist’ Buzzwords That Don’t Actually Change White Supremacy

    2. Equality/Equity

    Often, within our conversations about feminism and about justice, the term “equality” is thrown around as the end all, be all solution to oppression. White people champion for equality from the HRC to shallow Affirmative Action conversations, but do not actually realize that equality is not a potential reality.

    Equality as a concept does not work under white supremacist capitalism, as our current oppressive power systems are inexplicably linked to oppressing someone. Under capitalism, there is always a winner, meaning there is also always a loser.

    1. 5. Charity

      When charity is used to describe the act of “giving back” or helping the “less fortunate,” it’s important to recognize the power dynamics being upheld. White people name charity and charitable acts based upon who they acknowledge as “underprivileged.”

      The underprivileged and less fortunate are usually poor Black, Indigenous, and Brown people living in lower socioeconomic areas with limited access. Charity speaks to a larger issue of how white supremacist capitalism works through the violence of anti-Blackness, anti-Indigenous, racism, capitalism, and patriarchy.

      Maintaining the idea that white people are “giving back” upholds white supremacist enablement that allows for reparations to be disguised as philanthropy.

      We don’t need donations when we’ve been historically stolen from. We need what’s ours.

      1. That’s enough, Everday Feminism.

      2. We don’t need donations when we’ve been historically stolen from. We need what’s ours.

        Did somebody steal something from you? Then report them to the police. Because if you didn’t earn it, it’s not yours, assnugget.

        1. Not giving is taking. So not giving them their fair share is the same as stealing from them.

          1. I actually got into an argument with an idiot on derpbook last night who insisted that Trump avoiding taxes was the same thing as stealing from the taxpayers. Of course the goalposts kept moving and premises kept changing until I finally just left off with a snarky comment and called it quits.

            1. Not taking is giving. When Trump avoids taxes that means money is not being taken from him, which is the same as the government giving him money. That money has to come from other taxpayers. So by avoiding taxes, Trump is stealing from the taxpayers.

              1. The person I was arguing with kept changing premises, and eventually got around to complaining that as a business owner she had to pay taxes totalling x percent for her and her employees. When I responded that “So then you agree that it makes sense to minimize what the government steals so you can keep more of your own earnings.” Her reply was, “Trump cheated on his taxes and stole from the taxpayers”.

                1. “Trump cheated on his taxes and stole from the taxpayers”.

                  Evidence needed.

                  1. I’m sure the FBI will get right on that.

                  2. Evidence needed.

                    Not really. In leftist circles, switching the burden of proof is not a fallacy. It is a convincing argument. So if you can’t immediately refute their assertions with evidence, you lose the argument. And even if you do, they will just move the goalposts until you can’t. No matter what, it’s always fallacies for the win!

                2. Where did she get that from?

                  The whole story was about what Trump was likely legally entitled to do to lower his taxes, they do not know what he actually did. There is no proof or even claim of cheating.

              2. Since Donald Dickhead is a real-estate mogul, how much do you suppose his organization pays in property taxes?

                And to WTF’s post “she had to pay taxes totalling x percent for her and her employees”; by that metric, I bet DD has paid out a significant sum as well.

            2. It’s the same old, tired argument they make when talking about Ayn Rand taking SS.

              1. People who make this argument are morons. Social Security is money the government took from you by force, which they then spend. Eventually, they give you less than what they took in the first place. So ultimately it’s literally your money. It’s one of the few examples of an actual ‘entitlement’ unlike, say, Medicaid.

      3. We don’t need donations when we’ve been historically stolen from. We need what’s ours.

        I wonder what it is that is theirs exactly. I suspect they’re talking about my money.

        1. I’ve been certain for a while that they’re eyeing my sweet spirograph collection.

          1. I don’t know what that is, but I’m absolutely overcome with envy.

          2. Did you know that the increase in gang violence directly correlates to the decline in spirograph sales?

        2. It’s “Everyday Feminism”, I assumed they were talking about my testicles.

      4. But what about charity to under privileged whites, eh? Hm?

        1. No such thing,

      5. We don’t need donations when we’ve been historically stolen from. We need what’s ours.

        Ashleigh Shackelford is a queer, nonbinary Black fat femme writer, artist, and cultural producer. Ashleigh is a contributing writer at Wear Your Voice Magazine and For Harriet.

        What I can’t figure out for the life of me is what the hell is it that these sorts think it is that they bring to the table? I think they have a little bit of a problem figuring out that, in the grand scheme of things, they’re utterly, totally, and completely expendable. The productive classes, on the other hand, that she thinks “owe her what’s hers” are the reason she’s able to sit on her fat (her term, not mine) ass and lecture the world about her sense of entitlement.

        1. Ashleigh Shackelford

          I wonder if she is related to Reason’s own Shackelford.

          1. Our nonbinary [insert laundry list of meaningless terms here] writer is Shackford.

            1. That’s what Crusty said. Scott Shacklelford.

      6. “with limited access”

        Limited access to what?

        I know this is one of those SJW catch phrases, but that’s not a complete sentence.

    2. You’ll never convince me that Everyday Feminism isn’t a parody site.

      1. Everyday? A few days a month would suffice.

        1. The biggest problem is, even for those few days a month, when they “get in Synch” …

        2. Feminism is anything but quotidian.

      2. I think it’s a test site where aspiring PhD candidates in the ethnic grievance studies can float ideas for dissertations.

        1. Calling them ‘ideas’ is a stretch.

        2. This coffee is kicking in. I am gonna go float some ideas.

    3. Still waiting for the day that EF divides by zero and implodes on itself.

      1. Didn’t they do that recently and have to print a breathless apology? Can’t remember the context, and there’s no way I’m going to that sewer to search for it.

        1. I’m pretty sure it was about the stupid Seth Rogen cartoon Sausage party, and that Reason reported on it.

        2. I’m pretty sure they don’t do cis-math.

          1. Yeah, think that Kristy Winters’ PhD dissertation was along the lines of ‘math’s lack of subjectivity makes it a tool of the patriarchy’ or some such drivel.

      2. I mean, if they didn’t think math was the dirtiest tool of the patriarchy since the popular boy in high school who wouldn’t pay attention to them.

    4. Under capitalism, there is always a winner, meaning there is also always a loser.

      Until people understand why this is completely wrong, it’s pointless to even bother. What I find really frustrating is explaining how capitalism isn’t a zero-sum game, creates wealth and all that. I will often have people agree and appear to understand what I am saying. But then they go right back to bashing capitalism at every opportunity. It really is like an article of faith with some people.

      1. It’s a Marxist article of faith.

      2. One fellow sagely informed me that it was unpossible that I was a capitalist, because I did not have enough capital to qualify. Ergo I was not a capitalist and he thought I should stop calling myself one.

        Marks for creativity, that guy, since usually proglodytes just inform me that I’m too ignorant to know what capitalism is.

        1. Did you tell him that sometimes the same word can be used in different ways?

          1. No. I told him an educated older white male had no right to define my female existence. This pissed him off.

            1. Nice nutpunch.

      3. Capitalism is a cooperative/competitive game played against poverty where the house always loses in the long run.

      4. If they truly believe that the existence of a winner necessitates the existence of a loser, then the only other option is a system where everyone loses. Which, in fact, is a pretty good working description of socialism.

        1. You and your imperialist, capitalist logic.

        2. “If they truly believe that the existence of a winner necessitates the existence of a loser, then the only other option is a system where everyone loses. Which, in fact, is a pretty good working description of socialism.”

          Socialism is a highly effective system at sharing poverty.

          1. All are equally miserable. Except of course the party elite.

        3. Well, not *everyone* loses under socialism.

          1. This. Socialism is closer to a lottery than anything else. Winners win big. Everybody else loses. Implemented “properly”, the losses are so spread out that it’s more of a nuisance than anything else.

            1. Not really a lottery, since it’s not completely by chance. You have to be a murderous, conniving asshole to win (a necessary but not sufficient condition).

      5. Yeh a teacher in our book keeping class in high school would always say, ‘for every guy making a buck, someone is losing his shirt.’

        Amazing how progs claim the world isn’t black and white and all nuanced, sure love to go full blown zero-sum when it suits them.

        Anyway. I learned quickly after that it simply isn’t the case because wealth creation pretty much prevents that scenario from existing.

        Now, when government involves itself in the market place, there we see winners and losers.

        1. But all the money is going to the 1%! Soon, the 99% will have 0% of the money.
          After that, the 0.1% will have 100% of the money and the 99.9% will have 0%
          Don’t you see what is happening????

          Yes, that’s /sarc, but I’m running out of ammo to fight their version of logic

      6. While it is dangerous that people who fall for the zero-sum economy fallacy don’t believe wealth can be created and so want to distribute it, it is even more dangerous when they believe the opposite, that wealth cannot be destroyed, as they will be attracted to policies that do just that. While in the long run free market capitalism is a wealth generator and it often produces win-win situations, I don’t think it should be over-sold. All market systems will also produce win-lose and even occasionally lose-lose situations as well, and if that is not accounted for or at least acknowledged people are less likely to believe the speaker when they are trying to sell the system. Free market capitalism is the best economic system ever devised, but it is not perfect (nothing can be) and there will be losers in the system.

    5. This article is a good example of why regular, sane women shouldn’t be afraid to say they’re not feminists. The movement is socialist to the core. Why would you want to effectively support a group of crazies just so you can be thought of as modern. Doesn’t seem like a fair deal to me.

      1. Why would you want to effectively support a group of crazies just so you can be thought of as modern.

        It’s all about virtue signalling. Religions are at least partly responsible for this. They promote charity, and then go on to say that the government should be providing charity. But if the money is forcibly taken from one person to be given to another, it ain’t charity. That’s the part they miss.

      2. Well, there is individualist feminism. I think there is like two members: Wendy McElroy and I don’t remember the other one.

        1. Honestly, I think once you get the “individualist” part down, the “feminist” part is, at best, superfluous.

          1. The femenist part at that point is what you focus on.

    6. Speaking of feminism, the schadenfreude of this spectacle is almost too sweet to savor.

      An atheism+ feminist by the name of Dick Carrier, a strident proponent of speech codes and sexual harassment policies, has been accused of abuse by female student. Richard was among those calling for Michael Shermer’s head after a woman accused Shermer of rape. The woman in question, an ASU student, published Carrier’s humiliating email entreaties in which she respectfully demurred and finally shot him down explosively. Carrier is now suing various atheism+ outfits and individuals.

      Always fun to see the intersectionality snowflakes eat one of their own.

      1. That was poorly written. The woman in question != Shermer’s alleged victim.

      2. ASU’s become a cesspit of academically-enabled SJW gobbledy-gook the past few years. It’s embarrassing to point out that I have a graduate degree from that place.

      3. Considered either a branch of or a cancer on the “New Atheism” pioneered by atheist heavyweights including evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Atheism+ or “intersectional atheism” put a social-justice spin on the rejection of theism.

        Nice.

      4. Dick Carrier? Really? Was a more perfect feminist villain ever named?

    7. inexplicably linked

      The article is dead on, there is no rational explanation linking those two things…

    8. My mind wandered off about three words into that. I’m not exaggerating.

      This stuff is so borrrrrrrrring.

    9. Equality as a concept does not work under white supremacist capitalism

      Worked okay for Oprah.

  5. Joe Biden: Donald Trump is “not a bad man,” but “his ignorance is profound.”

    Sounds like an endorsement!

    1. Wait just a goddam minute! What the hell happened to Trump = Hitler??????

      1. Yeah, Biden is really alienating himself from the progressive left.

      2. If Joe Biden said it, then it’s true. If ever there was an expert on “good, but profoundly ignorant men”, it’s Joe Biden

      3. It was countered with “Clinton = Stalin”. I added “Gary Johnson = if Roosevelt and Churchill had a baby”.

    2. Ignorance is Strength!

    3. Glass houses and stones, Joe.

  6. Scott Adams: The Week I Became a Target

    This weekend I got “shadowbanned” on Twitter. It lasted until my followers noticed and protested. Shadowbanning prevents my followers from seeing my tweets and replies, but in a way that is not obvious until you do some digging.

    Why did I get shadowbanned?

    Beats me.

    But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.

    Late last week my Twitter feed was invaded by an army of Clinton trolls (it’s a real thing) leaving sarcastic insults and not much else on my feed. There was an obvious similarity to them, meaning it was organized.

    1. I look forward to the day your species decides to resolve these issues in violent entertaining fashion. Just don’t shoot at the refrigeration trucks driving around afterwards…waste not want not.

    2. Damn. How come we’re never trolled? We’re probably the most hostile group towards Cankle-cunt.

      1. Don’t give SugarFree visual ideas.

      2. “How come we’re never trolled?”
        Correct the Record sends their JV team here. Surely you’ve noticed them

        1. Who the fuck are the JV team?

      3. We’re low profile.

        No one comes here.

    3. Late last week my Twitter feed was invaded by an army of Clinton trolls (it’s a real thing) leaving sarcastic insults and not much else on my feed. There was an obvious similarity to them, meaning it was organized.

      These people are organized enough to troll a past-his-prime comic strip writer, but can’t be bothered to participate in online polls enough to skew the results in Hillary’s favor.

      1. So there aren’t that many of them, but they are organized. They also must not be the most tech savvy, or they could still skew unscientific online polls despite their numbers.

    4. P.S. The one and only speaking gig I had on my calendar for the coming year cancelled yesterday because they decided to “go in a different direction.” I estimate my opportunity cost from speaking events alone to be around $1 million. That’s based on how the rate of offers went from several per month (for decades) to zero this year. Blogging about Trump is expensive.

      Yeah, well, what did you expect?

    5. “Hey, I’ve got a great idea! Let’s drive all the popular people who have fans who buy stuff from our advertisers off our platform!”

      /Twitter executive

  7. Massachusetts man founds political Pizza Party

    The 42-year-old Raynham man is the founder of the Pizza Party, a political designation officially recognized by state election officials.

    Freeman tells the Enterprise of Brockton he doesn’t recruit members and no Pizza Party candidate has ever run for office or raised any money.

    Still, the Pizza Party has enrolled 184 registered voters.

    That’s enough to have the party listed as a “political designation” on the state secretary’s website, but 42,000 or so voters short of being listed as an official party.

    1. You know who else started a party?

      1. The Beastie Boys?

      2. Black Flag?

      3. The Donners?

      4. Lesley Gore?

      5. C + C Music Factory

    2. A fella whose last name ends in a consonant and hails from Massachusetts thinks himself qualified to lead a pizza party? Next thing you know you’ll be telling me he likes deep dish.

      1. There’s no deep dish in Mass.

        1. No, in Mass you have Beach Pizza and cape cod bar pizza

          1. Do they put some kind of vile sea creature on the pizza in cape cod?

            1. Yeah, lobstahhh.

    3. Will deep dish supporters be allowed in?

        1. WOP’s up? How’s your dago?

    4. CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!!!

  8. “Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday told U.S. President Barack Obama to ‘go to hell’ and said the United States had refused to sell some weapons to his country but he did not care because Russia and China were willing suppliers.”

    I picture him saying all of this in a single, run-on sentence.

    1. It doesn’t sound so bad in Tagalog.

      1. Everything sounds bad in Tagalog.

        1. Except for the English cognates which sound like they are thrown in for the lulz.

        2. Not if it is being said by a hot Filipina.

          1. This is when you want it to be bad.

  9. Joe Biden: Donald Trump is “not a bad man”

    Commence proggy pants shitting.

    OT: Long time reader, occasional contributor… Who the fuck is Steve Smith?

    1. STEVE SMITH WANT HIKE WITH NOOB.

    2. STEVE SMITH ALREADY KNOW WHO YOU ARE, MEAT.

    3. STEVE SMITH SHOW YOU WHO STEVE SMITH IS. GIVE TOUR OF HOME. PROMISE NO RAPE.

    4. STEVE SMITH IS THE WARTY BASEMENT OF GREAT OUTDOORS

    5. A friend of Matt Welch who occassionally leaves dumb comments here. Some commenters saw his picture on his website and noticed he looked like sasquatch. That’s where the legend began.

      1. Sounds like an absolute riot heh heh

        Thanks for the clarification

      2. A shaved sasquatch, specifically.

        1. My old roommate and I played one of the PS2 NHL hockey games for so long that we eventually created our own team. We had two enforcers on our team who were given very little skating/puck handling ability, but huge fighting skills, max speed, and max height/weight. Their names were Hairless Yeti and Shaved Sasquatch. They generally broke the glass checking someone into the boards every game. And the championships at the end of the season were too easy because all of the opposing teams had their stars out with injuries.

        1. Warty’s immediate response to that picture was “SASQUATCH RAPE.” That’s his response to pretty much everything – i’m not sure why it stuck in this case, but it has proven to be one of Hit’n’Run’s more durable memes.

          1. You know who else is a durable meme?

            1. Pepe the Frog?

    6. Joe Biden: If there’s one thing I know, its ignorance, and look how far its taken me. This Trump fella could be dangerous.

      1. Alt: I knew ignorance, and you’re no ignorance.

  10. Best countries for expats
    1. Taiwan
    2. Malta
    3. Ecuador
    4. Mexico
    5. New Zealand
    12. Canada
    26. USA
    31. Switzerland
    49. India
    56. Ireland

    1. I’m surprised Mexico is so high on the list. Since a) the violent crime rate was at one time at least, as bad as Iraq during the troop surge and b) unless something has changed very recently, expats are not allowed to own property in Mexico, only lease, because colonialism or some such nonsense.

      1. I’d kinda like to live in Switzerland.

        Because, Barry Switzer.

        SOONER BOOMER!!!!

      2. Violent crime in Mexico is pretty concentrated in certain areas. For the most part, these are not areas where expats are dying to buy a retirement home. You can own property as a foreigner in Mexico. If it is next to the coast then it has to be placed in a renewable hundred year trust with you as the beneficiary.

    2. 6. Costa Rica

      1. Too many other expats.

    3. Not Thailand?

      My brother is finding it very, very welcoming.

      1. Thailand is listed as #18. I haven’t dug into their methodology to see if it’s possible to recast the results into more libertarian friendly metrics

      2. It’s a very magnanimous culture, but sometimes a Thai person’s pathological generosity and niceness can become utterly obnoxious over time. I work with a Thai guy and I’m constantly saying “Thank you, but no” or “That’s kind of you, but no, thank you.” It gets old.

    4. As an expat in India, I can say 49 is way too high.

  11. Meanwhile in Australia:

    Woman SHOOS AWAY giant croc with her SLIPPERS just as the beast moves in for the KILL

    The courageous woman forced the prowling crocodile to retreat as she is seen shaking her flip-flops and shouting at the reptile.

    She stood with her dog by the murky river bank, which is a well-known feeding ground for more than a hundred crocodiles.

    The Aussie dramatically shooed away the salt water beast using nothing more than her slippers, as the beast aggressively stalked her and her dog.

    1. My people have devolved far. You stoooopid mammals will pay for this.

      1. Cladistics says you arent really related.

        1. Yeah. Crocodiles are much closer to birds than to lizards.

    2. What a blown chance for an endorsement from the Crocs brand flip-flops.

      If you are going to risk your wife – and dog – to a dangerous crocodile, spring for a pair of Crocs so that you can sell the footage to them later.

      1. They ever make a pair of Crocs from actual crocodile skin? “This is what I did with the last bugger that attacked me!”

    3. She stood with her dog by the murky river bank, which is a well-known feeding ground for more than a hundred crocodiles.

      Who takes a croc snack to the croc cafe?

      1. Why would anyone go outside in Australia?

  12. The U.S. military is great on STEM. It should also be great on liberal arts.

    But even in an age of highly sophisticated warfare, our military leaders should not be too narrowly focused on STEM. If we want leaders who communicate clearly, solve problems creatively and appreciate cultural differences in theaters where they operate, studying the humanities is just as important as science, technology, engineering and math.

    When I attended Ranger and Airborne schools, a mandatory catchphrase was “move, shoot and communicate.” Communication was always a critical component of military tactics, and the more complicated combat has become, the more important it is to ensure clarity of thought and expression that relies upon a grounding in softer disciplines.

    1. If we want leaders who communicate clearly, solve problems creatively and appreciate cultural differences in theaters where they operate…

      I want military leaders who are adept at formulating and executing plans for blowing shit to smithereens and killing mass quantities of people when the need arises.

      1. “Appreciate cultural differences in theaters where they operate”. That doesn’t sound like an actual requirement for the job.

        1. It shouldn’t be, but we’re so intent on fixing the areas we bomb to smithereens that it becomes necessary.

          Liberal arts: not required for war but essential for occupation.

        2. For the people planning the operations a certain appreciation of cultural differences is a useful tool. You have to know who it is most important to kill and who it would be a mistake to kill (such as the Japanese emperor in WW2). You also have to know what kind of resistance you are likely to face from the local population if you are sending in a ground force, and what would be the most effective way of countering it (do they take breaks from fighting on certain days? are there certain actions the populous would find so offensive that it would drive them to offer significant resistance?). Most cultural appreciation would not be useful, of course.

      2. Ever work in an engineering firm with engineering style communication?

        You need a few people who can write a sentence in plain English. Or who don’t shit themselves in terror when a woman looks at them.

        1. Perhaps my meaning wasn’t completely clear. Blowing shit to smithereens and killing mass quantities of people is more down to a set of organizational skills and temperament than anything, and I don’t give a fuck if the people I employ to blow shit to smithereens and kill mass quantities of people can recite Longfellow at length or perform differential calculus in their head. I would assume that the type of people who are adept at the blowing shit to smithereens and killing mass quantities of people bit are probably more inclined to fields outside the humanities, but I wouldn’t judge them harshly if they weren’t. A lot of history’s better military strategists wouldn’t fit neatly into the mousy humanities stereotype or the aspie STEM stereotype. An appreciation and understanding of history and management principles would probably be the most common attributes.

          Separately, I think the mousy humanities and aspie STEM stereotypes are pretty much a crock of shit. There’s an awful lot of STEM people in B-school who aren’t too petrified to leave their lab to ever have sex, and there’s an awful lot of humanities people in B-school who aren’t too retarded to do math in their heads.

        2. Or who don’t shit themselves in terror when a woman looks at them.

          That would be a bit odd, since over half the engineers I work with are married, and of those, half have daughters.

          Must make home life interesting, though.

          1. I would think being married and/or having daughters would train any man to shit himself, etc.

      3. Then you want an army which is easily defeated.

        I havn’t read the article but an army which only focuses on killing people and blowing shit up might win a lot of battles but they won’t win many wars. The point of a military operation is NOT just to blow shit up and kill people, it is to achieve some political end and as a general rule the fewer people you kill and the less shit you blow up in achieving that political goal the more successful your military is.

        Well achieving that political goal might not require a thorough grounding in the works of Shakeaspeare but it WILL require a thorough grounding in history, languages, anthropology and similar “liberal arts” fields.

        Hell one of the biggest problems with have in the GWOT is that out government and to a lesser extent military has pretty consistantly refused to understand the people in the countries we invade.

        1. as a general rule the fewer people you kill and the less shit you blow up in achieving that political goal the more successful your military is.

          Not sure about this. Back in the good old “unconditional surrender” days, we understood that winning a war requires breaking the enemy’s will to fight, and we won wars and achieved our political goals.

          Nowadays, we go poncing around with ROE that makes a beat cop laugh out loud, we don’t go for unconditional surrender/breaking our enemies, and we don’t achieve any political goals worth a crap.

          1. we don’t achieve any political goals worth a crap

            Hey, we made sure the Bosnians/Bosniaks/Serbs/Croats/etc. stopped killing each other (for now) and all it cost us was a budding friendship with Russia.

            That, uh, that was a good thing, right?

          2. yeah the thing is you can get the unconditional surrender stage a lot quicker if you understand the psychology, goals, and motivations of your enemies because you can target your attacks in such a way to directly degrade their will to fight.

            Enacting the Carthiginain solution on their ass is undeniably effective but wasteful and likely untenable in the modern world.

            1. I won’t argue with your first point, but I think it can lead to the fallacy that pinpoint attacks can lead to unconditional surrender. Historically, you don’t get to the “we don’t ever want to fuck with these people again” stage without inflicting significant damage.

              The “modern” world is a thin overlay on the world as it has ever been. Thinking that stern memos on fancy letterhead from a global institution are a substitute for a smashed and demoralized military and a delegitimized government is, IMO, a mistake.

              1. Oh I am not necessarily talking pinpoint attacks, I mean attacking the things that really matter to the enemy.

                For example, as poorly as our government understands Islamist terrorists and their motivations we are lucky in that those same terrorists understand us even worse. Their terrorist attacks against us could never be effective because they don’t actually make Mr and Mrs John Q Public scared. Had they really wanted to bring the US to it’s knees they’d have attacked midwestern shopping malls in suburbs of mid sized cities on black friday. They could then have followed those attacks up with attacks targeting High School Football games, movie theaters and the like

                All soft squishy targets impossible to defend, all would give really high death tolls, and all would terrify ordinary Americans because they would know that it could have been them or even worse their kids.

                Using terrorism to take down America would be a trivially easy task requiring no more than a few hundred committed terrorists acting independently in small cells but the Jihadis just don’t understand us well enough to realize that. Instead they carry out attacks that are splashy and capture a lot of global headlines but don’t really even cause the majority of Americans to even change their daily routines.

        2. Killing people and blowing shit up are tactics, not strategies. If they don’t advance the end goals, then they’re just wastes of time, money, and personnel. That having been said, they are necessary to wage war. An army that can’t kill people or blow shit up is not an army at all.

          The problem is that the incentive structure does not favor winning wars at all cost. Until that is addressed, every effort made is going to be half-assed and counterproductive.

        3. The point of a military operation is to blow shit up and kill people, politics has failed and as a general rule the quicker you kill and blow up your foe to the point where they can no longer fight back at all means you are more likely to achieve the political goal that started all this in the first place

          FTFY

    2. I don’t liberal arts “studies” majors are adept at clear and concise communication.

      1. I believe the argument is that a diverse education, as opposed to a focused one, enables the person to talk intelligently about a wide variety of subjects. This in turn means that they can communicate with people from all different backgrounds, which makes the person ideal for management, sales, or some other occupation that requires communicating with lots of people.

        Though in my experience people tend to choose liberal arts because they lack the intelligence to be a STEM major.

        1. Somehow non-major History makes engineers more conversant in history than “Physics for Poets” makes history majors conversant in physics.

        2. Though in my experience people tend to choose liberal arts because they lack the intelligence to be a STEM major.

          I don’t think that’s quite fair. Plenty of people are plenty intelligent, but not in the ways that make a STEM career readily accessible. Intelligence isn’t just one thing. There are plenty of people who are quite competent in their STEM field, but idiots in other ways too.

          I think that the problem (to the extent that there is one) with liberal arts majors is that a lot of them go to college without a clear idea of what they want to do. So many just dick around and take what seems easy or interesting.

          1. A good traditional liberal arts major would include a very large dose of math and science.

            Im thinking Newton, Leibnitz, Descartes type liberal arts.

            1. Yeah, but they only had to learn geometry.

              Although, as my college physics professor pointed out, two of those guys were so good at geometry, they proved huge chunks of the calculus with it. Which we do a bit of as an exercise, but Isaac Newton may have been the best geometer before the 20th century. After that it is hard to judge because the field became so radically different.

            2. To the point that with critical thinking, they could solve simple Engineering problems based on their mathematical skills.

      2. I don’t liberal arts “studies” majors are adept at clear and concise communication.

        You must be one of them liberal studies majors, then.

        Liberal arts is history, literature, philosophy, math, science, etc. Please don’t conflate it with the stupid grievance studies departments. I would certainly say that it is desirable for military leaders to be familiar with the things I listed.

        1. You must be one of them liberal studies majors, then.

          It’s called a typo, douchenozzle. And notice I specified “studies” in quotes, to distinguish it from a traditional liberal arts education, to avoid people like you mistakenly (deliberately?) conflating them.

          1. It’s called a joke, fartknocker.

            I thought that might have been your meaning. But a lot of people do seem to conflate “liberal arts” and “stupid bullshit”, so I figured it was worth commenting anyway.

            1. I thought it was a joke about English and philosophy majors being longwinded.

          2. It was a proud addition to H & R’s storied history of typos. Chill.

    3. Please. Let someone teach the Literature of Ancient Veterans: Homer to Cervantes class. That would be awesome.

      1. That would be a really cool class.

    4. clarity of thought and expression

      …can be learned outside a 4-year institution or hell, without any schooling at all.

    5. Uh, no.

    6. Yeah, 38 page papers on the long term viability of the agrarian economy in the antebellum south is not the “communicate” in “move, shoot, and communicate.”

      I’m up, I ponder the existential threat behind yonder cover. I believe he may have identified my presence, and this is indeed a precarious situation – a situation in which I must now locate and acquire proper cover and descend to the sweet earth from whence I came.

      1. Once again, work with engineers, the counter would be this:
        “Why didn’t you tell us you were being over run?”
        Foot shuffling, shame.
        “Speak up son.”
        “Afraid of Phone.”

        1. I’ve had the opposite problem.

          “Why isn’t this working?”
          “Because X is a fucking idiot and you decided to put him in charge of it”
          “Why didn’t you tell me?”
          “What, the 4 emails and a phone call didn’t get the point across?”

    7. If we want leaders who communicate clearly, solve problems creatively and appreciate cultural differences in theaters where they operate, studying the humanities is just as important as science, technology, engineering and math.

      This is how it was in the old days when officers tended to come from the upper classes and mostly went through West Point or the Naval Academy rather than ROTC programs. The democratization of the university has watered the intellectual quality of its student bodies down to the point that military officers from ROTC programs are mostly specialists now.

      If you want an organization that displays the qualities of a social and cultural elite, the breeding ground for these organizations can’t be devoted to shoving as many subliterate proles through as possible.

    8. That is what technical writing classes are for.

    9. There’s nothing, per se, wrong with what this guy is saying. Humanities should be of value in thinking through problems creatively that can supplement the STEM fields. The only thing I’d caution is that the sorry state of humanities today means that little of the suggested advantage would be realized and, if anything, the background would be of negative value.

  13. Was modern art a weapon of the CIA?

    One of the most remarkable things about Abstract Expressionism was the speed with which it rose to international prominence? By the ’50s, it was generally accepted that the most exciting advances in painting and sculpture were taking place in New York rather than Paris.[?]

    Before long, though, the backlash had begun. First came Pop Art, which wrested attention away from Abstract Expressionism at the start of the ’60s. Then came the rumour-mongers, whispering that the swiftness of Abstract Expressionism’s success was somehow fishy.

    In 1973, in an article in Artforum magazine, the art critic Max Kozloff examined post-war American painting in the context of the Cold War… Kozloff went on to argue that Abstract Expressionism was “a form of benevolent propaganda”, in sync with the post-war political ideology of the American government.

    […]A few years before they were published, in 1967, the New York Times had revealed that the liberal anti-Communist magazine Encounter had been indirectly funded by the CIA. As a result, people started to become suspicious. Could it be that the CIA also had a hand in promoting Abstract Expressionism on the world stage? Was Pollock, wittingly or not, a propagandist for the US government?

    1. the movement was a useful foil to Russia’s official Soviet Realist style, which championed representative painting. “America was the land of the free, whereas Russia was locked up, culturally speaking”

      Since the Abstract Expressionists, um, tended to drink a lot, one might be surprised that they did not arise in the Soviet Union.

      1. No, see, it just proves that 20th century realism is a communist plot.

        1. You know too much, comrade.

    2. You know who else was against somebody else’s degenerate art?

      1. The art teacher in middle school who kept giving me detention?

      2. Girolamo Savonarola

      3. The guy at the local gas station who cleans the stalls?

  14. Ex-detainees say CIA used makeshift electric chair in secret Afghan prison: rights group

    Two Tunisian men who spent 12 years in U.S. custody in Afghanistan said CIA interrogators tortured them using previously unreported techniques that included threatening them with a makeshift electric chair and beating them with batons so brutally that they suffered broken bones, Human Rights Watch reported on Monday.

    The accounts, which could not be independently confirmed, raised new questions about how prisoners were treated in a former CIA prison in Afghanistan that remains shrouded in secrecy.

    Ryan Trapani, a CIA spokesman, said the “CIA reviewed its records and found nothing to support these new claims.”

    But Daniel Jones, who led a Senate investigation into the CIA detention program, said the accounts given by the two men, Ridha al-Najjar, 51, and Lotfi al-Arabi El Gherissi, 52, were important because so little is known about the “Cobalt” black site, where an Afghan detainee froze to death in 2002.

    1. “CIA reviewed its records and found nothing to support these new claims.”

      Case closed.

    2. Yeah, this is one of those “who to believe” problems.

      Any forensic evidence to back up their claims?

      An independent medical expert hired by Human Rights Watch said that X-rays of Najjar showed his ankle had been broken and had not healed properly. Gherissi was missing two teeth.

      Inconclusive, at best. The claim is multiple broken bones, and they can confirm a broken ankle, which its hard to say when or how it was broken.

      OTOH, CIA.

  15. Why Do French Fries Taste So Bad When They’re Cold?

    One of the main reasons that French fries lose their appeal when cold is that their texture changes, said Matt Hartings, an assistant professor of chemistry at American University in Washington, D.C. [Does Salt Make Water Boil Faster?]

    That change in texture can be explained by the chemistry of potatoes, Hartings told Live Science. Potatoes are filled with starch, Hartings said. Starches taste good when they are “hydrated,” he said.

    Think of the starches in potatoes as tiny crystal spheres, Hartings said. At really high temperatures (like in fryers), water will go into those spheres and fill them up like balloons, he said. Instead of a small, hard sphere, you end up with something more “poofy,” he said.

    And this “poofy” texture is something people really like, Hartings said.

    But as fries cool down, the water starts to move out of the crystals, and you lose the fluffy texture, Hartings said. The spheres become more crystalline and gritty, he said.

    1. There are people who enjoy cold McDonald’s french fries. These people are most likely serial killers.

      1. Or UnCivilServant.

        1. Just kidding. Cold McDonald’s fries are nowhere near bland enough for UCS to enjoy.

          1. +1 Bowl of Porridge

          2. Just kidding. Cold McDonald’s fries are nowhere near bland enough for UCS to enjoy.

            I don’t recall the last year I even had McDonalds product of any kind. I can’t remember what it tastes like. I’m not going to go find out, I’ve been successfully losing weight.

            Maybe my next book should be self-help “Crumudgeon your way to weight loss”

            1. +3 meals a day of watery gruel

    2. What else tastes good when they are “hydrated”?

  16. ‘I could write an entire essay about why I love this photo of Hillary’

    This photo of a woman whose country has often been unfathomably cruel to her, doing her homework so that she can be prepared to be its leader, because she loves this country even when it doesn’t love her back, while its flag pokes into the frame from the corner, a symbol of the history, culture, industry, future of a great and struggling nation, stoically petitioning her from its perch above a dirty carpet in a small room.

    1. At least he’s not one of those idiotic simpletons who puts his hand over his heart when the national anthem plays and goes babbling on about “muh patriotism”. No, this is sophisticated, high-brow, essay-writing sycophantry.

    2. O.M.F.G.

      Who are those people?

      1. The True Believers

        (with respect to Hoffer)

    3. Barf. That’s more gag inducing than anything SugarFree has said about her.

      1. You really don’t want SugarFree to accept that challenge.

    4. 5. Hillary is OK with a folding chair because the work is important.

      Donald J tRump doesn’t work and wouldn’t sit in such an ordinary chair, a chair used by the common people.

      What the actual fuck? How do these people remember to breathe?

      1. She’s likely sitting because she was about to pass out.

      2. Come on now, you know the thoughts at Free Republic are equally as fucking retarded.

    5. So, congratulations, you also went to a high school that made you write essays about inane things.

    6. The derp is pure.

      Bernardo de La Paz (13,886 posts)
      5. Hillary is OK with a folding chair because the work is important.

      Donald J tRump doesn’t work and wouldn’t sit in such an ordinary chair, a chair used by the common people.

      1. Is the tRump deliberate?

        1. Yes. Mike M. has followers all over the internets.

      2. Someone using the handle of Betnardo de la Paz wrote that?

        That is sickening.

        1. They read want they want to, and by that I mean they read something (everything) and decide that it conforms to their preconceived notions.

      3. Wait, there is someone who is a Heinlein fan and also a Hillary fan?

        How the fuck has his head not exploded from cognitive dissonance at this point?

        1. Cognitive dissonance is a superpower of the left.

        2. Well, if their either a Heinlein fan or a Hillary fan, their cognitive capacity is essentially mush, so the ability to notice contradictions would be nil.

        3. To be fair you can be a fan of his stories without thinking his personal philosophy (even exposed in those stories) is sound.

          The biggest RAH fan I ever knew is also a hard leftist (and otherwise a very smart guy). And if I’m not mistaken, his favorite novel is “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” no less. He is more into the sciency and libertine aspects of RAH’s writings, than the political underpinnings.

          Liberty is difficult to understand, or even identify, for most. Sex and spaceships aren’t.

    7. This photo of a woman whose country has often been unfathomably cruel to her,

      Yeah, “being given a pass on her entire criminal career” is so cruel.

      What I want to know is, where does that wire from the laptop go?

  17. DiCaprio: Climate change deniers shouldn’t hold public office

    “The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio said at the White House’s South By South Lawn event.

    “If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”

    DiCaprio screened his film “Before the Flood,” a documentary about climate change. Ahead of the screening, he spoke on a panel with President Obama.
    Obama called for the development of new technologies to address climate change, but stressed changes in policy and attitudes wouldn’t happen overnight.

    “Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you,” Obama said.

    1. That POS takes money from a thief who stole a billion from Malaysian government funds.

      1. The 1MDB saga has been Hollywood-tinged from the start. Tim Leissner, the Goldman Sachs banker who brokered the deal that set everything in motion, is Kimora Lee Simmons’ husband. (He since has left the firm.) Low was given a “special thanks” in the film’s credits and hailed as a “collaborator” in DiCaprio’s 2014 Golden Globes acceptance speech. The Malaysian returned the favor in grand fashion with splashy bromantic gifts ? in one instance, according to the DOJ, he and the Red Granite execs brought DiCaprio along on an $11 million gambling bender in Las Vegas; in another, they reportedly laid out $600,000 to gift him Marlon Brando’s best actor Oscar statuette for On the Waterfront. (DiCaprio ? who has a notable habit of buddying up with smooth dudes who end up in federal prison for money crimes, from late investment adviser Dana Giacchetto to art dealer Helly Nahmad ? still was several prestige roles away from finally claiming his own.)

        1. They also made donations to DiCaprio’s foundation. At the actor’s birthday party in 2013, Low and McFarland were among those who reportedly helped raise more than $3 million for the charity by buying marked-up bottles of champagne. Earlier that year, diverted 1MDB funds were alleged by the DOJ complaint to have been used by Low to purchase a pair of artworks (for a total of $1.1 million) by Ed Ruscha and Mark Ryden at a Christie’s auction benefiting the LDF (one of many buys during a spending spree that shook the art world). And at the glittering St. Tropez auction held in 2015, with the likes of David Geffen, Paul Allen, Tom Barrack and Harvey Weinstein in attendance, Low offered the LDF a sculpture by Roy Lichtenstein, 1982’s Brushstroke, valued at roughly $700,000. But Low wasn’t there to see it go under the hammer; instead, he is believed to have fled to Taiwan ? which has no extradition treaty with the U.S. ? as the net of international investigators began closing in.

    2. Everybody in America: Entertainers shouldn’t talk about politics. Or current events. Or religion. Or the weather. We pay you for one thing, and that isn’t it.

      1. A vote for Trump means WAY less of this shit. Just sayin’.

    3. Do you think he’ll ever realize that the lifestyle he and people like him live while espousing conservation ultimately contributes to driving more people to skepticism?

    4. Nobody denies that the climate changes, dipshit; it always has and always will. The argument is over what effect, if any, man has on it and if so, what should be done about it, if anything.

      1. Some even say, fairly convincingly, that unlocking the carbon from the ground may have staved off another mass extinction, staved off another ice age and prolonged the habitability of earth on the order of millions of years. Even in this theory, it’s not the argument that the change is a pure unmitigated success, but looking at the big picture it argues that it’s the best thing that could have happened for earth’s biosphere.

    5. Again it’s not so simple as believing in global warming and every damn policiy proposal that comes down the pike, or not believing in global warming and claiming that the climate is in stasis, which is the dichotomy that most alarmists promote as the state of reality.

    6. “the argument is now over”

      Said no honest scientist ever.

    7. Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically.

      Interesting word choice there, Barack…

  18. Bill Clinton Trashes Obamacare At Event, Calls It ‘Crazy System’

    Former President Bill Clinton attacked President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation Monday, calling it a “crazy system” that “doesn’t make any sense” during a Michigan campaign event for Hillary.

    “It doesn’t many any sense. The insurance model doesn’t work here,” Clinton said about the government-run marketplaces Obamacare set up. Clinton said that Obamacare “works fine” for people with “modest” incomes or who are eligible for government subsidies, or Medicare. But he added that, “the people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies.”

    “You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half,” Clinton said. “It’s the craziest thing in the world.”

    1. Will the quack-progs turn on him?

    2. “Also, big shout out to my illegitimate son!”

    3. Its almost like Billy Jeff doesn’t really want to live in the White House again.

      1. I think he’s going senile. Forgets Hillary isn’t running against Obama this time.

    4. Triangulation, bitches!

  19. Trump’s 1995 Return Shows Good Tax Policy at Work

    Take a simple example, offered to me by Joe Kristan, a CPA who writes one of my favorite tax blogs. A meatpacking business loses a million dollars in one year, and then the next year it makes a million and a half. Without the ability to carry forward the losses from year one, then over the two years, it would pay perhaps $600,000 worth of state and federal income taxes, on $500,000 worth of actual money that it could spend to pay those taxes.

    And did this scenario correspond to real-world clients of his firm? Absolutely, he said; it’s common in commodity businesses, where prices can fluctuate wildly from year to year.

    “If someone has a $20 million gain in one year and a $10 million loss in the second year, that person should be treated the same as someone who had $5 million in each of the two years,” says Alan Viard, a tax specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, who like all the other experts, seemed somewhat surprised that this was not obvious.

    1. You don’t understand. Carrying losses forward is greedy and un-American.

      1. I used to carry losses forward for hundreds of dollars.

        It’s available to all people and has nothing to do with being rich.

        But progs are financial illiterates so they will always believe in ghosts and goblins.

        1. Alternative Minimum Tax is clearly working as intended

    2. ” seemed somewhat surprised that this was not obvious.”

      You know who else surprised by an adverse response to a reasonable solution?…

      1. Every guy who has suggested anal in response to “you don’t pay enough attention to me”?

      2. Fuck you.

    3. We would need to see the 1996 return, but it is likely the year he received all of the associated debt forgiveness, which would have wiped out a lot of the NOL.

    4. Carry loss forwards IS A LOOPHOLE WE MUST CLOSE!

      /swings pitch fork.

      1. I lose ten million dollars one year and over the next six years make it back. If you don’t let losses carry over, I get taxes like I made ten million dollars when in fact I just broke even. Carrying over losses makes perfect sense and not doing so would be grossly unfair.

        1. Sure, and when Leo DiCaprio does it backing some shit movie that makes Nothing But Trouble look like The Godfather, they’re all for it. They have principals, and Trump ain’t one of ’em.

  20. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww: Women Shun the Maternity Smock, and Stores Race to Catch Up

    “The millennials really like to show off the belly,” Mr. Romano said. “The funny phrase that people use around here all the time is, is it gummy? Is it soft enough, is it stretch enough?”

    “I didn’t like what stores were basically telling me to do, which was to just go buy bigger, baggier things,” she said. “I’m not going to go into Forever 21 and buy an extra large dress and cinch it.”

    Marie George, 71, remembers when bigger and baggier felt like the only acceptable options.

    “My generation was the first generation that didn’t have to stay in the house when they were pregnant,” said Ms. George, whose two children are now around 40.

    “I remember I had this wonderful red jumper that I actually bought in the junior department, and I think I lived in that,” she said. “Most of the time, the things that I was wearing were really ill fitting.”

    1. The thing about pregnant women is you KNOW they put out.

      1. But you also know they aren’t pro-abortion, so…

        1. You can only get so pregnant.

    2. It’s kind of interesting how “maternity clothes” have changed over the years.

      Over the weekend, I saw a very pregnant woman wearing a form-fitting stretch dress. It was actually pretty hot.

        1. You draw the line at pregnant?

          Meh, I’m with Rich on this one.

      1. *slowly backs away from Rich*

      2. “Ugly …. So *ugly*.” — Bill Cosby

      3. It has certainly gotten better since the days of tents with big bows.

        The big bow was held out as a promise to detract from the size of one’s enormous belly. The big bow was a lie.

        1. The only pregnancy gear you need is a T-shirt that says “one in the oven”.

          1. “I’m with stupid”

            1. Tell me they make that with the arrow pointing down.

    3. “My generation was the first generation that didn’t have to stay in the house when they were pregnant,”

      Honestly, I’m jealous. I’m so sick of strangers informing me what I look like and how pregnant I am.

      1. Girl, you so pregnant.

      2. Gosh, I seem to remember seeing pregnant women in public my whole life, which goes back to before “my generation”.

        These people are idiots.

      3. “My generation was the first generation that didn’t have to stay in the house when they were pregnant,”

        She must be a Muslim, because I’ve never heard of such a taboo.

  21. U.S. anti-pipeline groups interfering and influencing in Alberta:

    http://business.financialpost……-pipelines

  22. Rasmussen: White House Watch: Clinton, Trump Tied Again

    1. Yes but were chronologically acceptable mammals hatched after 1980 properly questioned about there loyalties?

  23. WikiLeaks’ ‘October Surprise’ fails; Assange promises more to come Promises, promises.

    1. Yes I too awoke early to that rick roll

    2. Watched it. He could’ve cleared up the “quotes taken out of context” thing right off the bat. Dickhead waited until he pumped his books and site. Funny, but still a dickhead.

    3. Assange is a twit. His organization seems to do good work, but he is a classic case of overpromising, underdelivering.

      Although perhaps if he did have something of substance it would be good judgment to hold its release until after the MONSTER HURRICANE OMFG SHTF TEOTWAWKI SIIHPAPP!

    4. A friend of mine (progressive but despises Hillary) is convinced that the media purposefully builds up WikiLeaks releases to be more than they actually are so they can discredit them.

    5. Even if he had something that would ruin Hillarys campaign. I’d bet money that Kaine takes over and still beats Trump.

    6. In all seriousness, what at this point could possibly be released about Clinton that would affect the outcome of the election? America knows everything there is to know about the Clintons. Every one of their misdeeds, lies, crimes, and a literal stack of bodies to show for their policies. What’s going to stack up against the things that are already known? That she farts at the dinner table?

      1. The FBI failure to indict her and the other leaks caused Trump to go from well behind to either ahead or a dead heat depending on what poll you want to believe. So these things clearly have hurt Hillary and they very well may hurt her some more.

        The other thing is that they will make a big splash and force the media to talk about her problems. What seems to happen with her is something bad comes out and the country remembers how horrible she is. Then the media lie and create all kinds of distractions to take the heat off of her and her poll numbers creep up. A new batch of leaks, assuming they are actually significant, starts that process over again and likely hurts her by reminding the soft middle of the electorate that yes, Hillary really is that awful.

    7. That was disappointing. It also sounds like the future leaks are not as focused on Hillary. I wonder if he woke up with a horse cankle in his bed.

  24. New poll: Hillary Clinton 47 percent, Donald Trump 42 percent, Gary Johnson 7 percent, Jill Stein 2 percent.

    A CNN poll huh? Maybe next time, you could post a poll taken from the MotherJones readership.

    1. Is it just me, or do all the CNN anchors have giant heads? Their moms should’ve sought out Zika. Even shit out.

      1. Lester Holt is certainly the most goofy looking news anchor I’ve even seen. His forehead accounts for 90% of his mass.

    1. Eliminationist rhetoric!

    2. I know we’re in the Libertarian Moment and could never possibly go back to the bad old days of 2003 when we had an “assault weapon” ban. And maybe I’m just a pessimistic yokeltarian. But I 100% believe the United States will have gun control laws mirroring the UK within my lifetime.

      1. The massive amount of guns sales says otherwise. Or at least it will be ignored.

        1. I’m a hair under 30, so with any luck I’m talking about a pretty long time horizon. I’d be happy to be proven wrong. I honestly don’t think the current number of guns or gun owners would be a huge impediment the way it is often assumed. I bet if you asked a young banker in 1910 “Do you think it will be illegal to own gold bullion or gold certificates within your lifetime?” he probably would have laughed in your face, and yet private ownership of gold was illegal by the mid ’30s with little fanfare.

          1. People laugh in my face when I tell them that FDR made owning gold illegal, because it sounds so damn absurd and tyrannical that it couldn’t possibly have happened.

            1. There was a case a few years ago where someone found a very rare US gold coin in their grandparents stuff. The treasury confiscated it because the people had kept it in violation of the law back in the 1930s.

              1. Were it not for FDR stacking the Supreme Court, I can’t imagine how this law executive order would have been ruled constitutional. We have a right to property, which is one way that it would unconstitutional, much less the ex post facto prohibition.

          2. People who own gold are far less likely to shoot back

            1. These days, I expect virtually nobody owns physical gold that doesn’t also own guns, and this overlap could well be the demographic most likely to shoot back.

  25. Duterte tells Obama ‘you can go to hell’ in new tirade

    n a speech before a local convention attended by officials and business executives, Duterte outlined his disappointments with the U.S., which has asked his government to stop the widespread killings under his anti-drug campaign and has questioned whether human rights are being violated. He also described Washington as an unreliable ally, saying Filipino forces have not benefited from joint combat exercises with U.S. troops.

    “Instead of helping us, the first to criticize is this State Department, so you can go to hell, Mr. Obama, you can go to hell,” Duterte said. Then addressing the EU, he said: “Better choose purgatory, hell is filled up.”

    Angered by U.S. criticism, Duterte has made a series of public pronouncements that he could scale back the activities and presence of visiting U.S. troops in the country. He said he wanted them out of the volatile south, saying their presence has inflamed restiveness among minority Muslims, which could complicate efforts to forge a peace accord with Muslim insurgents.

    1. I don’t profess to know much about the Pi-lippines but this guy seems a tad off. However, is his reason of sparking this war to rid of Muslim insurgents a valid one? If so, it makes him one of the few leaders around who actually is doing something about it. Though the methods seem really bad if in fact he’s killing non-Muslim insurgents.

      1. Ya but hopefully his solution isn’t a bit to ‘final’

        1. He proudly espouses his final solution to the war on drugs in his country.

      2. There’s been an ongoing Muslim insurgency on Mindanao pretty much since the Spanish colonization.

    2. Hmmmm….

      I’m guessing that the joint exercises with US forces always end up with US troops invading the bar district of whatever town they are near and not being seen for the rest of the exercise.

      Local LBFM’s on the other hand profit handsomely from the “joint” exercises.

    3. Duterte tells Obama ‘you can go to hell’ in new tirade

      Obama: “Why go to hell? I’m creating it right here on earth!”

    4. I’m all for telling Obama to go to hell, but Duterte is a megalomaniacal genocidal rapist, and I say that without a hint of hyperbole. If he literally thinks the Philipines haven’t benefited from US largesse, he can defend the Philippine territorial waters from China all by himself and fight his country’s unending insurgencies all alone as well.

  26. Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence will face off tonight in a vice presidential debate.

    Who?

  27. So, have you guys seen the new Hillary ad campaign based around “fat shaming”?

    I was travelling this weekend and probably saw it 30 times. It features Trump sound bites saying “She’s a big fat pig” and “I’d tell her to her big, fat face” as innocent-looking and slightly sad pre-teen girls look at themselves in the mirror and look into the camera.

    It is possibly the most dishonest advertisement I have ever seen in my life. It pretends that when in an argument with Rosie O’Donnell, Trump is really yelling at a sweet little 12 year old girl. The ad comes right out and says that this is how he talks to all of your children.

    The clear implication of the ad is that every grown woman is really a Jr. high school girl who must be protected and nurtured and cannot be insulted. All women are really children and fragile little flowers who cannot be exposed to adult disagreements.

    If there was a single real feminist out there in the world, they’d be taking Hillary to the carpet over this one. But there isn’t. They are all a bunch of little snowflakes who are outraged that Trump called them fat.

    1. It offends me that women fall for this shit. I want my own gender.

      1. Pick anything you want, there are more than 31 flavors!

      2. It’s 2016. You can have any gender you want!

      3. I have talked to several women about this, including a couple of top-level executives who make 7 figure incomes. They all fell for it, 100%. Not one woman I talked to had the reaction of “Hey, I’m not a little kid, I’m an adult”.

        Women whom I have personally witness calling men cocksuckers and worse right to their face, not to mention what they say behind their backs. Women whom I have personally heard calling other women much worse names than “Miss Piggy”. They all are shocked and appalled that any man would dare speak this way about a woman.

        In fact, I was only able to get one woman to understand the implicit “all women are little children who must be protected from insults and course language” message of the ad. It doesn’t matter how much of a pig Trump is, this ad campaign is one of the most profoundly anti-feminist things to surface in modern politics. And nobody even seems to be able to see it.

        1. I believe that. And the reason why they don’t see it is because they refuse to. They refuse to see it because doing so would require those women you mention to face how awful they are to other women and the ugly truth that women harm other women far more often than men harm women. The ad gives them a chance to project all of their own awfulness onto Trump and thus avoid facing it.

          1. And the reason why they don’t see it is because they refuse to fear being called fat themselves.

            1. That and they want to retain the power of degrading other women for being fat where men can’t.

        2. Women whom I have personally witness calling men cocksuckers and worse right to their face, not to mention what they say behind their backs. Women whom I have personally heard calling other women much worse names than “Miss Piggy”. They all are shocked and appalled that any man would dare speak this way about a woman.

          Did you point out their hypocrisy, or decided you preferred to remain on good terms with them?

      4. My girlfriend has essentially said that it cost him her vote. Of course I don’t know how you can be undecided about him at this point and than it’s finally this that pushes you away.

        1. It bothers her not at all that Hillary was an enabler for Bill’s serial sexual assaults and rape, and that she ran a war room to smear and attack Bill’s victims, and that she has taken tens of millions of dollars from people and countries who believe women shouldn’t vote, shouldn’t drive, shouldn’t be seen in public without a man, should be stoned to death for adultery, etc. etc.? That all gets a pass?

          1. I she isn’t voting for either at this point.

            1. Well that’s good.

          2. My wife had the exact same response.

            She completely refuses to acknowledge the existence of even the suggestion that Clinton may have assaulted any women. The only issue as far as her reality goes is that he was unfaithful in his marriage, and that is a private matter.

            The rest of it doesn’t even exist. Even when confronted with an interview with Juanita Broaddrick, she is unmoved – willfully so. She refused to even look at the headline, let alone listen to her story.

            People are very funny about how they manage their reality.

            But Trump is a pig. He’s disgusting.

            (now, I happen to agree on the last bit, but for entirely different reasons. )

      5. Appeal to Hamsterabi, The Lawgiver.

    2. It features Trump sound bites saying “She’s a big fat pig” and “I’d tell her to her big, fat face”

      I think he’s a jerk but it’s incredibly rich for Hillary to think she can take the moral high ground over anyone. Also, the comments are not something to base your vote on unless you’re just ignorant about the rest of the issues and their significance. Yeah, I’ll vote for the most corrupt candidate in history but at least she didn’t call someone fat! Really?

      1. it’s incredibly rich for Hillary to think she can take the moral high ground over anyone

        Informed people understand this. Not most voters, unfortunately.

        1. I’ve been shocked at how presumably intelligent, informed women fall for this shit.

          It hits them right in their insecurities, their frontal lobe switches off, and its all feelz and pre-teen emoting.

          Disappointing.

    3. If there’s any group that is prone to cruelty towards fat and ugly women, it’s women.

    4. If there was a single real feminist out there in the world, they’d be taking Hillary to the carpet over this one.

      What has been done here has been witnessed.

      Are we not doing phrasing anymore?

    5. Hell, here in the Cleveland suburbs there was a mailing by the Democrat party that didn’t even mention Hillary by name. It was just some Trump quotes, with a little written story over a picture of a woman that basically said that these terrible things are being said by Trump to all women, so you should vote for the Democrat.

  28. “Clinton’s boost in the race stems largely from gains on Trump among men (from a 22-point deficit with that group in early September to just a 5-point one now) and sharply increased support from independents, who broke heavily in Trump’s favor in the early September poll but now tilt Clinton, 44% to 37%.”

    I believe the one about independents. Seven points among independents still isn’t much of a margin–especially with Governor Aleppo still making waves.

    But if you’re telling me that Clinton’s ahead now on the backs of men changing their minds and going for Clinton, you can color me skeptical. That isn’t where they want to be.

    1. Trump’s dead cat bounce in the polls is over.

      1. You don’t know what that term means. A dead cat bounce suggests that he’s fallen from a great height. He’s been trailing all this time.

        The question remains how well he’s doing in battleground states like Ohio and North Carolina, too–didn’t see those results in the poll.

        Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton hasn’t had a favorable rating over 50% since July of 2014 (Two-Thousand Fourteen). Her favorable rating has hovered around 39% for the past nine months, and her unfavorable rating has been clocking in around 56% for the past nine months, too.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/161…..-news.aspx

        Even if Trump had the benefit of a dead cat bounce, we’d only be comparing him to Hillary’s dead cat bounce. Even if she wins, she’ll only walk into office less hated than Richard Nixon when he resigned–and then her honeymoon will end.

        1. Hillary’s dead cat bounce.

          Is that a dead pussy cat?

        2. dead cat bounce is a temporary recovery from a prolonged decline that is followed by the continuation of the downtrend. It does not require starting from a great height.

          1. dead cat bounce is a temporary recovery from a prolonged decline

            So, not a (temporary?) reversal of an uptrend?

    2. But if you’re telling me that Clinton’s ahead now on the backs of men changing their minds and going for Clinton, you can color me skeptical. That isn’t where they want to be.

      Me too. That strikes me as the result of an oversample of black, hispanic, and/or urban white men. Rasmussen has them tied, which I also doubt, but Hillary -5 among men is just way, way off from where the polls have sat this election.

      1. 22 point deficit to a five point deficit?

        That’s a huge swing among a group of people who don’t have much of a reason to change sides.

        Why did they all change?

        They’e upset about Trump saying bad things about Miss Piggy?

        What was it that Hillary said in the debate that made men, specifically, change their minds?

        I’m skeptical of big changes without big reasons for them.

        The ball doesn’t get knocked out of the park by itself.

        1. There is nothing Hillary said that would have changed men’s minds in that debate. She was all big government nanny state and that does not generally appeal to men. If this poll showed a swing in women voters, I might believe it. But, as you point out, Hillary has done nothing that would cause men who don’t already support her to change their minds. This poll is either a bad sample or a push poll. I don’t buy it for a moment.

      2. UPI has it Trump +2

        http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/1…..475504225/

        LA Times has it Trump +5 and Rasmussan as you point out has it tied. CNN and a couple of others have it Clinton +5 or +6.

        I think it is a question of who they are sampling. If you over sample Democrats, Clinton gets a big lead. If you over sample Republicans, Trump gets the lead. It really comes down to turnout. If Democrats show up in the kind of numbers they did in 08, Clinton wins. If they turn out like they did in 12, it is probably too close to call. If they turn out anything less than how they did in 12, Trump wins easily.

        1. You’ve got intensity favoring Trump and demographic trends favoring Clinton – Hillary might end up with an electorate similar to Obama in 2012 despite her doing everything she can to persuade them to stay home. I also think we’re going to see a sizable Bradley effect this election, in keeping with recent high profile elections and HRC’s own history.

          1. Intensity can be very deceiving. If one guy loves Trump and will do anything to vote for him and another person loathes Hillary but shows up to vote anyway out of party loyalty, their votes count the same. For intensity to matter it has to translate into more people actually voting for one side. Sometimes, like in the BREXIT vote it does. Other times it doesn’t. I think it is a good bet that Trump isn’t going to underperform his poll numbers. Anyone telling a pollster that they support Trump is pretty likely to vote. Hillary, on the other hand, might underperform her poll numbers. Lots of people say they support Hillary but don’t really like her or want to vote for her. It is impossible to predict how many of Hillary’s supporters will actually show up to vote.

            And I agree with you that there is probably an actual Bradley effect going on for the first time ever. I think there are a good number of especially college educated whites who say they don’t support Trump but will actually vote for him.

            1. There’s an EC vote gaming app out there that lets you “bend” poll results. If memory serves, a switch of 2% from Hillary to Trump results in a Trump EC victory.

              Still too close to call, too early to tell. It comes down to Trump’s lack of impulse control v. bad news for Hillary breaking the media blockade.

            2. And you can blame the way the media, and Clinton, have been talking about Trump supporters for that. If you social signal hard enough, people will lie to your face to signal their virtuosity, while resenting the pressure and having to lie.

  29. “Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday told U.S. President Barack Obama to ‘go to hell’ and said the United States had refused to sell some weapons to his country but he did not care because Russia and China were willing suppliers.”

    This brown on brown violence has got to stop!

  30. Also, someone should mention that the big story of the day is likely to be about Wikileaks.

    Julian Assange is holding a press conference today and releasing a new batch of Hillary’s emails.

    You’d think he’d save some juicy bits for October.

    For me, the really serious stuff became public knowledge in May of 2015.

    Did you guys know that Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State?

    1. Either my sarcmeter is broke or you should check the innertubz.

      1. Does anybody understand what this is supposed to mean?

        1. I believe he is implying that you’re taking the piss as this was already discussed upthread.

          1. I think it’s more likely that genderfaerie hasn’t been reading outside of Salon.

            Good thing we’re here to inform:

            “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.

            “Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors”
            Mother Jones
            May 28, 2015

            http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..arms-deals

            My sarc meter isn’t even on, and I’ve checked the interwebs. Theu say Hillary Clinton took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

            P.S. Hillary Clinton took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

            1. In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.

              I hadn’t heard that before. Payments to the ClintonCrimeSyndicate are baked into current polls, but the direct payments to the Clintons I hadn’t heard before. This sounds like a good topic for an ad and Donald’s debate.

              1. The direct payments are “speaking fees”, would be my guess.

                All part of their world-class money-laundering operation. Which they have already told us will continue if Hillary wins the election.

    2. Did you guys know that Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State?

      Wait, what?

  31. Equality as a concept does not work under white supremacist capitalism, as our current oppressive power systems are inexplicably linked to oppressing someone. Under capitalism, there is always a winner, meaning there is also always a loser.

    Great. My day is shot, and I haven’t even had breakfast yet.

  32. Gary Johnson skeptical about all politicians
    “I’m a real skeptic, so I point out an elected leader, foreign leader that I admire and all of a sudden I have to defend them against things that I’m not even aware of”
    “I would love to see a poll head-to-head, Johnson versus Clinton, Johnson versus Trump,” he said. “I think that would really be revealing. I think I would be the President of the United States in that poll.”

    Not sure about playing up the “things that I’m not aware of” aspect of his candidacy, but I am also curious to see GJ vs HRC and GJ vs DT polls. Maybe his campaign could kick in some cash to run those polls rather than whining that nobody else is doing it for him at no cost.

    1. “I’m a real skeptic, so I point out an elected leader, foreign leader that I admire and all of a sudden I have to defend them against things that I’m not even aware of”

      If he’d said that on the show we wouldn’t even be talking about it.

      Of course, the depths of your skepticism are somewhat undermined when you heap praise on the opposing party’s nominee. But it would have worked for the foreign leader bit and neatly dodged the question instead of making you look like a total cock.

    2. Gary keeps saying really good things several days too late. If he was quick-witted enough to pop off lines like this when questioned, we’d be in a whole different scenario right now.

      1. L’esprit d’escalier

    3. Sorry Gary, the jerk store and called and they say you only get one chance to give the right answer to a question.. Thinking of a good answer later after giving a dumb one doesn’t count.

      1. -1 esprit l’escalier

      2. He should ask for all questions two days in advance. The hosts shouldnt have a peoblem wirh that.

        1. Or maybe wear an ear piece so his staff can feed him answers. I am sure the media will go for that. It is not like they give Hillary special treatment or anything. Right?

          1. I mean they arent playing gotcha games, right? They want intelligent, well thought out answers?

            1. I finally heard the Chris Mathews question. Holy crap, what an asshole. Johnson flubbed it, but Mathews made it pretty clear that he was just paying gotcha with his moronic “come on just name anyone” shit.

              1. If only Johnson had said “well Chris none of them really send a thrill up my leg”, it would have been the most epic burn in TV history. God what a missed opportunity. Can you imagine the look on that assholes’ face if Johnson had said that? It would have been priceless.

              2. And BTW a couple of years ago Michelle Bachman of all people got off a pretty similar burn. I forget exactly what she said but it was something to the effect of “that candidate just might send a thrill up people’s legs”. It was the last thing she said and as they went to commercial Mathews practically screamed “I never said that. Idiot!”. It was great but not as great as the opportunity Johnson had.

  33. My Uncle Hudson recently got Audi A6 only from working off a pc at home
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  34. Scanned and didn’t see anything about this:

    “WikiLeaks’ Assange promises leaks on US election, Google”
    […]
    “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange promised “significant” disclosures on subjects including the U.S. election and Google in the coming weeks as the secret-spilling group marked its 10th anniversary on Tuesday.
    Assange said WikiLeaks plans to start publishing new material starting this week, but wouldn’t specify the timing and subject.”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/…..smsnnews11

    Hell of a tease…

    1. Trump should ask Hillary to just release everything she think Assange might have. If Hillary and the Democrats think that Assange is an agent of Russia trying to interfere with the election, fine. Release everything he might have and then he has nothing new to leak and thus can’t have any effect on the election. Hillary knows what he has or could have. Just release it.

      It would be brilliant and hilarious watching the media and Hillary trying to explain why she can’t do that.

      1. I don’t know if Assange is a Russian agent (isn’t he still in the Equador embassy in London?), but I imagine he’s trying to influence the election!

        1. He probably is. But he can’t influence anything if he doesn’t have anything new to leak. Right? Come on Hillary, don’t let Assange interfere in US elections. Just tell America what he has. It is not like you have something to hide or anything. Right?

          1. Presumably Julian is leaving Trump alone because he doesn’t want to get into anything too rapey, for obvious reasons.

            1. I don’t know. If Hillary didn’t have so much to hide, it wouldn’t really matter now would it?

              1. Practically her entire adult’s life worth of papers has been published during one Republican witch hunt or another over the years. Meanwhile nobody’s asking your guy to talk about the time he gang raped children, they just want a routine release of his tax documents. Not that he’s hiding anything.

                1. Meanwhile nobody’s asking your guy to talk about the time he gang raped children

                  Presuming “your guy” here refers to Trump, was he Bill Clinton’s mystery guest to Jeffrey Epstein’s underage bacchanal? Lol. Of all the things a Clinton apologist doesn’t want to start throwing around it’s rape accusations. Not everybody loves those cum stained garments as much as you do.

        2. trying to influence the election

          This has nothing to do with Assange but it amazes me that this has become a bad thing. As though elections have some sort of “pristine” state where nobody’s “influenced”. The whole purpose of an election is to represent the voters’ will, no? Then what difference does it make if someone “influences” that will, unless you believe voters don’t have agency (in which case, why even have elections?).

          1. Yeah, you’d think influencing the election be releasing truthful info would be an unmitigated good.

          2. The central fallacy is that they pretend all “influence” is the same and nefarious. If Assange were putting out lies or trying to bribe the candidates, that would be bad. He is of course not doing that. All he is doing is releasing information that should have been released to the public but hasn’t been. Is that “influencing the election”? In some sense sure. It is not however nefarious or anything that Hillary has any standing to complain about.

    2. I bet he spells out the shocking revelation that Google toyed with it’s algorithm to downplay negative news about Hilary and positive news about Trump.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.