Donald Trump

Pussy Whipped Trump

Sex trumps race in American politics

|

It is too early to tell if the "pussy" tape revelations will finally be the unraveling of Donald Trump. But they have already gotten Trump to do something he never does: apologize. It might have

Trump Mouth
Todd Krainin

been a half-hearted apology, but it is more than what he's ever offered.

This is not because he is truly remorseful, of course. The man is incapable of that. It is because he knows that without it, there is no redemption, no way forward. Speaker Paul Ryan has already disinvited him from a Wisconsin rally, saying he was "sickened" by the comments. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus has denounced his comments as "indefensible." Sens. Mike Lee, Mike Crapo, and Jeff Flake, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah have disendorsed him. Rep. Barbara Comstock is demanding that he withdraw from the race and the list of similar calls from elected Republicans is growing.

Amazingly, this was not even the first story in the past week about Trump's demeaning treatment of women. The AP reported on October 3 that he habitually talked to the male contestants on the Apprentice of "fucking" their female counterparts, often in the presence of the women in question. The New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff is reminding people of allegations made by a female contractor in 1997 that Trump tried to assault in his daughter's Mar-a-Lago bedroom. Why is the audio tape different? Those stories were based on hearsay, he-said-she-said, anonymous sources. In this case it was Trump being Trump caught on tape, bragging about groping and semi-molesting women.

This is all terrible stuff. And so is Trump's response to the "Central Park Five"—the men who had, as teen-age boys, been wrongly convicted in the 1989 Central Park jogger rape case. In fact the response by Trump and the non-response by his fellow Republicans to his statements about that case demonstrate something rotten in today's GOP, if not the country at large.

As Scott Shackford wrote yesterday, at the time, Trump ran full-page ads in the Daily News demanding the death penalty for these kids. But after they were finally exonerated, what was Trump's reaction? Contrition that he had demanded the execution of innocent kids? Shock that the system had convicted the wrong guys? Relief that justice was finally done?

Trump evinced none of that. He stubbornly insisted that the men were still guilty because they had "confessed." Never mind that the confessions were coerced after hours and hours of interrogation that conducted in the absence of their parents and legal representation, and that DNA evidence decisively linked another man to the rape. Last week, years after New York offered to pay them restitution—$1 million for each year that they collectively spent in prison, for a total of $40 million—Trump actually said that the settlement was outrageous and "a disgrace." Previously, he'd taken to the airwaves and declared that the payment was "the heist of the century."

And what did Ryan, Lee, Priebus, Chaffetz, Comstock, and the rest of the Republican establishment do after these monstrous statements? Nothing. They maintained a stoic silence.

Why? Because sexual politics is far a bigger force in this country than racial politics. Women, after all, constitute half of the population, and blacks, the most perennially disadvantaged minority in America, come to merely 12 percent. This obviously affects the electoral calculation of the major parties. But it affects more than that.

All the Republicans condemning Trump over the "pussy" tape have noted that turning the other way would have made it hard for them to look their sisters, wives, moms, and daughters in the eye. If they have no similar compunctions about Trump's terrifying Central Park Five comments, it's because blacks are simply not a big part of their daily existence or their constituencies (in 2012, Mitt Romney earned just 5 percent of black votes). They don't have strong friendships or relationships with blacks and therefore don't have to defend their failure to confront Trump on that score.

Apart from Republican outreach to blacks to compensate for this lack of natural interaction, there is no obvious solution to this problem. The Black Lives Matter movement is trying to offset the relatively small numbers of African Americans through loudness and stridency, a strategy that undermines its cause as much as it advances it. Expecting a movement to perfectly calibrate its strategy for maximum persuasion is too much to ask for.

Be that as it may, there is something really, really fucked up about a political system that imposes a bigger price for coarse and crude remarks rather than the open advocacy of injustice against innocent victims of injustice. That's the real travesty of the Trump candidacy.

NEXT: Mike Crapo Withdraws Trump Endorsement After Mike Lee Calls on the Nominee to 'Step Aside' and Jeff Flake Says 'America Deserves Far Better' (UPDATED)

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. You’re a terrible writer and seem like a shitty person.

    1. I like Shikha, if for no other reason than that she gets the yokels all verklempt.

      1. So you support memory-holing articles?

        1. Behold the rage agaibnst Shikha, proving Trump and Paul use the same playbook (rage/hatred). Kennedy attacked Bill Weld for not bowing down to Ron Paul, “the architect of modern libertarianism.” Libertarianism 3.0, the LEAST popular ever, but the purest!

          Gary and Bill know 60% of Americans as fiscally responsible and socially tolerant, libertarians per Cato’s survey. But the full survey has been suppressed. They pitch to the 3.0 playbook, unaware the libertarian brand was rejected by 91% of those libertarians. The brand is the ideology. The architect is Rand Paul. The 91% is David Nolan.

          Katherine Mangu-Ward was attacked for noting that Ron is great on principle, but terrible on politics. Paul’s faction talks only principles, never governing, as recently admitted by SevoPolicy platforms are statist!

          Paulistas even act like a cult. Forget governing. Move somewhere with ONLY their ilk. First, a man-made island in the ocean. Now a SLIGHT bow to politics, all move to a single state. The Moonies moved to Oregon. The Branch Davidfians to Waco. The People’s Temple drank the Kool-Aid at Jonestown.

          Nolans are 53% of voters. Pauls are 6%. The cult objects, noting the data are 10 years old. True, but they REFUSE to explain ANY change in any 3 measured factors. In severe denial?

          1. Does that word salad mean anything or do you have aphasia?

            1. it meant something to your mom Winston. =D

            2. Winston traffics im personal aggression and name-calling. Cyber-bullying. This link to Cato’s website will document his personal attack as wholly unfounded

              http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7

              In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: …

              That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

              Several surveys reported. Scroll down roughly 2/3 to the bold header, ‘How Libertarians See Themselves.”

              The survey is there, and the 59% is known by many, cited by Johnson/Wekd.. The rest has been suppressed – defend the libertarian moment, eh?. Thus Johnson/Weld, and everyone else, is deceived on the nature of our target voters … in this, an opportunity that opens only once or twice per century,

              None dare call it treason.

            3. Boy’s off his meds. Just smile, nod, and back away.

              -jcr

              1. More aggression. Another thug

            1. Blue Hihn.
              How Appropiate.

              Even more appropriate =D =D

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6457534

              1. Oh, LOOK! Mike links to……
                the same thread we’re looking at.
                AND PRESUMES HE WINS (LAUGHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

                1. If there’s any doubt that SEVO is retarded. Yes, the link is IN this thread Direct to a specific post that CRUSHES Sevo’s gang — thus he attacks a comment I say is “more appropriate” and it is! CLICK IT!

                  AND PRESUMES HE WINS (LAUGHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

                  One link. TWO wins!

                  As my self-defense from Sevo’s latest aggression. here’s another link. At that one, Sevo ridicules me for saying Johnson/Weld need a real platform …. because … Sevo says that would be STATIST (OMG)CLICK IT

                  Psst. Is he still laughing?

                  (One more time. The large percentage of cyber-bullies here traces to Reason’s refusal to moderate comments. This creates a market incentive to bullies … because NO other major political site is unmoderated. Nick has a column at Daily Beast which TOTALLY shut down its comments. Reason’s is a suckup to the Paulista cult, which has 90^% of the bullies.)

                  1. You’re an idiot who doesn’t get why you’re being laughed at.

                    1. Fuck off Tulpa
                      You’re an idiot who doesn’t get why you’re being laughed at.

                      (laughing) I know why. But who cares about an asshole punk with a handle like yours … BRAGGING about aggression. Swift

                  2. Uhhh….

                    If Reason moderated comments, do you think yours would still be here?

                    1. If Reason moderated comments, do you think yours would still be here?

                      Uhhh, I moderated the very first online libertarian forum in 1993 at Compuserve.(second Mod, first forum) So, as always, you have no idea what you’re talking about,

                      Moderators deal with personal attacks and insults … not differing opinions.
                      Differing opinions are what attracts readers — also with varying opinions,
                      Bullies, thugs and aggression, like yours, make people afraid to participate.
                      And disgrace the libertarian image.

                    2. Moderators deal with personal attacks and insults

                      Michael Hihn|10.9.16 @ 1:19AM|#

                      If there’s any doubt that SEVO is retarded.

                    3. Michael Hihn|10.9.16 @ 1:30AM|#

                      Stupid is as stupid does!

                    4. Michael Hihn|10.9.16 @ 2:01AM|#

                      You lose AGAIN thug

                    5. Michael Hihn|10.8.16 @ 9:16PM|#

                      DUMBFUCK

                    6. Michael Hihn|10.9.16 @ 1:53AM|#

                      Another thug

                    7. Michael Hihn|10.9.16 @ 4:17AM|#

                      One more time for the king bullshitter.

                    8. Fuck Off Tupa (an aggressor by name),

                      It’s called self-defense from aggression … which is why you post only a partial. when the complete comment would ft.

                      And (snicker), your very handle says it all!!

                    9. There are bullies and there are psychos.
                      “Fuck Off Tulpa” is a psycho — more than even his name.

                      Imagine the mentality, Extract ONE of my lines from a comment, maybe two.
                      Lie that I committed a personal attack or insult. Hide the lie by:
                      1) Edit my response to hide that I was defending from aggression, by a thug like FOT.
                      2) And, of course, never include a link. The goobers will swallow it. The others won’t know.

                      I have already documented his rather pathetic aggression, linking to the UNCENSORED comment.
                      I only did one. Which is depraved enough on its own.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6457815

                      Confession. NOBODY will check the proof. That’s how slander works. For the next few weeks, other thugs will repeat FOT’s lie, on pure Tribal Loyalty.

                      Again, this is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.
                      David Nolan libertarians were 53% of voters (includes socially liberal)
                      Ron Paul libertarians were 5.3% (includes extreme social conservative)
                      That was 2006, Since then, the disparity can only get worse (for them)

                      Common knowledge that Americans are trending FAR more socially liberal.
                      Obviously, Americans are abandoning the extreme socons.
                      So Nolan libertarians have clearly gained.
                      Paul libertarians are. at best, the same (where did the new social tolerance come from?)

                    10. “Fuck Of Tulpa’s” thuggish aggression has gone totally off the rails.
                      To hide his own bullying and aggresion, he shamelessly lies about my comments.

                      1) Edit my comment to remove the attack I responded to.
                      2) Include one or two lines – claiming I was the attacker,
                      3) Include no link, to protect your lie

                      But he’s not a psycho liar.
                      Well, I’ve documened just one. Linking to the REAL comment.
                      One is enough to prove his abject moral depravity.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6457815

                      This is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians
                      53% of Americans (at least) are Nolan libertarians.
                      5.3% (at most) are Paul libertarians.

                2. One more Sevo assault backfires

                  Oh, LOOK! Mike links to……
                  the same thread we’re looking at.
                  AND PRESUMES HE WINS (LAUGHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

                  Now TWO wins, chump
                  Computer literate people can see I link directly to a specific comment .. which both savages and ridicules goobers like him. CLICK IT.

                  Is he also a psycho liar, again. If he knows it”s this thread, then he clocked it. If he clicked it he knows where it REALLY goes. Hmmm.

                  What can we expect from a goober?. At THIS link, he attacks my comment that Johnson/Weld need an actual policy platform …. but … Sevo says, that would be STATIST! … CLICK IT.

                  Cyber-bullies, by nature, attack, attack, attack, all personal attacks. To be macho. As teems, they compared dicks. Same mentality

                  (my tone ad boldface in self-defense of aggresion)

                  Pssst. Is it still laugjing?

                  1. Michael Hihn|10.9.16 @ 4:42AM|#

                    ? chump?

                    ? goobers like him?

                    ? a psycho liar?

                    Cyber-bullies, by nature, attack, attack, attack, all personal attacks

                    1. Hey dumbass — I actually included Sevo’s aggression.
                      Self-defense .. which you edit away.

                      (post in self-defense of multiple aggresssions)

                    2. Raging aggression and lies by a psycho bully :

                      Fuck Off Tupa

                      Michael Hihn|10.9.16 @ 4:42AM|#
                      Cyber-bullies, by nature, attack, attack, attack, all personal attacks

                      The comment he lies about is SELF-DEFENSE of aggression by a fellow psycho bully, here.

                      One more Sevo assault backfires

                      Oh, LOOK! Mike links to……
                      the same thread we’re looking at.
                      AND PRESUMES HE WINS (LAUGHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

                      Now TWO wins, chump

                      Computer literate people can see I link directly to a SPECIFIC COMMENT (duh).. which both savages and ridicules bullies like Sevo. CLICK IT.

                      (If he knows it’s page he clicked it, saw it, and lied about the link)

                      What can we expect from a goober?. At THIS link, he attacks my comment that Johnson/Weld need an actual policy platform …. but … Sevo says, that would be STATIST! … CLICK IT. (OMG

                      Cyber-bullies, by nature, attack, attack, attack, all personal attacks. To be macho. As teens, they compared dicks. Same mentality

                      Sevo + Fuck Off Tulpa = run in packs, like wild dogs. BOTH proven liars to coverup aggressions and assaults
                      Anti-gummint libs DO say policies are statist!!!!

                      (posted in self-defense of aggression, with aggression in his handle)

                    3. “Michael Hihn|10.9.16 @ 6:22AM|#

                      Hey dumbass — I actually included Sevo’s aggression.”

                      And I included yours.

                    4. “Fuck Of Tulpa’s” thuggish aggression has gone totally off the rails.
                      To hide his own bullying and aggresion, he shamelessly lies about my comments.

                      1) Edit my comment to remove the attack I responded to.
                      2) Include one or two lines – claiming I was the attacker,
                      3) Include no link, to protect your lie

                      But he’s not a psycho liar.
                      Well, I’ve documened just one. Linking to the REAL comment.
                      One is enough to prove his abject moral depravity.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6457815

                      This is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians
                      53% of Americans (at least) are Nolan libertarians.
                      5.3% (at most) are Paul libertarians.

                      One ……. sick ……. fuck
                      documented

                    5. “BOTH proven liars”

                      They’re your words.

        2. So you support memory-holing articles?

          Why does Winston’s mom keep asking about what happened last night?

          She wants someone to fill her memory hole.

    2. Dipshit Scumbagetta should get the pile of shit between her ears smooshed with a giant hammer.

      1. NAP indeed.

  2. Ryan is a congressman not a senator.

    Your title, alt-text and photo are fantastic though.

    1. Hm, I am not getting any alt-text. But I just assumed that pic is a close up of Hillary’s vagina.

      1. …with the dry lips and so…

  3. The last time I grabbed a woman’s pussy, it hissed at me and scratched my arms. So I handed it back to her and left the pet store.

    1. I have never ever grabbed a pussy.
      Serious question: is that even a thing?

        1. I grew up pre twerking, so it strikes me as in the realm of possible that people might actually have pussy grabbing in their repertoire now as much as I can’t believe it’s a thing.

    2. Dude, you should get your pussy at the rescue shelter.

        1. In tempura batter with a side gochujang sauce.

          1. A Vietnamese delicacy.

    3. Maybe you need some practice stroking pussies.

    4. Watch out for bites, too!

      (can’t believe this wasn’t posted earlier)

  4. Trump once said possibly sexists things. So the mandate is clear, Hillary must be elected and finish off the rule of law and the Constitution. So let it be written. So let it be done.

    1. She clearly knows how to overcome the issues brought about because of men like Trump. She has been married to one for 40 years. She truly is the most qualified candidate for the presidency.

    2. Restoring the Constitution was never going to happen with the FedGov. We should focus on state and local governments, electing people who will resist Federal overreach. 10th Amendment Center, 5th Amendment Movement, and all that jazz.

      More than that, libertarians and libertarian-leaning folk need to recapture the culture–write novels, make movies, write music that teaches and promotes liberty, so that people are more receptive to the message.

      1. I’ve been saying all campaign season that libertarians have to capture support from millennials, it’s right there for the taking. And it has to be done through media. That’s how the faux liberal leftists have done so well. That’s why I supported McAfee/Weiss, because they know how to do that. Johnson and Weld are a fucking disaster. Not that libertarians are ever going to win a national election, but they could be getting the message out. Unfortunately the message is ‘we’re just old washed up politicians pretending to be libertarians. We have nothing new, or even old, just nothing you can’t get from team purple’.

        1. McAfee would have been good, he’s brilliant and charismatic and a good libertarian by temperament.

          1. Of course the media would crucify him with the Belize thing. They would do the same to Jesus Christ, they would find a way. So no difference really, except that we might have had our ideas articulated by somehow who knows how to do that. Instead of the debacle that has been Johnson. Weld as far as I know has not said a word. He just sits and stares at the floor while Johnson thoroughly embarrasses libertarians.

            1. “Of course the media would crucify him with the Belize thing. They would do the same to Jesus Christ…”

              Interesting way of putting it…

              1. No pun intended, really.

            2. they would have gotten as much attention as daryl castle, however he spells his name.
              Governors have gravitas. Gary or bust

              1. So bust then.

              2. No, I disagree, McAfee and Weiss would have gotten way more attention, from the people who matter, voters. Of course not from the media. Those guys know how to use alternative media.

                1. alternate media unknown to voters under 30, who turnout at 50% and represent teen% of the electorate … so probably not that much lower than what Gary will get.

                  1. *over*

        2. McAfee was the best. The media would have used Belize on him, or just ignore him but he had a pretty good way of dealing with that i thought. Building the party from the ground up is a smart strateg that has to happen if we ever want to be more than a curiosity.
          I think Johnson is a good person albeit with the charisma of a masturbation sock, and not very articulate.
          But McAfee would have attacked the system and consolidated all of the protest vote. Let Life Live is libertarianism in three words.
          Gary might benefit from this pussy thing and not counting the gaffes he has sounded a little better,my it I don’t think anyone thinks that the majority of Johnson voters are going to be libertarians after this election.

          1. It’s another form of welfare check, but if Gary gets 5%(?) the LP gets major party status and federal funds for next time.

            1. I do hope that happens and I think it will. The party needs to really try and win local and state elections and use that as a springboard for the Senate or House.

      2. Y’all know what causes a resurgence in liberty? Usually tyranny. People get fed up with a boot on their neck. The problem is just how far tyranny has to go before people remember what our constitution is all about. Watch what happens in Venezuela over the next 20 years.

        1. Sad that we have to become Venezuela or worse, first.

          1. Think Venezuela with nuclear weapons … and a lying sociopath as president, a toothless Congress, a feckless Supreme Court, and utterly disempowered states.

            1. Whoa, that’ll be one hell of a shitstorm.

      3. cavalier973 is just as FASCIST as Ron Paul … who bullshits the 10th amendment, ignores the 9th amendment’s strict limits on the 10th. Calls it federalism, but it’s the same States Rights created by the KKK to deny equal rights.

        It was “rogue judges” who overturned part of DOMA, because, of course, they never had any power to defend fundamental rights. Ron even sponsored a bill to forbid the Court from even CONSIDERING DOMA.

        Ron’s clan swallows it like puppets. Ron defended DONA (the federal government overruling state laws on marriage.) Like his son, he will use ANY level of government to impose bigotry by law. But is a strict constitutional conservative defending the states!! Same way Orval Faubus defended activating his state militia, as military force against 5 kids — because they were black — to block their registering at Little Rock’s Central High in 1957. Eisenhower sent federal troops, authorized to use force if needed. Faubis caved, later attacking Eisenhower for defying Arkansas voters

        If you stand with Ron Paul, you stand with Orval Faubus. George Wallace, the KKK and Jim Crow.

        Checks and balances are a liberal myth. There is no balance of power, no co-equal branches.
        And goobers forgot US History and the Constitution. Ron invents excuses to deny individual rights, providing cover for America’s worst bigots.

        1. Cool story, Bro.

        2. You should stop bullying the other commenters Mr. Hihn, it’s unseemly.

          1. (snicker) Grinch, if you learn the difference between a supported argument an a purely personal attack, you MAY avoid making a fool of yourself in the future.

            I’ll call you out.
            Name a single statement about Ron Paul which is not untrue.

            1. Quit cyberbullying me Hihn, your aggression is offensive.

              1. Stupid is as stupid does!

                (hihn) I’ll call you out.
                Name a single statement about Ron Paul which is not untrue.

                (the grinch)Quit cyberbullying me Hihn, your aggression is offensive.

                A whole new level of stupid. I call him out. He REFUSES to support his attack … and says *I* am bullying *HIM*!!!

                Nobody could INVENT anything like that!

            2. (snicker)

              Really, Mikey: We don’t need these hints, we already know to laugh at you.

              -jcr

              1. “Mikey” is how 12-year-olds talk.
                And laughter from cyber-punks is a badge of honor.
                Your aggression is a pain though.

        3. Mike, do realize that youre the only one around here that still talks about Ron Paul, right?

          1. MarkLastname|10.9.16 @ 2:19AM|#
            Mike, do realize that youre the only one around here that still talks about Ron Paul, right?

            So?
            He destroyed the movement as I said. Even you can’t defend his authoritarianism, bigotry, and attacks on our Constitution and founders.
            Thanks for bringing it up!

        4. Who’s the crazier Hihn? Michael or Benny?

          1. Who’s the worst aggressor, Vaporwear, Sevo, MarkLastname, Hamster of Doom, Fuck off Tuklpa?
            They travel in a pack, like wild dogs. causing the libertarian brand to be rejected by 91% of libertarians.
            Verbal aggression is, of course, the same mentality as physical aggression.

            1. Yay! I finally topped someone’s list!

    3. If only there was a pair of two term Republican governors disgusted GOP voters could support instead.

      1. ALEPPOOOOOOO!!!!

        1. What’s a leppoo?

          1. “I got 99 problems, but a leppo ain’t one.”- Gary Jay-Z

      2. If only there was a pair of two term Republican governors disgusted GOP voters could support instead.

        If only the libertarian establishment (Cato/Reason/Meratur) had even ONE policy proposal
        NOTHING on jobs and the economy.
        NOTHING on taxes
        NOTHING on federalism
        ZERO reforms (restructuring needed)

        (Forbes has documented the Fair Tax as a MASSIVE tax cut for the rich.
        The rich, who consume a tiny percentage of income, would pay a lower rate on much fewer dollars
        The middle class, who consume almost their entire income (average out big-ticket items) would pay a much higher tax rare on far more dollars.)

        Obama’s famous $50,000 teacher pays an average rate of 8.3%. Millionaires and billionaires average 28.1%. Obama says the teacher pays a higher rate than he millionaires. Obama repeats the lie almost his entire Presidency. UNCHALLENGED. You get what you look for. The anti-gummint mentality looks only for gummint screwups, reported to people who already know gummint is inept. Now we all pay the price..

        1. It’s not a tax cut for the rich. It’s a tax cut on earning money.

          But this is the chief problem with it is that the percentages are less progressive than an income tax. That and it’s completely untested.

          1. Memorized soundbites are NOT solutions

            It’s not a tax cut for the rich. It’s a tax cut on earning money.

            And a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class is …. WHAT?

            But this is the chief problem with it is that the percentages are less progressive than an income tax. That and it’s completely untested.

            Testing? When it fails junior high math?

            Whar is so confusing about my explanaton?

            (Forbes has documented the Fair Tax as a MASSIVE tax cut for the rich.
            The rich, who consume a tiny percentage of income, would pay a lower rate on much fewer dollars
            The middle class, who consume almost their entire income (average out big-ticket items) would pay a much higher tax rare on far more dollars.)

            Anyone else confused? Here’s Forbes. (lol)

            1) How can you “flatten” 9% and 28% without a YUGE increse in the 9%???
            2) Progressive tax rates SUBSIDIZE over 50% of middle-class taxes. What happens if you eliminate rthe subsidy? (requires at least jr high math skills)

        2. Mercatus Center and Cato propose lots of policies actually. But whatever.

          1. Mercatus Center and Cato propose lots of policies actually

            Name one, so I can ridicule it. Nah, here’s two big ones.

            Medicare? Vouchers increase competition in the wrong market! INSURANCE! Can we affect auto prices with more competition between Allstate and GEICO?. TOO STUPID to know there’s always been competition on the PROVIDER market, but seniors have no skin in the game. So Cato has he wrong market, and NO skin on the game,!

            Their suckers see insurance companies and think “privatization.” Government still pays for it all, so insurance companies add a costly middle man! How dumb isTHAT>

            Privatize Social Security? Keep the employee share to own and invest. Michael Tanner admits “the transition costs are high, but it’s a “one time event.” Slowing the growth of non-defense discretionary spending would save $20 billion a year, but … (lol) …. the one time event lasts 30 years, declining slowly from $375 billion. Huh? First year revenues decline by $375 billion — every penny of which now pays benefits. Loss declines slowly, as seniors on the current plan die off. Ulltimately, Tanner says CONGRESS must decide how to pay for it. That’s not his job!. Same old bullshit, slow the growth and call it a cut.

            But whatever.

            “Whatever” means that you swallow anything from your own tribe, if it has all the right slogans and soundbites – just like Bernie’s and Hillary’s tribes!

            Any questions?

    4. Hyperion, still fuckng delusional!!! NOBODY calls for a worse attack on the Constitution than Trump.

      1. Corpse fucking, I see.

        1. DUMBFUCK CLAIMS I POSTED TO A DEAD THREAD LESS THAN FIVE HOURS AFTER PUBLICATION!!! (OMG)

          THEN “CORPSE FUCKS” ME! (this gang of wild dogs travels in packs. is dumber than a box of rocks!!!)
          One more added to the lengthy roster of cyber-bullies here.

          1. Pretty sure he meant literally, corpse-fucker.

            1. That would be even crazier. DUH

              And it’s a common phrase on discussion boards, levied at someone who supposedly waits til the THREAD is dead, then runs around posting the “final argument” on various topics. Nobody does that, but as we see here, they do lie a lot. But you did get your own name right!

              1. Fuck that corpse, corpsefucker.

                And don’t bully me, bitch.

                1. Another thug launches an unprovoked attack, aka aggression

                  And don’t bully me, bitch.

                  I’d never kick a cripple
                  But you earned a cookie from your gang

      2. “Calls for,” perhaps not. Hillary just does it without comment.

  5. According to CNN, the crowd at the Paul Ryan rally wants Trump and is angry that Paul Ryan dis-invited him.

    1. – mentioned in the other thread, but maybe worth reading.

      1. No surprse, Gilmore links to an attack based on a lie.
        But goobers read only goobers, and are easily fooled, Some say EAGER to be.

  6. The “I’m mad at you because you finally agree with me about a candidate but not for the reasons I want you to” argument seems to be popping up a lot today, and I can’t say that it’s a very good look.

  7. Go Bucks!

    1. Defense looking good. O-line needs to pick it up.

  8. This is not because he is truly remorseful, of course. The man is incapable of that.

    …blacks are simply not a big part of their daily existence. They don’t have strong friendships or relationships with blacks and therefore don’t have to defend their failure to confront Trump.

    Presented: Dalmia is John.

    Discuss.

    1. Not smart enough and John writes better.

      1. At least John hasn’t pulled an ‘Erderly’ yet.

      2. And too few typos

    2. Dalmia is Huma Abedin.

    3. Presented: Hamster of Doom is the bastard son of Homer Simpson and a blind … hamster

      Discuss

      1. And a fine figure of a son I am, too.

        1. If Hamster is such a “fine figure of a son,” then why did he post a shamelessly dishonest cite from Dalmia — combining two fragments eight paragraphs apart?. And look how many assumed he was honest (or don’t care)!

          Is Hamster really Donald Trump?

          1. *bookmarks*

            Brilliant analysis.

          2. “then why did he post a shamelessly dishonest cite from Dalmia — combining two fragments eight paragraphs apart?”

            Why indeed.

            1. FuckoffTulpa has done far worse.

      2. DON’T YOU DARE REFERENCE THE SIMPSONS YOU SENILE IMPOTENT FUCK!!!

        1. Playa, one of the wackier bullies here, assumes readers are too stupid to recognize an unprovoked attach.
          But wild doge travel in packs ans he’s defending his felllow gang member

          1. I hate it when people attach me unprovoked.

            1. MarkLastname
              I hate it when people attach me unprovoked.

              Me too! That’s why I fired back!!!
              Who, above the age of 16, says things like “SENILE IMPOTENT FUCK?”
              And if you hate it so much, why do you do it so often?

              i keep saying that cyber-bullies travel in packs like wild dogs. Here, one of the worst thugs, Playa Manhattan, enters the thread to defend another super-thug, Hamster of Doom.
              In their own little cave.

  9. Trump’s terrifying Central Park Five comments

    Were they so terrifying that they couldn’t be quoted?

    1. “They were guilty.”

      I don’t know about you but I’m reeling.

      1. Trigger warning, please. I was in my safe-space crying for five hours the first time i read that he said that.

        1. Trigger warning, please. I was in my safe-space crying for five hours the first time i read that he said that.

          You lose AGAIN thug.

          Pence just threw Trump under the bus. Denounced him. Cannot defend him.
          Anyone who expected a leading Christian conservative to ignore that is as dumb as … Trump.

  10. Shikha – Your disgust is well placed. Calling for the legalized execution of innocent people is a horror far worse than grabbing some unwilling person’s genitals but they both reflect a megalomaniacal personality that should never be allowed near the reins of power. The alternative in a vicious harpy who will bomb a dictator no matter how many people become collateral damage and who simultaneously prostitutes herself to Wall Street and those who would destroy Wall Street is hardly better.

    When you fall as far below the bar of civilized behavior as these two miscreants have, the concept of “the lesser of two evils” disintegrates.

    1. Patience. She’s getting to your points about Hillary, it’s probably the next article.

    2. I’m going to go full retard and say I would have preferred living in Mussolini’s Italy to Hitler’s Germany. The lesser of two evils concept applies to our two pricks as well.

      1. If you were a Jew, Italy was preferable. If you were an “Aryan pure Superman” (Spike Jones’ “Der Fuehrer’s Face”) then Germany was preferable. If you wanted freedom, then you ran to Switzerland which was truly the least of three evils.

        1. Actually, since the rest of continental Europe was occupied (in many cases with the enthusiastic consent of its inhabitants) by either the Germans or the Italians, Switzerland was most certainly not “the least of three evils”.

          It was truly the good in the midst of the evil.

          The only other safe haven was Sweden, which spoiled it just a bit by actively helping the German war effort in a number of ways.

          1. I was referring to the Swiss banks who held Nazi money that had been stolen from innocent victims as well as it helping to finance the Nazis. The Swiss people weren’t too bad, but the government that protected the banks that contained the loot did eventually have to answer for it. A comparatively minor “evil” to be sure but an evil none the less.

            If you prefer, Switzerland was the least of ten evils.

            1. However, as a sanctuary for refugees from Germany and Italy I really don’t know their record. I don’t know of Jews fleeing to Switzerland but then, if the Swiss were good at it, only the refugees would know.

      2. If you prefer Mussolini, you defend absolute power by labor unions, leftwing facsism.
        Whereas Hitler was solidly a rightwing fascist.

        I often wonder which is wackier, the Hillary-haters or the Donald-haters (a minority even combined)
        What if we locked them into a coliseum together?

        1. I want the concession stand.

          1. You got it!

      3. The food was better, too.

  11. Newsflash Dalmia, women want to have sex with rich and/or famous men. This is nothing new or unique to Trump. The leftists are all about identity politics so they are hyping this up and the Republican cucks are clueless on this issue.

    1. I’m sure there has to be a reason why they don’t want to talk about these issues as related to Bill Clinton. But I’m sure Shikha is going to write about that any moment now. I bet it’s the next article.

      1. I’m sure there has to be a reason why they don’t want to talk about these issues as related to Bill Clinton

        How childish. Like Trump’s lame excuse. “But Mommy, he did it first”
        Mike Pence has denounced Trump, disgusted by his remarks … but never mentioned Bill! Hmmm.
        Go to the search box in the upper right and enter this search:

        “Bill Clinton” affairs.

        — with quotes like that to get his exact name. They will appear in date sequence, from most recent. Select “relevance”: at the top It will resort. If you get the same results I did, Monica Lewinski is in the title and photo, the third one down. Hardly news worthy today..

        Here’s a question. Did Bill ever say he’d like to date his own daughter? Publicly brag about the size of his penis? Ever give on-air permission to have his daughter called a “piece of ass?” Trump is in a world of his own, with the mentality of a boy just reaching puberty.

        “Don’t forget what Clinton did 20 years ago, or you’ll be electing Hillary.”,

    2. To the person who wanted me to expand on my assertion that Reason needs to start cleaning out to comment section, this is the sort of thing I mean.

      1. I don’t think a libertarian website purging itself of people the staff disagree with would go over too well.

        1. “Hey, I have you know most women love being sexually assaulted” is a bit more than merely disagreeing with the staff.

          1. That would be terrible if that was what was actually said.

            1. Terrible or not censorship does not equal free speech.

              1. Yeah well, Reason stopped being libertarian some time ago and has morphed into just another left-wing establishment promoting site.

                1. Obviously in the Ron Paul cult, totally ignorant regarding the past 47 years of libertarian history.

            2. The Grinch
              That would be terrible if that was what was actually said.

              Shit. ANOTHER one thinks that grabbing a woman’s pussy is “having sex.” Then so is rape, and it’s safe to assume you’ll never have a rewarding sexual experience — for both of you.

              Unless it’s with another guy.

          2. Jezebel ran an article where the author bragged about abusing her boyfriend and all the commenters joined in boasting about all the male love interests they’d assaulted. Far worse than anything said here.

            At least here it’s evenhanded. You spew man hating to your hearts content and you wouldn’t get banned just the same.

        2. I don’t think a libertarian website purging itself of people the staff disagree with would go over too well.

          I understand why you don’t want to be banished, but you’d be gone long ago anywhere else. Except the trend is to eliminate comments entirely. Reason, as the ONLY site that allows abusive commenters, it’s like the only place with no regulations, in this case a magnet for bullies wjho get ejected everywhere else.

          Compared with tens of thousands of visitors — and 91% of libertarians rejecting the libertarian brand — Reason is likely damaging the movement even more.

          Tens of thousands saw the shameful thread arguing the best way t slaughter a judge, feed her head first or feet first into a wood chipper. There are now well over two dozen commenters with wood chipper in their handle.– kinda like adopting the swastika as a logo

      2. Well, no one is accusing you of not being dumber than mud.

      3. Perpetually offended SJW with a livejournal wants to scrub the internet of things that offend her. Footage at 11.

        You realize there’s any number of echo chambers you could fuck off to so you never have to hear offensive comments right? HuffPo is probably a little outside your intellectual depth, but there’s Feministing, Mother Jones…

        1. Salon and Jezebel might be good fits. If that’s not retard enough, there’s always New Republic.

    3. “women want to have sex with rich and/or famous men”

      Some of them would insist on getting married to the rich guy first.

      And even if that’s not in the cards, there are *some* women who would *not* say, “if I can’t marry a rich guy, at least maybe some rich guy will condescend to grope me in a limo!”

      Really, it depends on the individual, wouldn’t it?

      1. I know a fella that struck it rich as hell. Apparently he won’t get laid.

        Recently he complained to me that nearly every woman he meets wants to sleep with him almost immediately. I joked about wishing I had such problems but he wasn’t having any jokes about it.

        “They are all a bunch of goddamned mercenaries. All they want is my money. If I marry one I am pretty sure I will end up face down in a bayou inside of two years. Even if I meet a good one how will I know? It is getting to the point that I see a woman and I want to run.”

        All of the indignation about Trump is fine as long as you keep in mind that he has a point. I have had good women tell me they don’t want a rich man because they are afraid they will be treated like an object. It works both ways.

        1. The point toward which I was struggling is that the original comment simply said “women” without qualification.

          Which strikes me as kind of an over-generalization.

          It reminds me of a headline once, “Statistics on women: Some good, some bad.”

    4. I genuinely don’t get this “cuck” fixation from Trump supporters. If you’re so eager to line up behind a guy because he’s a big strong “alpha” and you respect him for trying to fuck other men’s wives, wouldn’t that make Trump supporters the cucks? The fixation on that word and concept is incredibly silly and is probably the most embarrassing aspect of the modern right. It’s not a helpful or insightful description of any political movement except for Trump fans.

      1. I thought a “cuck” was specifically a white guy who wanted to watch his wife having sex with a black guy?

        The suggestion is that white Republicans/conservatives who have reservations about Trump are some kind of race traitor.

      2. What if the married woman was in an open relationship and she was a liberated woman ?

        Is she not allowed her freedom simply because the man was Trump ?

      3. Pretty much

    5. WhatAboutBob
      The leftists are all about identity politics so they are hyping this up and the Republican cucks are clueless on this issue.

      Yiou rages like the leftists you attack. Now you’ve been burned by Pence, who denounced Trump and refuses to defend him.

      He’s not a lefty, so your wild conspiracy exploded. And you expect a prominent Christian conservative to tolerate that shit?

    6. Newsflash Dalmia, women want to have sex with rich and/or famous men

      Are you 12 years old?. Grabbing a woman’s pussy is having sex? Then so is rape. That’s even wackier than Trump, not that you’d care.

      Just because YOUR mother and sisters enjoy having their pussies grabbed in public, that hardly means all women are so depraved.

    7. WhatAboutBob
      Newsflash Dalmia, women want to have sex with rich and/or famous men.

      Newsflash 12-year-old, if having one’s pussy grabbed is having sex, then so is rape.

      Just because YOUR mother and sisters want their pussies grabbed in public by some wacko celebrity, don’t assume any other women are so depraved,

  12. A more interesting story about sex

    The 35-year-old patrolman admitted exposing himself Wednesday morning and also a week earlier in the parking lot of the Target store where a woman said he had his window down “as if he wanted to be seen,” the records say.

    In his defense, Woolard allegedly told the trooper, he wasn’t doing it for sexual gratification. He was just trying to stay awake while driving home, court records say.

    On Friday, authorities announced that Woolard, recently commended by Bethlehem officials for rushing into a burning home to save a life, was being suspended and charged with two counts of indecent exposure and disorderly conduct. After he was arraigned by District Judge Rod Beck, Woolard was released on his own recognizance.

    1. Driving home in a parking lot?

      What new kind of driving is this?

    2. “In his defense, Woolard allegedly told the trooper, he wasn’t doing it for sexual gratification. He was just trying to stay awake while driving home, court records say.”

      Totally acceptable excuse for a cop or a Clinton. For everyone else, not so much.

      1. Not bad enough for Trump though.

    3. “commended by Bethlehem officials for rushing into a burning home to save a life”

      Let me tell you, it takes some serious balls to do that. Anyone with balls that big probably just wants to show them off.

      I half joking.

    4. Maybe we should have a points system. The burning building thing is worth +100 points. The taking it out in a parking lot thing is worth -25. He’s still up 75 points!

  13. I don’t really see how this is new information about Trump. So I fail to see why it would suddenly make an actual difference. The people who aren’t voting for the guy because they think he’s a bad person have felt that way for a while now.

    But of course, THIS TIME it really will be Trump’s undoing!

    1. Agreed. This is just more of what we already knew

      1. It’ll make a difference. He will fall another 2 points in the polls this week, if not more. He was already free falling before. It’ll absolutely matter.

    2. Obviously, you guys never heard what Trump said.
      Or I missed him having been tagged a sexual predator.

  14. I remember the 90s. When Bill did the shit Trump is bragging about, we were told that this was private and had nothing to do with being an effective president. So, which is it?

    1. Depends on the party affiliation of the politician.

    2. Both.

      /democrats

    3. What happened to Clinton in the 90s was a total witch-hunt. The Trump issue to totally different. Hope that clears it up for you.

    4. So, which is it?

      You’re lying about Clinton. And you’re using Trump’s favorite denial. “He started it, Mommy.”

      1. Right, Bill was a genteel sexual predator. The difference is … YUUUUUUGE!

        1. Umm, look for the comment with the words I quoted. That’s how one follows a thread. This one had four responses to the lead. That’s why they all had the same indent until yours. I was the fourth, Your reply makes sense only if you assume I replied to the third. I hope this helps. We were all new and inexperienced once.

  15. A Shikha Trump article. Perfect:).

    1. Hey someone had to write a Trump bashing article eventually. Someone had to step up before people start to think that Reason supports Trumphitler.

      1. I hope Suderman has the day off, poor guy.

    2. They saw Rico’s 900-comment clickbait monstrosity yesterday and thought to themselves, “What this place needs right now is more of that.”

      1. Clicks is king.

        1. the media is the only group that is dreading the end of this election … revenues will plummet

          1. They don’t to worry, they have plenty of wars to cover.

            1. wars are like more email disclosures in the level of public interest. meh

            2. Not if Hillary wins.

              There will be more wars but the media won’t cover them.

  16. I’m not really sure which is the bigger embarrassment to libertarians right now, Johnson/Weld or Reason.

    1. So why do you keep coming here?

      1. For the comments. Why do *you* keep coming here?

        1. To purge the comments apparently.

          1. Yeah, because pissing off your donors is a fucking brilliant strategy.

            1. It is a love/hate relationship. They really are free speech champions in the age of trigger warnings. I support them for that alone. Still, sometimes the retard is thick.

              1. I still support them also. But come next year, they’re really going to have a sore ass over not being harder on Hillary when they realize what most of us already know. No mercy.

              2. When I think of love/hate, I always think of Baltimore. It’s a beautiful city, but man is there ever something rotten and stinking under the floorboards.

    2. I am in no way embarrassed by my Johnson.

  17. *whispers*

    I don’t think she knows what pussy whipped means.

    1. Nah, she gets it. It is kind of clever really. If only she could employ that cleverness with regards to this election.

  18. The “central park five” were guilty:

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/tru…..-to-say-so

    1. Surely VDare has a rational and convincing take on this which isn’t at all tainted by their batshit opinion on everything else.

      1. actually, that wasn’t half bad.

        I think the writer might have done better if he hadn’t also asserted =

        “three essays make clear that the reversal of the Central Park Five convictions was simply a function of racial political power.”

        couldn’t it just be that the three arguments, put together, make a pretty clear case that the idea of a “lone rapist” isn’t very plausible, versus the idea that there were actually “more than 5”? – that the DNA connected an already convicted rapist, which offered an easy out to his accomplices?

        I do think the people who assert that “The DNA proves it, case closed” do have a bit of an uphill battle handwaving away ALL of the confessions & testimony, as though somehow nothing they should even be considered relevant…

        … but it doesn’t help when people like this cat make similar statements of 100% certainty about their own case.

        1. Here is what “confessions” are worth:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

          1. Did you actually read the essays linked in the story?

            1. Yep, and they miss that fact that there wasn’t any evidence to convict the defendants other than confessions.

              The state has to prove guilt. Their case was based on confessions of teenagers provided under duress. Even if these boys actually participated in the crime the state, having gotten confessions, didn’t bother to gather additional evidence. If you watch the video I linked to you can see just how the police work. Even if the cops were honest and utterly convinced of the guilt of these boys, the methods that they used are improper. If these boys were actually guilty of the crime these officers succeeded in turning loose a gang of rapists and tarnishing the reputation of the police and the prosecutors.

              The confessions were obtained by means that are abusive and are therefore inadmissible.

              Aside from that, demanding that they be executed after they were found to be not guilty is a vicious position to hold. More than a dozen men on death row were subsequently released because of DNA evidence. How many innocent people have already been executed?

              1. demanding that they be executed after they were found to be not guilty is a vicious position to hold

                I don’t know what you’re referring to. Trump made his call for the death penalty back in 1989/90, before exoneration

                was there someone else you were referring to?

                they miss that fact that there wasn’t any evidence to convict the defendants other than confessions.

                They don’t “miss it” at all. The linked piece goes into great detail about the subject. And you say you read it?

                Their case was based on confessions of teenagers provided under duress.

                From the piece

                During the course of conducting a six week Huntley hearing to determine the voluntariness/admissibility of the defendants’ confessions and other evidence, the Court took testimony from 29 prosecution witnesses and heard from defendants Wise, Richardson, Santana, Salaam and their family and friends who were present or involved in the initial encounters with police at the time oral, written, and videotaped statements were made. The Court rendered a 116 page opinion and concluded that the statements were properly and legally obtained and that no improper methods were employed to secure them…

                Your opinion is based on what?

                You’re also wrong when saying the only evidence presented were the confessions. They made statements to 3rd parties who testified.

                1. As i note below and elsewhere – i don’t have any reason to care about this thing one way or the other. and when the above link was provided, i was skeptical due to the source.

                  I don’t think anyone impartial could read everything associated with those counter arguments and still insist that the case was entirely contrived, and that the ‘lone rapist’ theory is somehow more plausible.

                  the net result is much like what i assumed in my (*linked below) initial reaction – that the story isn’t 100% correct in either the Pro or Con version.

                2. they miss that fact that there wasn’t any evidence to convict the defendants other than confessions.

                  from wikipedia

                  Jurors interviewed after the trial said that they were not convinced by the confessions, but were impressed by the physical evidence introduced by the prosecutors: semen, grass, dirt, and two hairs “consistent with” the victim’s hair[25]:6 recovered from Richardson’s underpants.[53]…. Four of the convictions were affirmed on appeal, while Santana did not appeal.[25][28]

                  You can certainly argue as to whether the evidence submitted provided sufficient proof of anything (it certainly doesn’t seem to)… but to say it didn’t exist is incorrect.

          2. Also = my previous comment on this case – for context.

            I think the idea that there’s only 2 sides to this is bullshit. Its not a matter of whether they’re 100% guilty vs. 100% innocent. Even if none of them left any DNA in the victim, there’s pretty compelling case that they aided and abetted it – but were simply over-prosecuted, etc.

            My POV is that the current debate surrounding it is less about “the facts of the case”….

            …. and more about trotting out an issue to force people into different competing camps; one of which are the “good guys and racially sensitive” (despite these same people being the ones who promoted the whole “Superpredator” concept)… and the others being the bullshit “Tough on Crime”, “Law & Order” types.

    2. Coulter wrote about the Central Park rapists as well.

      http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-04-23.html

  19. I’m having a hard time buying a defense of this oaf because ‘Bill did it’ and because ‘it’s old news’.

    1. It’s not a defense, it’s just pointing out the hypocrisy that outraged Dems now were not outraged Dems then. Well, they were outraged then, but their outrage was directed at the Repubs who were outraged at what the Dems are outraged about now when the Dems then didn’t think it was an outrage.

      1. This. I don’t see anyone defending Trump. Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy is not a defense of Trump. How someone is swinging their wanger around and grabbing pussies is either a problem or it isn’t. The democrats want it both ways.

        1. And so does any republican who condemned Bill but is defending Don, that wanger swings both ways.

          1. totally agree

          2. Don’t disagree.

          3. Trumps fingers are so short his wanger doesn’t really swing, it just kinda points.

            1. Small penis jokes are beneath you, OneOut.

          4. And so does any republican who condemned Bill but is defending Don, that wanger swings both ways.

            Except, we are seeing multiple Repubs castigate Trump and ask him to step down for something he said…

            Can you remind me how many Dems voted to impeach Bill for perjury and obstruction of justice?

      2. It’s not a defense, it’s just pointing out the hypocrisy that outraged Dems now were not outraged Dems then.

        That’s baloney. The Trumpists are attacking anybody who criticizes him for this, regardless of their party affiliation or opinion on Bill Clinton’s activities.

        1. I miss Nikki.

        2. Like the Hilcankle lickers when hubby went a rapin’…..amirite?

      3. Well, it certainly seems some people are basically assuming anyone who criticizes Trump must be a dyed in the wool Democrat.

        It’s gotten to the point, here at Reason, where a lot of commenters basically seem to treat an attack on Trump as equivalent to a full-throated apologia for Clinton.

        1. Conversely, many people seem to be automatically assuming that if you point out any flaws in logic or just general stupidity in the attacks on Trump (some warranted some not) that is an obvious sign of your republicanness.

          Of course the truth from both sides is that most of us are voting Johnson or not voting at all.

      4. Which specific Democrats supported Clinton back then and are outraged at Trump now? The fact that some Democrats supported Clinton back then and some are attacking Trump now proves nothing. I by no means support Democrats, but your point only makes sense if you can identify individuals that are being hypocritical.

    2. If there is anyone here* who can never picture themselves saying, “Look, it was a joke. I realize that what I said was crude, boorish and entirely inappropriate, but you see, it’s like this…” then let that guy throw the first stone. Maybe that’s one you can buy.

      Sevo, is it really that anyone’s defending this? I dunno. I admit to having skipped the funtimes on Rico’s thread, maybe they totally were, but in the here and now I’m not really seeing the commentariat defending Trump. It seems that some people simply aren’t freaking out about the latest fucked-up thing Trump said.

      We’ve got saber-rattling breaking out all over, at least a generation of pulled-forward demand masquerading as growth. Race riots are a thing again. Everything is illegal unless you’re important, in which case nothing is illegal. Our government fuels an abundance of agencies whose sole mission appears to be to put the economy out of business because it’s untidy.

      I mean really. Priorities.

      * You know. Here.

      1. If there is anyone here* who can never picture themselves saying, “Look, it was a joke. I realize that what I said was crude, boorish and entirely inappropriate, but you see, it’s like this…” then let that guy throw the first stone.

        As far as I know, none of us are running for president.

        1. What’s the theory here? That we hold our presidential candidates to high – nay, exacting moral, legal and ethical standards?

          Lol.

          1. How in the flying fuck did LBJ ever get to be president?

        2. We’re not worthy.

        3. I am. You didn’t get the bumber sticker I’ve been leaving in everyone’s mailbox? Oh man, if you thought Trump’s logo was phallic, wait’ll yous see mine.

  20. So does this happening on a holiday weekend (of sorts) mean this will be wholly contained or will there be a week of breathless post after post of how bad we didn’t before now know Trump is? Not that I mind. If I don’t like it, I don’t need to read them. I just want everyone to know that I’m above all of this.

    The way I see it, there are two types of Trump voter. There are the ones who like what he pretends to stand for, that he claims he’ll do, that he’s not establishment, then there are the ones who feel he’s the only one to stop the Clintons from getting back into power. This won’t matter much to either of those groups.

    1. The media was holding the Trump stuff until Wikileaks put out the Clinton tapes in order to get Clinton’s “forked tongue” off the public’s radar. From looking at the MSM I’d say the ploy worked pretty well.

      1. Surely Reason will publish a dozen essays on the Clinton emails. Any minute now.

        1. Let’s hope so. She’s deplorable.

          We have a race between a lying crook and a crooked liar. Which is which? At this point, what difference does it make?

        2. Trust me on this, Suthenboy, you are not going to see many, if any, anti-Hillary articles until after the elections. Then that salty crow is going down like bitter bile.

          Trump sucks, I admit that. But Hillary is the worst political candidate for the US presidency in history. She may in fact be the worst politician in the history of civilization. Someone should wake up to this realization, but they won’t until after the rule of law has been completely destroyed.

          1. Trust me on this, Suthenboy, you are not going to see many, if any, anti-Hillary articles until after the elections.

            You seem to have missed the Nick Gillespie post from earlier today on the leaked Podesta emails.

            It’s not a good idea to violate Suthenboy’s trust.

            1. The post that led with “Trump B-A-A-A-D!!!!!” because something he said 10 yrs ago, and then said that was okay if Hillary is a duplicitous liar because she might possibly support free trade- as exemplified by the “anti free-trade” 2000+ pages of TPP that she praised before she openly campaigned against it?

              I saw Rodney Dangerfield do the “Triple Lindy”, is this the “Triple Hillary”?

    1. Some cats just never get to like baths. It’s always best to do that as early as possible of course, but some cats just keep on not liking baths, forever.

  21. Agreed about the Central Park Five being more morally egregious, but this latest revelation is nothing but fantastic for the chances of Johnson getting into the next debate.

    If Trump refuses to drop out, it’s a matter of time before GOP senators, representatives and governors start actively endorsing Gary Johnson. I’m no Republican at all, but think the GOP would be better off losing the election anyway – it’s not like they want Trump to be their candidate again in 4 years, and Hillary isn’t getting more popular when she actually governs either. She’ll be the rare incumbent that’s easy pickings. Take the eight years starting four years from now instead. If they keep the House and Senate, they can keep her in check and block her judicial nominees. Even Obama hasn’t been so bad with the Republicans holding the checkbooks.

    Oh, and here’s to hoping Wikileaks delivers on dropping the other shoe on Hillary soon and hard. Maybe Hillary dining on Syrian babies at Goldman Sachs banquets would be enough to convince a few Democrats to change their vote?

    1. They will never endorse Johnson for the same reason that they are attacking Trump now – the social conservative obsession with “preserving America’s religious heritage”. Trump’s bragged that he has had extra-marital sex. That’s much worse than merely calling for the murder of innocent people.

      Johnson is openly pro gay marriage and supports the legalization of marijuana, the two things that socons can never accept. Recreational sex and drugs are viewed as cultural poison because, as H L Mencken wrote “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

      Bork’s most famous book was entitled “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” a diatribe against individual sovereignty. Gomorrah, a city annihilated by a god enraged by promiscuity, always lies just below the surface of a socon’s mind.

      Happy people are hard to intimidate with threats of everlasting torment. What would the socon’s religions be without Hell?

      1. Not all Republicans are hardcore evangelicals.

        1. No, but the list of born again never Trumpers has quite a few.

          1. Mark Levin was a never Trumper who now supports Trump. Although not an evangelical, he could never support Johnson because of the issues of sex and drugs. I didn’t mean to infer that only evangelicals would drop support of Trump, but anyone who ties politics to religious views, as Levin did in his book “Liberty or Tyranny”, will have a hard time with any politician who supports personal liberty.

            1. Indeed. My mother and sister and her husband are fundies and they are single issue voters, being abortion. They won’t even vote for a council person or mayor unless they are pro-life and local politicians have literally zero influence over abortion policy.
              It’s why social conservative libertarianism can never be a real thing.

            2. Mark Levin absolutely does not support Trump. He said he would vote for him out of fear of Hillary.

              After today’s revelations, he may not even be doing that. We’ll see.

              1. Yes, that’s right. But how is telling people to vote for Trump to stop Hillary different in effect than telling people to support Trump?

                When asked by a caller why not support Gary Johnson Levin attacked Johnson as a doper. He didn’t say because Johnson can’t win. Weed and gay sex trumps liberty every time.

                If Levin says that unless the Republicans dump Trump he, along with a lot of other social conservatives, will support Johnson then I might believe it. (Actually, that would be a pretty good ploy to get a relatively sane candidate on the ticket)

    2. Oh, and here’s to hoping Wikileaks delivers on dropping the other shoe on Hillary soon and hard.

      Yawn says the MSM….

      Maybe Hillary dining on Syrian babies at Goldman Sachs banquets would be enough to convince a few Democrats to change their vote?

      So five people?

      She’ll be the rare incumbent that’s easy pickings.

      Didn’t they say that about Bill?

      1. “Maybe Hillary dining on Syrian babies at Goldman Sachs banquets would be enough to convince a few Democrats to change their vote?”

        Not if she promises to provide free Syrian baby dinners for everyone.

    1. I haven’t seen so much dry, understated British wit since Benny Hill.

        1. Damn, I miss Benny.

    2. Thank you. I almost hurt myself laughing.

  22. Still better than Hillary.

    1. Yeah, but to be fair, Pol Pot is better than Hillary.

  23. Well, even I got bored with my own links, but at least I stayed on topic.

    1. Jerry Stiller in Zoolander? Tushy squeeze!

  24. Circle the wagons, where did everybody go? Oh that’s the democrats who do that.

  25. Haha, now some Howard Stern-Trump tapes coming out…

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/…..index.html

  26. Haha, now some Howard Stern-Trump tapes coming out…

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/…..index.html

    1. OMG, they’re using more statements that have been on the public record for decades against him!

      1. All those radio clips; that’s some crack research right there.

  27. Has this been dealt with yet?

    http://tinyurl.com/gpq2ce4 (WaPo link)

    In other words, Clinton was a court-appointed attorney, given the case despite personal objections. (As Newsday put it, “Her approach, then and now, was to immerse herself in even unpleasant tasks with a will to win.”) Once appointed, she aggressively defended the alleged rapist; at one point, she attacked the 12-year-old’s credibility, writing in an affidavit that she had been informed “the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.”

    1. oh, yeah. that’s been spread all over the place. Its basically treated like Benghazi = a big nothingburger which only right-wing fanatics even care about.

      1. Ask a silly question…

    2. I like how the WaPo basically lays out completely unambiguous facts about the matter, and then says,

      “CLEARLY THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT AND THESE CLAIMS ARE UNJUSTIFIED”

      They pretty much throw everything sorta-negative about the 1990s into one big pile and try and exculpate her of it all in one shot.

      Some might argue that because Lewinsky had relations when Bill Clinton was in a position of executive authority, he engaged in sexual harassment. Certainly an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim could have been filed, though Lewinsky did not do so.

      Bill Clinton in 1998 settled the Paula Jones suit for $850,000, with no apology or admission of guilt. There is no indication he ever admitted to his wife that Jones’s allegations were true.

      These are both very complex situations that have been reduced to misleading sound bites.

      The laughter on the tape is open to interpretation; certainly some might find it disturbingly lighthearted. But it’s a stretch to say she laughed about the sentence.

      I love how they posture as though they’re “Fact Checkers”, when everything they actually say are the prevarications of a defense counsel.

    3. Of course, a lawyer just can’t make stuff up in defense of her client, but if there’s ambiguity or uncertainty she has a duty to make things look good for the client.

      So the question is whether there were plausible claims, however icky, which could undermine the complaining witness.

      What would be scandalous is if Hillary made up shit out of whole cloth on her client’s behalf – is that what they’re saying she did?

      1. I don’t know. Best guess is that they’re playing this against the “always believe” stuff and seeing what happens.

      2. An attorney should never file an affidavit with uncorroborated hearsay. That alone is worthy of criticism.

        If she heard that, from a qualified source, she should have made them a witness.

        The affidavit is a lie. Perjury,in fact.

        1. Yeah, if she was just pulling stuff out of her ass, that was wrong, I’m just wondering if the critics are simply using the syllogism “she called a child witness a liar therefore she is evil.”

        2. Hearsay does not imply lie. Not sure how you justify that leap of logic.

          The trial judge was perfectly free to exclude it, of course.

          1. Because if it wasn’t a lie, she would have a witness.

    4. Once appointed, she aggressively defended the alleged rapist

      Which is what a court-appointed defense attorney is supposed to do.

      Are the great libertarians of Reason now arguing that indigent defendants do not have the right to a competent attorney while facing the crushing punitive power of the State?

      1. I’m more concerned that Clinton herself is anti due process and wants it curtailed for men accused of sex crimes, making her a hypocrite if the first order.

    5. As I recall she gloated after getting the guy off, laughing and admitting she knew he was guilty of raping a child.

      She laughed about Gaddafi being shot in the face and sodomized with a bayonet while still alive.

      She is a sociopath.

      Still, we all know Trump joked about grabbing a pussy one time so he is in no way qualified for the office.

      1. So let me get this straight: you think Clinton, as a court-appointed defense attorney in accordance with the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, should have taken a dive and let the State put the defendant away without being forced to prove their case.

        1. I don’t actually think he said that, technically speaking.

          1. He’s criticizing her for NOT violating her client’s civil rights and taking a dive. That would seem to imply she should have done it.

            1. She told a journalist that she knew her client was guilty.

              That’ behavior is unethical as hell and grounds for disbarment.

              1. Bullshit

                The key is the difference between factual guilt (what the defendant actually did) and legal guilt (what a prosecutor can prove). A good criminal defense lawyer asks not, “Did my client do it?” but rather, “Can the government prove that my client did it?” No matter what the defendant has done, he is not legally guilty until a prosecutor offers enough evidence to persuade a judge or jury to convict.

                However, the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. Rather, the lawyer’s trial tactics and arguments must focus on the government’s failure to prove all the elements of the crime.

                1. She told a journalist the “she knew he did it without a doubt”. Lie all you like, you can’t erase that reality and the breech of ethics it represents.

                  1. BTW, Since you’re dense or dishonest or both, ill spell it out for you.

                    A defense attorney telling a 3rd party that he knows that his client, who,was found legall not guilty, in fact is guilty without a doubt is a breech of ethics. It’s a betrayal of confidentiality and worse. I was not, in any way, implying that it was unethical for said attorney to represent a client who he believed guilty of the charge; which is the implication of your non-sequitur response.

                    1. It’s a betrayal of confidentiality and worse.

                      Baloney. It’s only a violation of confidentiality if she revealed something her client said to her.

                      It was certainly in bad taste for her to go talking about her (admittedly unwanted) client like that, but not reason for being disbarred.

                    2. You’re an idiot if you think it’s fine for an attorney to tell the press that he knows his client is guilty. A huge fucking idiot.

            2. No Sarah Jackland Ace

              He is criticizing her for cackling about it after she got him off of the charge that even she admitted he was guilty of.

              You know that but are being purposefully obtuse.

        2. It’s amazing how much people can read so much into comments that clearly isn’t there. Where’d he say that?

      2. And yeah, Gaddafi deserved everything he got. I don’t think our involvement in Libya was a good idea, but won’t waste any tears on ruthless, murderous, terrorism-supporting dictators having an unenjoyable last few minutes of life before getting snuffed.

        1. Well, you sound like the typical faux liberal leftist. Oh, I’m against war, except, one bad guy got it! Who cares if 10.000 innocent people were killed! I mean, unless it was a Republican who did it!

          Also, it’s PhD. Is that a joke or are you retarded?

          1. I’m seriously starting to think this new troll is Bo. The arguing style is starting to sound very similar, and the “name name, pretentious title” fits….

          2. You seem to have missed the part where I said I was against our involvement in Libya.

            1. No, I didn’t miss that. I also didn’t miss that you excused it because ‘bad guy got it’ or ‘Hillary’.

              1. Then where do you get my being OK with 10,000 people dying?

                1. Yeah.

                  It’s Bo Jackson.

        2. He deserved to be sodomized with a knife and murdered without a trial? That’s what happened there you know. That you find no problem with it speaks volumes.

          1. The fact that ‘Sarah’ has no issue with 100s of thousands of people dying or becoming desperate refugees because Hillary wanting to brag for a few minutes, speaks way more volumes than that even.

          2. The process (or lack thereof) is not something I would approve of, but let’s not pretend that there is any doubt of Gaddafi’s guilt in those crimes.

            And if he was guilty (not much of an if), he deserved everything he got.

  28. Trump emerged from Trump Tower. CNN has Bigfoot-style footage.

  29. Excellent work as always. I agree there is tremendous hypocrisy here. I found his comments on blacks, muslims and immigrants to be far more offensive. Yet there it is.

    There are several things I find baffling – if this is Trump’s normal behavior, and given that he’s always been a very public persona, why didn’t this come out a long time ago? Seems like there should be tons of evidence of this kind of behavior. And if this behavior was rampant, why are we not seeing evidence of it until today? I remember his female architect spoke about it, and about the worst she could say was that he was sometimes a little rude. Also I a few months ago when they discovered that his father Frank was a KKK member, I was sure it was the end, and even said so. But people just ignored the story. I guess Shikha’s right – we’re hypocrites. Another thing I find suspicious is the word ‘evince’. I could have sworn I was the only person who ever used that word…..

    1. By “We”, who are you talking about? You and your fellow anti-semites?

      1. I have fellows? Where?

      2. Something about Jill Stein. Shreek is spreading himself thin these days. I guess the voices are getting worse.

  30. …there is something really, really fucked up about a political system that imposes a bigger price for coarse and crude remarks rather than the open advocacy of injustice against innocent victims of injustice.

    Or one that imposes a bigger price for coarse remark rather than all of the crimes Clinton has committed, as well as the lies she’s told.

  31. Trump is an asshole? I had no idea.

  32. All aflutter about the election? Don’t know what to do?

    Write in Obama, the 22nd Amendment (and the Constitution in toto) be damned.

    What difference, at this point, would it make?

    1. Write in Harry S. Cheaks.

  33. The other thing I find baffling about Trump is that he surrounds himself with smart and capable women. So how is this behavior compatible with that? It’s a conundrum. And why would an accomplished real estate developer want to burn it all down? He’s a paradox wrapped in an enigma.

    1. Oh yeah – and another thing I found baffling about Trump is that he started his campaign on a jihad against PC, and it was really refreshing. It was like he was a free speech proponent and then suddenly he was calling free speech supporters ‘foolish people’. And attacking the free press, etc. It made no sense. (Then I realized it was a replay of the Socialist/Nationalist dynamic that has long been used to oppress and exploit a vulnerable minority where each side blames each other – mystery solved.)

      But I still find it baffling why he has so much support from older women. They go crazy for him. What’s that about? It’s not as simple as ‘battle of the sexes’.

      1. You seem easily baffled.

    2. “he surrounds himself with smart and capable women. So how is this behavior compatible with that? It’s a conundrum.”

      No it’s not.

      Smart and capable women like to fuck too.

  34. I’m sure reason will cover this eventually if they haven’t already, but included in the latest WikiLeaks batch was an email from 04 October wherein Ms. Clinton declares that she would implement gun control by presidential fiat:

    Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President ? universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

    This comes as no surprise, I guess. Still pisses me off though.

    1. Shikha and Suderman are collaborating on that one. they are furiously banging one out now. It will be published first thing in the morning. Chapman will proofread it.

      1. Nick Gillespie already posted on the Clinton revelations two posts before this one.

        1. Was it Nick or The Jacket?

          One is a lifeless object and the other is a sentient being made from the dead skin of a bovine mammal.

      2. they are furiously banging

        please. phrasing

  35. He’s a paradox wrapped in an enigma.

    Ha. Not really.

    He’s an egomaniacal douchebag. Presidential material, through and through.

    1. Of whom was it said, “he’s not a person with an ego, he’s an ego with a person”?

  36. included in the latest WikiLeaks batch was an email from 04 October wherein Ms. Clinton declares that she would implement gun control by presidential fiat:

    TRUMP WUD BE WURSER.

    1. Fortunately people don’t need guns any more, now that the Trumpkins have been resoundingly defeated. Please surrender your armaments at your local police station.

    2. All that will do is just set off widespread disobedience. Not to mention it will get smacked down by the courts.

      1. Not to mention it will get smacked down by the courts.

        Hillary’s new Justice says hi…

      2. “Not to mention it will get smacked down by the courts”

        Not once Hillary has her rubberstamp court in place. Coming soon to a former constitutional republic near you.

    3. Trump supports “no fly, no buy”. Which will be the END of gun rights in this country.

      1. As does Hillary. And I think I remember reading about Weld supporting it too.

        2A’s chances aren’t looking so good.

    1. That sucked, but the brunette in the middle? Would, with prejudice.

  37. There is no indication he ever admitted to his wife that Jones’s allegations were true.

    “Oh, honey, people just like to talk. We can make that $850k back in no time.”

    1. “We can make that $850k back in no time”
      and indeed they did

  38. “The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff is reminding people of allegations made by a female contractor in 1997 that Trump tried to assault in his daughter’s Mar-a-Lago bedroom. Why is the audio tape different? Those stories were based on hearsay, he-said-she-said, anonymous sources. In this case it was Trump being Trump caught on tape, bragging about groping and semi-molesting women.”

    Yeah, ’cause if Trump said something obnoxious on tape, then he must have sexually assaulted a woman in 1997?

    Does Nancy Grace even say shit like that?

    The difference between sexual assault and saying something stupid is not that one of them was caught on tape.

    The difference between saying obnoxious shit on tape and violating someone’s rights by way of a sexual assault may be absolutely clear to every libertarian–except Shikha Dalmia.

    1. Just to be painfully clear:

      Sexual assault violates someone’s rights.

      Saying stupid shit doesn’t violate anybody’s rights.

      Libertarians are people who might be best characterized as those who think we should all be free to do as we please so long as we don’t violate anyone’s rights.

      I hope I’m not the only one here who has a problem with correlating obnoxious speech and rape.

      1. He was obnoxiously admitting to violating someone’s rights by way of sexual assault, you can argue that he may have simply been bragging and never did these things, but I’ll take the man’s word on it. Isn’t that one of the things we are suppose to admire about Donny? that he tells it like it is?

        1. Bragging about being able to do crazy shit doesn’t mean he actually sexually assaulted a woman in 1997.

          I’ve seen a documentary that claimed Nikki Sixx used to bend over random chicks back stage in the ’80s and bang ’em in front of everybody. If he bragged about being able to do that, I’m not sure he’d make a great President . . .

          But it wouldn’t mean he sexually assaulted a woman in 1997, and bragging about being able to do shit isn’t the same as sexual assault. Certainly, the main difference between sexual assault and bragging about being able to do something isn’t that one of them was caught on tape.

          The difference is that one of them violates someone’s rights and the other doesn’t.

          1. Did he or did he not say that he does these things? Not that he hypothetically could do them, but that he does do them?

            1. Does Shika’s quote suggest that speech and sexual assault are the same thing?

              1. No, her quote points out that anonymous accusations are different then self made admissions.

                1. Oh I get it, you think “Why is the audio tape different?” is rhetorical, a wdatpdim kinda thing. A happened – B happened, what’s the difference. Not so, she really is asking “Why is the audio tape different?” It is a way for her to then explain the differences between the two not compound them. I hope that helps.

                2. Her quote claims that the difference between them was that one was caught on tape and the other wasn’t.

                  1. And that one was an anonymous accusations and one comes straight from the horse’s ass’s mouth. The medium doesn’t matter it’s the substance. one last time. Accusations ? confession.

          2. As a matter of fact, 95% of the things men brag about having done, when it comes to sex, they never really did. I seriously doubt Trump ever ‘grabbed a woman by the pussy.’ I’m willing to bet Don’s sexual adventures are far more meager than what he would claim.

            Not a defense of him. It’s just the way it is. Especially uys like him. They tell tall tails.

            1. *tales.

              Though, maybe that should be a thing? When talking about ‘tail’ you say, ‘tall tails’, hehe.

            2. How is explaining why Trumps boorish behavior is perfectly normal not a defense of that behavior? I really don’t get the “I’m not defending the guy, I’m just making excuses for his actions” thing. He’s a douche bag full stop.

              1. How is explaining why Trumps boorish behavior is perfectly normal not a defense of that behavior?

                No kidding. It reminds me of the leftists minimizing Bill Clinton’s indiscretions with the excuse, “Well, he IS a man.” Kind of insulting to men in general, I would think.

                I’m a man too, and it would not even occur to me to grab a woman by the pussy on sight. It’s not even a matter of not being able to get away with it because I’m not a billionaire. The idea wouldn’t even strike me, because I was raised to at least minimally respect women.

                That the idea not only occurs to Donald Trump but is reveled in by him, shows that he has deeper issues.

                1. I’m a man too, and it would not even occur to me to grab a woman by the pussy on sight

                  So you’re impersonating a stupid woman?

                  Such a CIS-gender shitlord.

              2. I’m saying that this is something men generally lie about. So no, Trump bragging about this doesn’t mean that he actually did it. Someone who says ‘why would he brag about doing these evil things if he didn’t do them?’ is very naive.

          3. Nikki Sixx? I thought you were into hardcore. Shouldn’t you have been watching Another State of Mind?

            1. It isn’t all hardcore all the time.

              It was like a behind the music thing. Oh, and the first time I saw Nikki Sixx in person, I think it was at a 45 Grave show. He was dating Dinah Cancer at the time.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7ld0ZALMhc

              Anyway, this guy was talking about how he took his date to a Motley Crue show. He was friends with someone in the band, so he had backstage passes. But it must not have been Nikki Sixx he was friends with, ’cause after the show, when Nikki Sixx came up to his date and said “I want to fuck you”, and proceeded to bend her over and give it to her right there in front of her date–and a room full of people.

              LO freakin’ L.

              Some guys are both confident and uninhibited.

              1. Some guys have all the luck…

      2. Libertarians are people who might be best characterized as those who think we should all be free to do as we please so long as we don’t violate anyone’s rights.

        Free from coercive punishment. Not free from criticism and refusal of support for public office.

        1. Yeah, but let’s not equate obnoxious speech with sexual assault.

          One of them violates someone’s rights, and the other one doesn’t.

          Let’s go back to the quote again:

          “The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff is reminding people of allegations made by a female contractor in 1997 that Trump tried to assault in his daughter’s Mar-a-Lago bedroom. Why is the audio tape different? Those stories were based on hearsay, he-said-she-said, anonymous sources. In this case it was Trump being Trump caught on tape, bragging about groping and semi-molesting women.”

          The difference between sexual assault and saying horrible things is not that one of them was caught on tape.

          1. He was either bragging about actually-committed sexual assaults, or lying about sexual assaults he would like to have committed.

            In the former case he committed a crime, but even in the latter case he revealed himself to be a low-class scumbag. And if people really didn’t care about him being a scumbag, his supporters wouldn’t be doing the full-court press defending him on this.

            1. Here’s a song by TSOL about necrophilia.

              NSFW!

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZJLjrb4vU

              I could link to a thousand rap tracks about rape, armed robbery, as well as any and every other awful, rights violating deed that can be done under the sun.

              None of them are actually rapes, armed robberies, etc., and that’s because bragging about doing something and actually doing that thing are two different things. And they’re different because bragging about violating people’s rights isn’t the same as actually violating their rights.

              That’s an important distinction to libertarians.

              In fact, making that distinction is probably the thing that makes us libertarian.

              1. Which is why I was clear in distinguishing acts that deserve coercive punishment from acts that deserve noncoercive refusal of association.

                I probably wouldn’t vote for the people who sang those necrophilia, copicidal, or rape-glorifying songs for president. Would you?

                1. Even if the offered you free college?

                2. I would probably vote for Dee Snider.

      3. You aren’t Ken. I wonder how much of the stupid shit he said was just the braggadocio of an over grown frat boy who was trying to become a celebrity known for his brash outspoken, shameless behavior. Does he name any of these pussies he snatched? How many are verifying what he said? I wonder how much of it is pure bullshit.

        1. Half of hip hop might be bragging about sexual prowess.

          Maybe a quarter of it anyway.

        2. I’m not even sure “grab them by the pussy” is to be taken literally.

  39. “Pussy whipped Trump”

    Look. Shikha made a funny.

    Everyone was dying to withdraw their endorsement of Trump and most in the media couldn’t wait for an excuse to denounce him and see him withdraw. Never learning that everything the D’s come up with is bullshit smoke and mirrors they are all eating it up. What they forget is that the average voter supporting Trump is doing so because they are sick to fucking death of an unaccountable, incompetent, corrupt, lying, looting, arrogant political class and that includes the news media.

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think Trump is going away because the reason he is there isnt going away. The worse the opposition behaves the more I want to see the guy win just so I can watch him put a stick in their eye.

    1. The worse the opposition behaves the more I want to see the guy win just so I can watch him put a stick in their eye.

      Absolutely this. I wasn’t going to vote this year but now I think I’m going to do it just out of spite.

    2. No, it’s not funny. It’s stupid. I don’t think Shinkha knows what that means, along with most other things in the English language.

      1. To be pussy whipped is to bend to a woman’s will in order to get laid on a regular basis (though it rarely works that way)

        Trump’s campaign is defeated by him admitting to be a poon hound. Defeated by pussy, literally by saying the word pussy.

        See – double entendre.

        I get it, but you are right, it isnt really funny and it is dumb, deluded wishful thinking.

    3. Everyone was dying to withdraw their endorsement of Trump and most in the media couldn’t wait for an excuse to denounce him and see him withdraw.

      Yes, because he’s a terrible candidate, and the few Republican politicians who were supporting him were doing it out of fear of the RNC.

      What they forget is that the average voter supporting Trump is doing so because they are sick to fucking death of an unaccountable, incompetent, corrupt, lying, looting, arrogant political class and that includes the news media.

      The enthusiastic people, maybe, but that’s a minority. Most people favoring Trump in the polls are just doing it because they hate Hillary more. He’s raised the same order of magnitude of money for his general election campaign as Ron Paul did in the 2008 primaries with no chance of winning.

      1. You might try getting out of your box and getting some fresh air. It helps cognitive ability.

      2. Most people favoring Trump in the polls are just doing it because they hate Hillary more.

        And most people jumping ship now are doing it for optics. Unfortunately for the media, your actual vote is private.

        1. Paul Ryan’s vote at the polling place doesn’t count any more than mine or yours.

          What’s significant is that Trump has lost the veneer of respectability that the support of the party elders conveys. Yeah, that won’t matter to the alt-right and the people wearing poorly-fitting MAGA trucker hats, but it matters to the sociocons and fiscal conservatives who, up to this point, were considering holding their noses and voting for him.

          1. “veneer of respectability”
            That ship has sailed around the world several times already.

          2. support of the party elders

            Those useless fucks.

      3. “sick to fucking death of an unaccountable, incompetent, corrupt, lying, looting, arrogant political class ” vs. “hate Hillary”

        Hmmm. Have you ever heard the term ‘distinction without a difference’?

        PhD my ass. In what? Troll studies? Black women’s oppression history? community organizing? Or is that just straight up Piled Higher and Deeper?

        Probably a third of the commenters here have PhDs but none of them are pretentious morons who tag their handle with it. You are Bo, aren’t you?

      1. Cruzfest? I didn’t know he was running all the way back in April of last year.

          1. Sounds dirty. Ted shouldn’t associate his campaigns with things like that.

  40. Oh god, buckle up.

    1. If Trump wins despite this, feminists might actually riot.

      I mean feminists fighting police in the streets, burning down buildings . . . the whole nine yards.

      Well, first they’d shit plaid twinkies (which would be funny as hell), and then they’d riot.

      1. Feminists SJWs rioting? What exactly are they going to do? Show us their tits? No one will look. Shreek like unhinged bafoons? No one will listen. So what then? Get their heads broke by the cops for nothing? Nice strategy.

        1. I didn’t say it was a smart strategy.

          I said they might actually do it, and it would be funny as hell.

          It might be worth it to vote Trump in just to watch feminists shit plaid twinkies.

          1. Feminism is a cause that is now without a cause. Women already have equal rights in the first world. I would even go as far to say they have more than equal rights. So now what? Disavowing their own gender seems to be the primary objective now. Sad and pathetic, and self defeating.

            1. I would even go as far to say they have more than equal rights.

              And you would be right.

              1. Oh wonderful, a “women and minority owned business” initiative.

                When people support these things, are they saying that women and minorities can’t cut it on their own? Are they saying that they need special handouts or else they’ll never make a profit like those shrewd and cunning white males? Isn’t this basically welfare?

            2. You’ve got it wrong, “society” and the Kochs have demonized feminists so much that many women avoid the label “feminist,” but in reality it’s a completely mainstream movement which simply affirms basic decency.

              /sarc

          2. But would they still be twinkies? Or would they be shit covered twinkies? This is important.

            1. OMG, there’s no Urban Dictionary entry for “plaid twinkies”.

              When you say someone is shitting plaid twinkies, it’s like saying they’re “having a cow”.

              Sort of like “tripping balls” but with anger.

              Here’s a montage of Nicholas Cage shitting plaid twinkies:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOCF0BLf-BM

      2. Nah, they won’t. Hardcore feminists, almost down to the last one, are a thoroughly first world demographic. People with nothing to lose riot, not rich entitled yuppies who want someone else to pay for their birth control. Feminists, on average, are far closer to the ‘warm pink center’ of society than the hardened outter crust, and they lead very comfortable lives despite all their complaining. They’ll rage on the internet, protest a bit, and little else, just like always.

  41. Originality points for that photo, -10.

  42. Trump was a democrat for at least 8 years in his life, and he earned his bread in Hollywood. He was surrounded by libs and democrat donors his entire life. And these people are known to make rape jokes and such. So essentially, he was caught acting like a democrat.

    We’re in some bizarro world now where republican voters are down with a former democrat (with a porn star wife) who hates free trade and democrats rallying around a Wall Street politician who was known to attack her husband’s female accusers.

    I really hate Gary Johnson for his sniveling opportunism and amateur mistakes. He’ll likely win 5 mil votes, which is an accomplishment itself, but it’s also reminder that he could have won so much more. This was THE year for Ron Paul to run. What a shame.

    1. Johnson will not get 5 million votes. If he does, Hillary will lose. You heard it here first.

      But everything else you said make perfect sense.

      1. I would have doubted it a few days ago, but after this debacle you’ll probably see a lot of Republicans switching to Johnson.

        1. This is a debacle only in your fevered imagination. Remember Trump University? Sure you do. This is in no way doing to raise Johnson’s prospects. It may temporarily lower Trump’s poll numbers, but it’s nothing more than that.

          1. Who do you think the former Trump supporters are going to vote for?

            Maybe they vote for Hillary, though anybody still clinging to Trump at this point must despise Hillary.

            Maybe they just don’t vote.

            But I think most of them will break for Johnson. Not because I like him much better, just because he’s the most innocuous choice remaining.

            1. Who do you think the former Trump supporters are going to vote for?

              Trump.

              1. Those aren’t “former Trump supporters”.

                If you don’t think he’s going to lose any support over this…. well, we’ll see.

            2. You’re delusional.

              1. Right, it won’t be damaging at all. That’s why Breitbart and its groupies here at H+R, is in full damage control mode.

                1. Breitbart? LOL! Get the fuck out of here, retard.

    2. Yeah the Republicans are running a divorced vulgarian who would not have been out of place with the Democrats in 1996 or so. I mean wasn’t he one then?

      The Democrats, the Party of the Common Man and Feminists supports a woman who got by because of her philandering husband and is supported by Big Business and Billionaires.

      And the LP has a gun controller Clinton appointee in its ticket and its candidates think Mitt Romney would be a good fit in a Libertarian Cabinet.

      1. This. Oh, so much this.

  43. Do we know who leaked this bombshell? I assume the usual media suspects are expressing their outrage at this naked attempt to influence the outcome of the election by releasing true but private information.

  44. So, Shikha…now that you got that out of your system, go fix me a sammich’.

    1. A nice turkey pot pie would be in order also.

      1. God damn you.

        Now I want a turkey pot pie. Chicken would be good also.

    2. Ha! Now THAT’s how you do misogyny.

      1. I was in a meeting once with most of the company executives and the president of the company. One of the other people there was our CS manager, a mouthy blonde with a smoking hot body. She was mouthing off right before the official start of the meeting and then playing on her cell phone. The president said something to start the meeting and she completely missed it. Then she was like ‘what, umm…’, and I said ‘the adults are talking, maybe you can go bake us a nice turkey pot pie?’. Laughter ensued, including the president. Which was a relief for me because sometimes, ok often, I’m too sarcastic for my own good. She looked shocked as hell, and it was sort of sexy. Top that for misogyny. BTW, blondie and I were still friends after that, still are, just have not talked to her in a while. One time after that, I was standing right behind her, I had went down to CS to look at a software issue for someone, and she asked the person she was talking to ‘What the fuck is wrong with [Hyperion] today? He’s a total fucking dick!’. I said, ‘and he’s standing right behind you’. lol. The good ol days…

        1. She knew you were standing there. Thats why she said it.

          I pulled something similar to that once, but she was my boss. A few days later she was humping me in the inventory room.

          I haven’t done that kind of stuff since I took an arrow to the knee (got married), but the memories are worth hanging onto.

  45. “You know that really hot waitress at TGIFridays? I banged her. And this smokin’ hot babe at the laundrymat, I banged her in the ladies’ room. And one time, I was, like, stayin at Holiday Inn and the maid came in while I was still in bed. I changed *her* linen, alright. And then there was the one at the video store…”

    1. You were cheating on your wife, Morgan Fairchild?

    2. It’s not my fault if women find me irresistible.

      1. You have to keep asking them if they’re sure they want it, and maybe get them to sign some documents, right as they’re really getting in the mood. They really love that and will respect you for it. /derp

        1. One time I drove a girl home. We started talking, and I said, “I think you may have had a little too much to drink tonight, I think I better go”.

          As I opened the door to leave, she came up behind me and slammed it shut. When I turned around, she looked at me like a hungry tiger looks at raw meat and said with a scary look in her eye, “You’re not going anywhere”.

          She chased me around that apartment like wild game. I haven’t evaded so many tackles since I was a kid playing “smear the queer”. I finally made it into a bathroom, locked the door behind me, and escaped through the window.

          She chased me down the street for a ways, but eventually I lost her. Something about me brings out the crazy. Maybe it makes them crazy. This woman was a professional. She was a goddamn office manager. A good one, too–I presume she doesn’t sexually assault her employees.

          1. You drove her home, OK, but how did you get into her apartment/house? Do you not understand the significance of “going upstairs” after giving someone a ride?

            Not blaming the victim or anything, but damn, if you didn’t want a piece you shouldn’t have gotten into that situation.

            1. You’re slut-shaming me, Sarah?

              Really?!

              Way to blame the victim.

              1. If you hadn’t been wearing your tie at such a rakish angle…

              2. No. What she did was morally wrong and illegal.

                But what you did was pretty dumb if you didn’t plan on dipping your bucket in the well.

                1. I was kidding about the tie, Ken, I realize you were really dressed like this – really, Sarah has a point, what hot-blooded American woman could resist you?

                  1. I knew you were being sarcastic, Fusionist.

                    And that’s exactly the kind of thing Sarah’s comment suggested.

                2. “But what you did was pretty dumb if you didn’t plan on dipping your bucket in the well.”

                  Maybe I walked her to the door and inside to make sure she’d be alright. Maybe I didn’t want to leave her alone to pass out on the sidewalk.

                  Maybe I didn’t realize how inebriated she was until we got inside, and then I decided I didn’t want to take advantage of the situation.

                  Maybe I just changed my mind.

                  Can’t a guy change his mind?

                  Regardless, why should victims need to justify themselves?

                  Calling victims stupid probably isn’t okay either, is it? I don’t know. Somebody tell me, is it slut-shaming to call an assault victim stupid for being a victim?

                  At any rate, it’s victim blaming, isn’t it? How could it not be?

              3. You have been officially slut shamed, Ken. There should be an award for that. That being said, I tend to run away from really drunk females also, most of them cannot handle their alcohol and it can get sort of ugly. I prefer them slightly buzzed.

                1. Oh c’mon Hyperion. You haven’t lived until you have had a drunk woman straddle you and half way to paradise puke all over you. I guess it’s like shaking a seltzer bottle, her going up and down like that.

                  1. Trust me, Suthenboy, I’ve experienced that more times than I can count. I’ve just become a little more refined in my likes now.

            2. Wow, poor, poor, Sarah. She doesn’t much understand females. I’m really doubting that you are one. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t understand women either, not completely. I just understand how behavior is affected by hormones and emotions and have learned through much time and tribulations, how to deal with that.

              1. You know who else was pretentious enough to tag their handle with some bullshit acronym in a vain effort to add credibility to their lefty argle bargle?

                1. Hitler?

          2. My personal experience is that girls can be just as rapey as guys. I can recall a few times when I was with a girl who wanted to have sex when I wasn’t really in the mood or I wasn’t comfortable with her. One of them started pulling off my clothes even though I was repeatedly telling her that I didn’t want to have sex. I eventually gave in just so she’d leave me alone.

            My hypothesis is that there’s much more female-on-male rape than the statistics will show, owing to several factors:

            – The belief that females raping males is not physiologically possible
            – The belief that men are always willing to have sex with a woman
            – Men being hesitant to physically resist a female rapist for fear of injuring her and ending up in court attempting to convince the judge that he was about to be raped

  46. Well, at least Trump has something in common with Bernie now. Maybe he’ll pull in that millennial demographic.

    1. “Do you know why the newspapers with articles like ‘Girl, 12, raped by 14 men’ sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?”

      Speak for yourself, Uncle Creepy.

      1. Maybe that’s why he became a socialist – he could never get away with that stuff if he were a Republican.

  47. It’s hilarious really. If Bill Clinton had been caught saying this, the Trumpistas (both closeted and open) around here would be jumping on that story like a starving squirrel on the last acorn on earth. But because it’s your guy, it’s not a big deal because it was just locker room talk.

    1. If Bill Clinton had been caught saying this…

      That’d totally be way worse than, you know, perjuring himself.

      Careful not to mix up your handles today, we know you’re not very good at juggling them.

      1. What other things Bill Clinton did or did not do are irrelevant.

        I’m just pointing out the double standard.

        1. I’m just pointing out the double standard.

          Indeed. Probably not quite how you intended though.

          1. Yeah, that, and Sarah is not a female. It has taken me about 5 minutes to figure that out.

            1. I never claimed to be female.

              1. Are you claiming to have a PHD? Whatever the fuck that is?

                Is that you, shreek? Also, you’re retarded.

                1. Are you claiming to be a Titan?

                2. It’s fucking Bo. I’m about 95% sure at this point.

                  1. Could be, bro. I just know at this point, is that it’s not a girl and that’s it doesn’t have a PHD, lol.

                    1. You don’t even know what a PHD is.

                    2. And you don’t know how to write the abbreviation properly, retard.

                      Go ahead and reply like I make you.

    2. What is with this stupid PHD shit? So, you spent a lot of money to be a stupid cunt?

      1. Tulpa has more PHDs than you can shake a stick at.

        1. Tulpa has more bullshit than you can shake a stick at.

      2. Pretending to have a PhD is about the same as pretending to be a female. You know, lies are lies.

        1. Maybe we’re not guys, cunt.

  48. “Be that as it may, there is something really, really fucked up about a political system that imposes a bigger price for coarse and crude remarks rather than the open advocacy of injustice against innocent victims of injustice. That’s the real travesty of the Trump candidacy.”

    Gee, that sounds like an indictment of the press, Shikha.

  49. I can’t wait for Robby’s forthcoming TRUMP SIGN IS A TITLE IX VIOLATION story.

    1. “Although the presence of a TRUMP 2016 sign can certainly be seen as a symptom of systemic racism, it’s still a bit of an overreaction to hack the sign, and the person carrying it, to pieces with a machete.”

      1. “To be sure, there is the 1st Amendment to consider.”

  50. If Trump wins despite this, feminists might actually riot.

    This terrifies me. Wait. Not it doesn’t. These cowards only get shit done by using the strong arm of the government to accomplish their ends. A bunch of obese shrieking bitches schreeching isn’t going to do anything. Fun fact. I got my hearing checked and I have hearing loss at the top end of the vocal spectrum. So, cool thing is, even if these stupid cows go out yelling, I won’t even notice.

    1. I think you’re underestimating the effectiveness of The Pussy Riot.

  51. http://tinyurl.com/jh8es8t

    Wonder if there is any truth to this party coup. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.

    1. If that is true, why wouldn’t they used it when it could have helped Jeb?

      1. It’s some lunatic’s twitter remark, I’m not about to rule it credible just yet.

        If the GOP were going to release something like this, you are correct, they would have, I expect, done so during the primaries.

  52. Can someone explain to me how the libertarian primary system works? Can I cast my vote for a candidate in CA? Do I have to be registered libertarian?

    Cuz If I can, I’m going to stop people like Gary Johnson winning the nomination. I hate the media for overplaying the “Aleppo gaffe” (while excusing the VERY people who created a crisis there) but I’m also frustrated by his mush mouth response. He yelled at Clinton in one meeting and that was about it. His running mate is CLEARLY a run of the mill democrat and he lets it slip every time.

    The GOP only needed to nominate a generic conservative to be competitive against Clinton. Even someone like Kasich would tied with her. And once the GOP messed up and nominated Trump, the LP could have nominated someone more traditionally libertarian to maximize their chances. Instead they picked a moderate democrat.

    So in a year where Hillary was the dem nominee (widely despised), the GOP nominated a terrible candidate while the LP picked an OK candidate. How can BOTH of them get it wrong, when chances of growth were the most ripe? Unbelievable.

    1. Primaries work differently in each state. Some require you to be a registered party member, some do not. You’ll have to look up what CA does in that respect.

      You *do* have to be a ‘primary’ resident of that state – no voting in Michigan and then in CA when you come down for the winter.

      The problem with ‘more traditionally libertarian’ is . . . who were our candidates this last time around?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_ Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

      Peterson, IMO, should probably be the candidate for 2020. But I think Johnson has done far better getting the *Party* noticed (even if Peterson would be better at getting out the word on libertarianism) and third parties being taken seriously in general than Peterson could have done this cycle.

      1. Right, Johnson has gotten the LP noticed. Now instead of asking “what?” when you mention the LP, people will say “oh yeah, the people who smoke pot and don’t know what Aleppo is and can’t name any world leaders”. What an accomplishment!

        1. Compared to what people say when you mention the Democrat or Republican parties? Yeah, that’s actually a hell of an accomplishment.

          I mean, seriously – you’re over here screaming about how bat Trump is and ‘Aleppo’ is the worst you can hold against Johnson? To me that sounds like the a really strong case for voting Johnson then.

  53. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

    This meltdown on the right-wing blogs is awesome! It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of asshole douchebags.

    1. STFU and VOTE TRUMP, sock

      1. only if I’m blind, stinking drunk… So it’s possible.

    2. Right wing blogs? Do you have links? This should be fascinating, or not…

  54. Be that as it may, there is something really, really fucked up about a political system that imposes a bigger price for coarse and crude remarks rather than the open advocacy of injustice against innocent victims of injustice. That’s the real travesty of the Trump candidacy.

    Unfortunately this is the very system you’ve been working with. *You’ve* been using the piddly-ass ‘uncouth’ shit Trump has been spouting (and I don’t have any comment on *this particular* piece as I haven’t been interested enough to learn enough about this latest outrage to be able to form an opinion on it – thanks to the tireless work of you and you colleagues jumping on every thing the man says that isn’t sufficiently ‘Presidential’ I’m worn out) to attack the man’s candidacy (while ignoring Clinton).

    If the system is fucked up, well *you’ve* contributed to that fucked-upness in your zeal to discredit the man you’ve been bringing up irrelevant stuff to the point that no one cares anymore. Its all old-shit. At this point, what difference does it make?

    1. They are digging their own grave alright. Credibility isnt like water. Once you squander it you cant just go get some more.

  55. The title ALONE deserves a Pulitzer! Demagogues have long exploited fears and hatred. Libertarians were the first to describe it. Generate hysteria for some threat to all of humanity, with your tribe as caped superheroes, to gain power and support.

    It has “justified” all sorts of wars … against both poverty and foreign powers, and multiple violations of individual rights. Eric Hoffer showed how zealots and fanatics control mass movements, all exploiting the same defect in human morality.

    Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers. “The True Believers” (1951)

    For the self-righteous, belief in a higher value justifies violating lesser values. The (un)Holy Inquisition committed centuries of moral atrocities, presumably to serve Christ … including the first mass slaughter of Christ killers (Jews) Google “Bavarian Massacres.

    But what if the hatred is toward government”? The eternal conflict between pro-liberty and anti-government libertarian factions. Nolan vs Paul libertarians.

    Kennedy recently attacked Bill Weld, viciously, because he did not bow down to Ron Paul. “the architect of modern libertarianism.” But a Cato survey found Nolans at 54%, Pauls at 6%. Paulists note the data are 10 years old, but fail to show even tiny change in any of the 3 factors. The militant self-righteous following the “architect” of their 6% tribe..

    1. Why did Kennedy lie and say Ron Paul endorsed Jill Stein? I lost a ton of respect for her. She didn’t have to join the chorus of reporters and journalists and talking heads who continually mis-characterize candidates in order to score points for their side.

      1. I’m gonna go with “read the headlines and didn’t dig any deeper”.

      2. I heard it, in context, as saying even Stein is preferable to Weld.
        Hatrers rarely makes any sense — except to other ones. Except the opposing tribe, of course!

    2. Hihn is back!!!! He’s back, guys!!!! This is gonna be fun.

      Oh how I’ve missed you’re attempts to narrate the thread in your posts.

      BULLY THREATENS NOBLE HIHN WITH VERBAL TERRORISM

      HIHN DEFTLY REFUTES CHARACTER ASSASSINATION BY DERANGED REASONOID LUNATIC

      1. (laughing)
        1) Does he know that was aggression?
        2) Was that a comment on the page topic or a personal attack devoid of content?.
        3) Where do I go, and how to I do it, begging permission to participate in a public forum?
        4) Do Reason’s Terms ban any speech outside what is permitted by self-appointed enforcers?

        (tone and boldface in self-defense)

          1. I’m not a pussy like yoiu.

  56. Every reprehensible troll in existence seem to now be crawling out from under their slime encrusted rocks. Only Tony hasn’t joined the scum party. Must be because no one mentioned Hilary or global warming.

    1. You mean trolls that don’t think libertarians should vote for Trump. Have you ever considered that maybe it’s you who is the TEAM RED troll?

      1. Where have I heard that delusional shit before?

      2. It’s like I don’t even need to write this narrative. It writes itself. Name all of the posters here who told you they’re voting for Trump. Wow, AmSoc, it’s like no one even needs to do anything to prove how clueless you are, you just stick that foot right in your own mouth.

        You’re out of your league here, Skippy, maybe it’s time to go home and ask mommy for a bedtime story?

        1. LOL. You’re not a Trump supporter, just an altruist who rushes to defend him when he says something offensive. Right.

          1. You’re the one rushing to crucify him when he ‘says something offensive’. If all he did was ‘say something offensive’ then why the outrage? Who care if he’s said something offensive? Clinton says something offensive *daily*. From ‘we came, we saw, he died’ to ‘what difference, at this point, does it make? to ‘like, with a cloth?’

            But since all those statements are made by a Democrat pushing for more state power you’re just cool with all that.

            People like you (and the Reason contributors) keep pushing the Trump is horrible narrative. We know that. Well, everyone here except SIV. But you all consistently fail to offer even the slightest reason why Clinton is preferable. Trump is bad – agreed. He shouldn’t be President – agreed. Why should Clinton?

            None of you want that question asked because none of you have a decent answer.

            1. I’m not cool with Hillary. Not remotely. As has been made clear multiple times in several threads the last few days.

              But since “BUT HILLAAARRRRYYYYY!” is the only argument you Trumpists have, I understand that you have to keep hammering away regardless of whether it’s a nail.

              1. So – then you’re cool with Stein? Is that why you’re jumping on the anti-anti-Trump bandwagon? Because Stein is Clinton’s economic agenda turned up to Pol Pot.

                1. I’m probably leaving president blank on my ballot. Might vote for Johnson. Depends on how I feel that day.

                  It’s amusing that you think I’m a leftist, BTW.

                2. Ron Paul also prefers Stein.

            2. Hyerion
              . Name all of the posters here who told you they’re voting for Trump

              Because my IQ is higher than a gerbil’s, I can tell which ones are avid Trump supporters, but ashamed to state it in public — and shame themslelves.
              Also every loyal supporter of the Paulista Cult,

            3. Agammamon
              You’re the one rushing to crucify him when he ‘says something offensive’

              Ummm, Pence has also denounced Trump.. Refused to defend him.
              Leaves his adoring bullies twisting in the wind, all alone.

      3. No, I don’t mean trolls that think libertarians should vote for Trump. I mean trolls that think we should vote for Clinton because ‘Trump is worse’. Have you ever considered that maybe its you who is the TEAM BLUE troll?

        I’m fucking voting for Johnson. But you’ll just say that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump – like the rest of the TEAM BLUE shills.

        1. When Gary Johnson is the only adult in the room…. your room has serious problems.

          1. No doubt. But you don’t get to go to war with the army you want. You go with the one you’ve got.

            1. He has my vote – twice over. But I wish he would have been a better candidate this time around.

              I still think the other Johnson is where the LP should look.

              Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson would make a fantastic candidate. We need to get him recruited and coached up for 2020.

              1. The Rock will take Hillary and Donald on a trip around Know Your Role Boulevard, take a right on Jabroni Drive and check them in the Smackdown Hotel.

          2. It could be worse than Gary as the only adult in the room.
            It could be Ron Paul, shitting on the Constitution, endorsing federal power to void state laws, and saying we can repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing — with a god-awful stupid excuse.

        2. I’m voting for Jill Stein. But if given a choice between Trump and Clinton I don’t have any trouble in determining who I’d vote for.

          1. Yeah, we already know you’re retarded. What’s your point here?

            1. (OMG) Pot Kettle Black!

          2. Christ. If there’s any reason to vote for Stein its because you don’t think Clinton will open up the camps fast enough.

          3. GMOs r poizoning our kidz! Get the fluoride out of the dirnking water!!!

    2. “Sarah Jackson” has been here before (can’t remember the earlier handles) and the handle is taken from that thread last week about the guy who got the zero on the test for picking a random name. Always heavy on contrarian, often pro-cop; troll with attitude.
      Hihn? Commie-kid? What intelligent comment can you make about a disaster?

      1. LEAVE DONALD TRUMP ALONE! LEAVE HIM ALONE!! He’s a person! Just like you and me.

        1. What intelligent comment can you make about a disaster?
          Hint, asswipe: Try to find where I’ve said one good word about Trump. Despising amateur thugs like you has nothing to do with supporting oafs.

      2. Sevo, political genius, says that having a camaign policy platform is for statists.

        https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6442132

        The mentality of anti-gummint libs. Their ideal society is total anarchy. They have no clue how to get there. In the beginning. the “Dallas Accord” was reached between anarchists and minarchists, long before Ron Paul destroyed the movement. We agreed that we were all riding the same train toward liberty, together. We acknowledged and respected that anyone could depart the train at any comfortable station. We call it self-ownership.

        Eventually, the train would have only anarchists on board — who acknowledged they could never get THAT far alone. We called that cooperation.

        Then came Ron Paul, to unite the authoritarian-libertarians, break the deal and replace it with oppression and purity. Anyone who did not “want” total anarchy (regardless of whether it was achievable in the foreseeable future) would be reviled and attacked for … wait for it … conspiring with statists!! Yeah, that sounds INSANE but Sevo said it publicly at that link.

        Why are they authoritarian? Because they REJECT the principle of delegated powers and consent of the people.
        They demand the right to define and control accepted political discourse … They are the elite 2%. Freedom is conformity.

  57. OT, alcohol hijack. But I really didn’t realize just how good Tito’s Vodka is until I’ve recently been purchasing some very expensive bottles of vodka for my collection and sampling them. Seriously, got to buy another bottle of Tito’s, the stuff is world class. I can drink it straight up, rare for a vodka less than $40.

    1. Give Sobieski a try. Less than 20 bucks for 1.75L and damn good. Tito’s is good too but is a bit more than I like to spend.

      1. Thanks for the tip, bro. I’ve seen that one in the store. Will give it a try.I seriously don’t mind spending a lot for a bottle of liquor, just get disappointed a lot.

      2. I’ll try it to.

        Tito’s is really good.

        There is absolutely no excuse for making a crappy vodka. All it requires is getting a pure distillate. There is no aging involved. Any idiot should be able to fractionate their distillate well enough to end up with pure 70% ethanol.

        In fact, I’ve often wondered why nobody just buys a tanker truck of ethanol from one of the big fuel distilleries and re-distills that another 4 or 5 times.

        1. “I’ve often wondered why nobody just buys a tanker truck of ethanol from one of the big fuel distilleries and re-distills that another 4 or 5 times.”

          I think Skyy vodka is produced pretty much like that.

      3. Less than 20 bucks for 1.75L and damn good.

        Depending on the taxes in your state, of course. I think the 1.75L bottles of vodka where I shop all run around $21.99 and up.

      4. Give Sobieski a try. Less than 20 bucks for 1.75L and damn good.

        Huh, I think I’ve seen that in NYC but I thought it was a cheapo brand (not less than 20 dollars though – that doesn’t exist here). Will check it out.

        My go-to is Gordon’s, FWIW.

        1. Gordon’s makes Vodka? I thought it was gin only. Show’s what I know.

          1. I like it because their 1.75 comes in plastic bottles that don’t weigh down my recyclables.

            1. I like the taste of gin, but I don’t like the effect of it. Beer and Vodka are my gotos, gin doesn’t do it for me. Whiskey makes me a little fucking crazy, and wine is like drinking flavored water.

              1. I like the taste of gin, but I don’t like the effect of it.

                Oh yes, gin hangovers are very unpleasant. And it doesn’t seem to matter if it’s 1 drink or 10 – I will get a hangover from gin.

    2. *Supposedly* you can filter shit-rate vodka using some inexpensive lab equipment until its of comparable quality to the more expensive labels.

      Given that Vodka is basically alcohol and water alone (unlike whiskey, scotch, etc) that makes sense.

      1. A work friend of mine filters Aristocrat through a Brita filter a couple of times. He says that makes it palatable but I don’t see myself trying that. It’s the worst kind of rotgut.

      2. *Supposedly* you can filter shit-rate vodka using some inexpensive lab equipment until its of comparable quality to the more expensive labels.

        Mythbusters tested that one. Busted. – A critic was able to rank the cheapest to the best vodkas even after all the cheap ones had been filtered repeatedly. According to their method, you can’t filter bad vodka into good vodka. That doesn’t make them right, but at least they tried.

        This guy from Playboy taste-tested some of the most popular bottom shelf vodkas, and surprisingly found some of the more notoriously crappy-brands ‘not so bad’ (eg. Popov?).

        I personally don’t see the point of vodka as a ‘by-itself thing’. Tho i can enjoy anything, i tend to prefer bourbon/rye.

        1. Smirnoff, lol. I’ve drank a lot of that. When I was in college, that is.

          I don’t really care about bourbon and wine, or beer snobs. I just know what I think is good. Vodka, like Smirnoff for example, will get you plenty drunk, as well as all 40% alcohol vodkas. But try drinking it straight. Does it taste like finger nail polish remover? See, I told you.

          1. When i do order something where good vodka might make a difference (like a vodka martini), i tend to pick Ketel or grey goose, just because they’ve got a decent reputation and never bothered me. In a bloody mary i tend to tell them “whatever you like to use”, in a greyhound (what used to be my favorite summer brunch drink) i liked Skyy because its sort of neutral, and bottom shelf vodka can make an already-tart greyhound too-acidic and unpleasant.

  58. I almost miss Alice Bowie and Shreek. It’s one thing to be clueless or an asshole. It’s however, quite offensive to be both.

    1. BTW, in case it wasn’t clear, that’s kudos for shreek and Alice. We now have worse trolls.

    2. I miss Lonewhacko. I think I got the honor of “shut the fuck up Lonewhacko” only once.

    1. Ribs and Pussy? Fucking good. Also, zucchini, mushrooms, beer and vodka.

    2. I knew he ate dog but pussy?

      1. He’s African, not Korean.

    3. “We eat ribs w’ this dude!”

  59. In a time where media is becoming more and more of nothing more than a mouthpiece for one of the two major political parties, I hope that Reason survives to be something more. I’m still holding out hope, just getting a little discouraged.

    1. I’m actually keeping my eyes peeled for a new libertarian news/commentary website. Reason has just gotten too “progressitarian” lately. They’ve lost a lot of their luster since ~2011 when I discovered them.

      Mises.org is great, but they don’t put out a whole lot of content.

      Does anyone have other libertarian sites they frequent that have as much content as Reason?

        1. And they don’t have squirrels.

  60. I missed the discussion, but just to be clear: If you think talking about trying to get laid like that is the reason not to support Trump for president, please turn in your voter registration card. You should not be so irresponsible as to cast a vote if you needed this piece of tape to push you over the edge.

    If this is the issue that makes you cast your vote, you should never in a million years vote for Clinton either. She’s even worse than this idiot on this front, having actually been a real, live rape apologist. The kind who attacks the victim, no less. That is way, way, way worse than being a pig who likes to sleep around and brags about it, by any possible measuring stick.

    So if you don’t see it that way, this is your moment to look in the mirror. Your inner-most biases have exposed themselves. This is a great moment to learn something about yourself. If you think Bill Clinton is just yummy and Trump is gross because of this issue, you’ve exposed yourself. (in addition to those here, I’m talkin’ to you Jezebel. That Bill birthday love-fest where all of you Jezebel chicks bragged to each other about how much you wanted to sleep with Bill Clinton was very instructional, and is exactly the same exposure I’m talking about here.)

    Now, if you are opposed to Trump because he’s an execrable narcissist and an unadulterated moron – that’s more understandable.

    1. What if you think Bill Clinton is a rapist and you think that Donald Trump is an awesome pickup artist? What would that say about you?

      1. I don’t like you, but you have a good point here.

        That the commenters here blithely refer to Bill as a rapist and Hillary as a rape apologist, despite there being no evidence of either, shows how far into the echo chamber they’ve sunk.

        1. OMG! Commie shithead doesn’t like commie shithead? Shut up, comrades, or get ready for the camps.

        2. That’s fairly true actually. Maybe Bill Clinton is a rapist, but likely not. It is phenomenally hypocritical that some people around here basically go all “listen and believe” when it comes to Bill.

          Hillary’s response (accusing the accusers of being part of a right wing conspiracy) was pretty dumb and atrocious of course.

          Really, you just ca’t talk about sex in a reasonable manner in this country, especially because of the politics. Like de Gaulle said, ‘In America, sex is an obsession; in Europe, it’s a fact.”

          1. I don’t know that the French have much high ground, given that they are harboring that convicted child rapist Polanski.

            1. You’ve been so great calling out the hypocrites and liars so far.

              Don’t go false equivalency on me now, bitch!

        3. “That the commenters here blithely refer to Bill as a rapist and Hillary as a rape apologist, despite there being no evidence of either,”

          No evidence?

          “Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/

          About the same ‘evidence’ as Cosby is now dealing with.

          1. Accusations are not evidence of themselves.

            If they are, then Clinton’s denials are evidence of his innocence, aren’t they?

            1. Yes, that is exactly what they are.

              Corroborating testimony for each is also evidence. As is a pattern of behavior.

              1. That’s an odd definition of “evidence” to say the least.

                If I say “the sky is orange with purple polkadots”, is that evidence that the sky is orange with purple polkadots?

                1. Hey retard that I own, I know you can’t help but reply, but everyone would prefer you shut up.

      2. Probably the same thing.

        It is pretty easy to be an “awesome pickup artist” with a giant wad of cash hanging out of your pocket. I used to hang out where a bunch of professional athletes were frequent customers. The number of straight-up 10’s that would throw themselves at them was staggering. The same thing occurs in West Palm Beach when the trust fund babies show up in their Ferraris.

        So, even if ‘pick up artist’ is one of your criteria, you’d have to be a bit of a cool-aid drinker to think that Trump in the 2000’s fits that description.

        1. Pro athletes, movie actors, and rock stars have a “pussy magnet” that’s quite independent of their money, though it helps if they have money too.

          Real estate developers in their 50s with bad hairpieces, not so much. Not even the gold-diggingest of gold diggers would let a guy like Trump grab her pussy without already being spent on.

          1. Sarah Jackson, PHD|10.8.16 @ 9:02PM|#
            “Real estate developers in their 50s with bad hairpieces, not so much. Not even the gold-diggingest of gold diggers would let a guy like Trump grab her pussy without already being spent on.”

            You post from personal experience or just off-the-cuff bullshitting?
            I’m guessing the latter.

            1. Typical H+R commenter logic.

              Something you want to believe is proposed (in this case, Trump’s pussy magnet status), and you accept it without question as being true.

              Somebody else questions whether it makes sense, and you turn into Cartesian skeptics and demand evidence from them.

              See the problem? Probably not.

              1. I have personally seen the “young girls throwing it at older men with cash”. It is a common sight at bars and restaurants in West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Ft. Lauderdale and South Beach.

                I have even had a trio of young (late 20’s) ladies bluntly question a couple of business colleagues and me as we were having dinner outside a fancy restaurant in Delray. They very quickly zeroed in on our job titles – moving on from the highest paid (an IT Executive) because they didn’t recognize the title and swarming the attorney. They went so far as to ask about his bank account. We indulged them for a few minutes and sent them on their way. They were clearly shopping for someone with money.

                We saw them later that evening with a couple of pudgy, balding 50-somethings at the bar across the street. There was no question as to what was occurring.

                Yes, wealth is a strong aphrodisiac. No, most women are not that nakedly ambitious about it. And I’d wager that most women are not aware of the effect that money is having on their judgement of a fellow’s attractiveness. I’ve never heard anyone saying they’d sleep with a guy just because he had money. But I’ve seen plenty of women go against their normal type to be with a guy with money.

                1. Were these women permitting pussy grabbing free of charge, as Mr Trump claims?

                  I have no doubt that there are women who will seek out and flirt and get touchy on with guys who appear to have money. But first base, not to mention second, isn’t going to be got without some spending occurring, even with those kinds of women.

                  1. Hey retard that I own, I know you can’t help but reply, but everyone would prefer you shut up.

    2. Except that’s not always how it works.

      As an employer I’ve more than once “given someone a chance” whose history suggests they would be a bad hire. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not. In the cases where it doesn’t, sometimes there’s a spectacular flameout that shows it was a mistake to hire them. But more often it’s a string of small problems, none of which by themselves would imply that the person is a bad employee, but taken together they do.

      Would you tell me that I can’t fire a person for being an hour late for work for the 10th time, because I shouldn’t have hired them in the first place?

      1. Trump doesn’t have ‘a string of small problems’ in his history. He’s been a straight up dumpster fire right from his *very first* run for President.

        If, after that long history of fuckups, *this* is what pushes you over the edge – you’re a bad manager to have let it get this far.

        1. I’d go further. In fact, I already kinda did. If you didn’t look at Trump in the first season of “the Apprentice” and think “holy crap, how did this idiot ever get in charge of anything?”, you probably have really bad judgement.

          I still don’t know why anyone would go to work for or with him. He’s, as you said, a dumpster fire. There is no way I’d work directly for that idiot – and I’ve worked for some crazy idiots in my time.

          1. It’s likely that he didn’t run his real business the way he conducted things on the TV show. I never saw the first season, but from what I could tell in later seasons, it was basically about setting people against each other to create drama. Which makes for great TV but would be terrible for a real business, obviously.

        2. If, after that long history of fuckups, *this* is what pushes you over the edge – you’re a bad manager to have let it get this far.

          I agree with you on that. However, I would like to be forgiving to those who did not see him for what he was at the beginning as I did.

          But “You shouldn’t have supported Trump from the beginning, therefore you shouldn’t abandon Trump now” is a textbook example of the sunk costs fallacy in action.

      2. “As an employer I’ve more than once “given someone a chance” whose history suggests they would be a bad hire”

        Yeah, and as a unicorn, you farted purple, too.
        You think your brain-dead comments here would suggest ’employer’ to anyone?
        Fuck off, imbecile.

  61. PTI: I stumbled across this item I haven’t seen a previous mention of : Judge bench-slaps Feds for coat-tailing on an illegal search-and-seizure operation.

    “The officers’ abuse of their authority is bad; however, the federal government’s bad judgment in bringing this case is worse. Because it did not tell Conroe that it needs to change its policies or decline to prosecute Conroe’s cases for its tactics, it has reinforced the officers’ illegal evasions.”

    I recall reading about the case some time back, but hadn’t seen the resolution. The good guys win one once in a while.

    And now back to the regularly scheduled Trumpapalooza. I swear you people are straight out of Pavlov’s lab. Ring that bell and watch the slobber fly! Like you ain’t gonna be going through all this again next week when the Hillary campaign ABC/CNN/MSNBC/NYT releases the next big fake scandal under the guise of “news”.

    1. You know, “won”, as in “got bankrupted by legal bills and lost everything, but isn’t in jail any more”.

    2. Good article, we need more judges like that guy.

      1. He should have found a way to use the word “woodchippers” in his decision.

    3. From the comments:

      Jimmy Perry
      10/1/2016 4:08 PM EST
      This was Nixons purpose in making cannabis illegal in the first place. Study your history! I have had to live through the whole thing. It is long past time to let go of the fear and ignorance of prohibition!
      Like

      I’d really like to see some polling/testing on this belief. Is it just held by dope-addled potheads who “learned” it from reading some of the ahistorical garbage that passes for pro-cannabis propaganda? Or could they actually be teaching this in schools? Even Reason sometimes writes as if drug prohibition began in 1971.

  62. “Expecting a movement to perfectly calibrate its strategy for maximum persuasion…”
    More like expecting a movement to not be racist, violent, stupid, and disdainful of the rule of law.

    1. Nobody who’s been voting D or R the last 100 years is expecting anything of the sort.

  63. I remember when republicans used to be a serious national political party.

    1. DERP BLOOP DORP BLOP DERP!

      1. You’re still claiming not to be a Trump supporter?

        1. LOL! So saying what I just said… that makes you a Trump supporter. M.O.O.N, that spells moon!

          1. In the context, and coupled with your totally-not-supporting-Trump Trump apologetics elsewhere, there aren’t any other explanations.

            1. Elsewhere?

              1. Is that you, Botard? You really do not want to go there, again.

      2. FIZZLE GIZZLE SWIZZLE MY NIZZLE

        1. Awe… Braindead has a sadz.

    2. I remember when republicans used to be a serious national political party.

      Former Republican officeholders are always so much better than the current Republican office holders. I’m sure you were gushing over Dole and Gingrich back in 1996…

      1. No. Nothing has ever been as bad as nominating Trump.

        The Dems at least have the excuse that HRC had a political machine and mad connections in the DNC to work. The GOP nominating Trump was a completely unforced error.

        I mean, Bob Dole probably could have beaten Hillary if he’d run this time.

        1. In related news:

          Bob Dole only former GOP nominee to stick with Trump

          Warning: Bob Dole looks scary these days. Not sure if the headline is correct either; while Bush I, McCain, and Romney have come out against Trump, have we heard from Bush II yet?

          1. McCain has rejected The Buffoon.

            1. Cruz will defect by Tuesday.

              The Stupid Party has made its bed.

              Hello Supreme Court Justice William Jefferson Clinton.

              Thanks, Republicans. Thanks.

  64. I wonder how Hillary’s supporters can look their sons in their eyes knowing she thinks men dying in war is less a concern than women having to get jobs to support themselves because their husbands are dead.

    Trump’s pure shit, but let’s cut the bullshit about Hillary’s campaign having anything to do with gender equality. She has her own contempt for the male half of the species.

    1. “BUT HILLLLLLLARRRRRRRYYYYYYY!”

      That’s all you guys have left.

      1. Who is ‘you guys’, retard?

      2. ‘Buuuuuuut Truuuuuuuump’ is all you guy have ever done.

        1. You’re right, I don’t have any arguments to justify supporting Hillary.

          Which is probably why I don’t support her.

          1. Now turn that around, see, because as in so many things, that runs both ways. There’s about five people here who support Trump. Maybe. SIV for sure, blessums heart. About the same as plan to vote for Hillary, which is a total coincidence, I’m sure of it.

            The rest of this rabble are largely plotting out the most insulting write-in vote, washing their hands of the whole affair, or convincing themselves to grab the Johnson by lying back and thinking of England.

            You can be annoyed at the things we say or the manner in which we say it, but at least ascribe our motives to filthy inbred immaturity rather than bipartisan politicking. In all things, we must have accuracy.

            1. You’re referring, I assume, to the large contingent of posters who claim not to support Trump but rush to defend him for everything he does?

              There’s what you do and what you say. I believe the first.

              1. You’re referring, I assume, to the large contingent of posters who claim not to support Trump but rush to defend him for everything he does?

                Since the contingent is so very large, name names.

                People have this thing, see, where they start assigning motivations to people because it’s easy and it fits their headspace without either of these things having a significant chance of making it true. It’s not “bad”, per se; it’s annoying but it’s common.

                You lump a bunch of contrarians together with the “Principals, not principles” meme long enough, people start acting funny. Like that principles shit matters.

                Also you can’t discount the not-insignificant contingent who read the news voraciously and yet can’t stand the media’s attitude.

                Perhaps all this talk of Manichean dilemmas and false dichotomies and binary illusions has gone to our heads.

                1. Suthenboy, Hyperion, Gilmore, Ken Shultz, Heroic Mulatoo, Brochettawad, VG Zatsev, PapayaSF, XM, PM, plus several probable socks….

                  I don’t know how many have officially pledged allegiance to Al-Trumpa, but they all seem to be in his corner from what I can tell. Or very altruistic in rushing to the defense of anybody who says palpably stupid things.

                  1. No, I do not “defend everything he does.” I have disagreements on various issues. However, I think he’s right on some important ones, and overall: Still better than Hillary.

                  2. Well, here’s my perceptions. Hyperion – anti-media. Ken Shultz – principle. Brochettaward just gets mad. It’s no big, he’s almost always venting with a tendency towards bombastic decisive speech, and really, the way shit’s been going, a certain level of disgust and anger seems appropriate to the situation. (That applies to an awful lot of us, including me.) Heroic Mulatto a Trump supporter? Really? He strikes you as that conservative?

                    Some of these I can’t speak to with any guarantees. I mean, maybe I can see where you’d think so.

                    And I’m not trying to go through your list and say, “Wrong, wrong, WRONG” as some sort of argumentative one-upmanship. You say that you’re no stranger; well, neither am I. I’ve been talking to these fellows for some time now. Hopefully I’ve done some listening along the way too. They’ve taken the time to put their thoughts, opinions and philosophies out there enough, the least I can do is cobble together some inkling of what my compatriots think.

                    What I’m saying here is that I think there may be another explanation as logical as “Trump supporter” for at least some of this vast contingent you see. You might be correct that some of those support Trump; and I might be correct that you’ve seen Trumpism where another motive was in play.

              2. What large contingent that rushes to defend him. Everyone here – except for SIV – ‘defend’ Donald by pointing out that his competitor has done shit every bit as dirty and vile. And worse. AND she’s done it as a member of the US government – people have *died* for her ambitions.

                But instead we get ‘Trump said some nasty thing 10 years ago and *that’s* why he’s not fit to be President today’.

                Pointing out the nasty shit Clinton did *this year* is ‘defending the guy though?

                1. Oh please. This thread is full of people defending/minimizing what Trump said.

                  Yes, some people are bringing up Clinton’s badness, but it’s always in response to criticism of Trump. Which means that they are defending him by attacking his opponent.

                  If people are saying bad things about Clinton down in the Podesta email thread two posts ago, then that’s more plausible. But if you answer a criticism of Trump with a criticism of Clinton, sorry but you are defending Trump.

                  1. “But if you answer a criticism of Trump with a criticism of Clinton, sorry but you are defending Trump.”

                    Or maybe, has been explained to you you fucking retard, they expect consistency on that criticism .

                    But of course, you insist you know people’s true motivations, and instead of saving the world or getting rich with your superpower, you’re trolling a website you’ve been run off of numerous times.

                    Listen stupid asshole, when people say A is vile, and indefensible, but look at how B is getting a pass, They’re not defending A.

                    I mean, what the fuck do you think “vile and indefensible” mean you stupid asshole?

                    You think they’re lying? You, the guy too fucking stupid to troll without getting sniffed out?

                    Say so. Stop being a fucking punk about it.

                    1. Is there any greater irony than somebody hiding behind a sockpuppet to attack another poster, accusing me of trolling?

                      There has to be, but none of them come to mind.

                    2. “Is there any greater irony than somebody hiding behind a sockpuppet to attack another poster, accusing me of trolling?”

                      You hiding behind a, sockpuppets to attack someone you think is a sockpuppets who is attacking you.

                      Jesus Christ retard you can’t even get out of your own fucking way.

                      Now that we’re done pointing out you suck at impromptu attacks, lets get back to your pathetic bitch like insistence on assumong you know what other people think.

                    3. You’re not a sockpuppet? So your only username is “Fuck off Tulpa”, even on topics that have nothing to do with Tulpa?

                      That’s actually even more pathetic. Don’t predicate your existence on another person, even negatively.

                    4. “You’re not a sockpuppet”

                      Thats actually the exact opposite of what I wrote you fucking retard.

                      “That’s actually even more pathetic. ”

                      That you can’t read? Yeah.

                      Now, shut up you fucking illiterate retard.

      3. For 8 years all I have heard is “But Buuuussssh!”. Obumbles and Clinton are to blame for none of the epic fuckups under their watch that occurred as direct results of their policies, no, it was Bush. If Trump were to actually pull the economies nose up I am sure it will because Obumble is responsible.

        Actually Trump does have some good policy ideas and they have been outlined here more than a few times. Johnson has some as well and they have been covered as well. The criticisms of Cankles are pretty specific as well. She is worse than awful with regards to her character, behavior and her ideas.

        I am pretty sure we have been putting up with your hollow accusations for quite some time too. Closet right wingers, secret republicans, etc. Now you are attempting to project your shortcomings.

        Nobody is buying that shit.

    2. Simple. They don’t care about men.

      A week or two back somebody linked to an article (WaPo, I think), from a mother berating her two teenage sons for rolling their eyes at her constant going-on about the so-called “rape culture”. What a truly nasty thing to do to your kids.

  65. Listen: clearly, Trump has tanked. Republicans are done.

    They screwed up.

    They have the voting acumen of high school students.

    Now, we’re talking about the presidency of the United States. Our democracy. Important, sacred institutions.

    At this critical time, remember the most important thing:
    Find some who was leaning Trump’s way, honk their nose, and start making fun of them. As only serious people do.

    1. “Now, we’re talking about the presidency of the United States. Our democracy. Important, sacred institutions.”

      You’re a laugh riot, you are!

    2. Trump is Chairman Reince’s un-housebroken poodle.

      RNC needs to be purged BIG TIME after this election. The Trumpists need to decide whether they support limited government or Trumpism. If the latter, they should be shown the door. I don’t give a rat’s ass if they form their own party based on Trump’s bullshit, we need to start scrubbing the stink off.

      1. Sarah Jackson, PHD|10.8.16 @ 9:07PM|#
        “RNC needs to be purged BIG TIME after this election.”

        And I’m sure you see yourself as the one to make those changes, right?

      2. At this point, the Republican Party is the best example of why government is retarded.

        If these guys for the executives of a company, it would be a bankrupt company, and they would be looking for something else to do by now.

        At this point, I’m just wondering which losers turn it’s going to be in 2020.

        1. At this point, the Republican Party is the best example of why government is retarded.

          The opposition party and not the governing party naturally…

          1. Winston, I rarely agree with you, but here is an exemption.
            Brian, I’m sure, will blame the Rethugs for Social Security, the Great Society and O-care, if he gets the chance.
            Hey, Brian! Grow a brain cell!

        2. As tradition dictates, the next establishment pick will appear on all networks on Nov 9 and on the following Sunday.

          In 2012 it was JEB who up ’til then seemed to have been in the witness protection program.

          In 2008 it was Romney.

          Go back and you’ll see this actually happens. However, with the impending destruction of the Republican party, who knows?

          1. Funny how the armchair experts used to talk about the GOP always nominating the candidate who came in second in the previous contested primary race, and the Dems always nominating somebody who hadn’t run in the previous contested primary race. Kind of got flipped on its head this time around?

            This time Santorum was never in striking distance even, so they evaporated. The world will not miss them.

            1. Did you used to post under Randian/Tone police?

              1. Pretty sure the handle two times ago was a generic man’s name; Hank Smith or some such. The mistake this time is the asswipe has selected a name most of us will remember; it’s the name for which that kid got a “zero” on the test for picking a name at random. Troll, you won’t be able to hide next time.
                Regardless, the change of names is an attempt to hide from the comments you’ve made in the past. Our asswipe here has been laughed off the site several times and keeps coming back (like tulpa) hoping the style and stupidity won’t be noticed. It is. Clearly.

      3. Except the GOP platform is mostly Trumpisms – which are 90% identical to the Democratic Party’s platform.

        The GOP isn’t going to ‘purge’ anyone who’s pro-state. The ‘libertarian’ wing of the party is damn near vestigial. If anyone gets kicked out its going to be the Paul supporters – Rand or Ron.

    3. Important sacred institutions? You’re kidding right?

  66. Arnold Schwarzenegger won’t vote Trump, implores other Republicans to do the same

    http://www.ew.com/article/2016…..nald-trump

    This is rich. Didn’t Arnie totally bang his ugly maid and had a love child? As I recall, women say that Schwarzenegger groped and humiliated them, too.

    http://articles.latimes.com/20…../me-women2

    1. The kid even started his life in an old cold run-down tenement slum.

  67. Is Sarah Jackson actually Mary Quite Contrary?

    1. Mary Stack? Dear god.

    2. All signs point to “no”; pretty sure that piece of ‘work’ is an occasional poster who uses a different handle every time, since by the time “it” finishes making an ass of itself, no one would bother engaging unless “it” chose another name.
      Troll with attitude; here to stir the pot rather than impart anything of interest.

      1. It’s hard to blame people for trolling when Dalmia is already setting such a bad example..

        Sometimes it feels like half the staff hates us for being libertarians.

        1. Enjoy the ride bro, guess who wins?

        2. “It’s hard to blame people for trolling when Dalmia is already setting such a bad example..”
          I have a hard time with her articles defending an Indian faction, which seems to favor freedom about this far (fingers not quite touching) from the other faction.
          But other than that, her articles seem to be among the lot where I’ll agree with some and disagree with others. This one gets a ‘yeah, pretty much’ from me.

    3. I don’t think so.

      She doesn’t seem completely unhinged, spewing profanity, pulling her hair out while posting etc.

      Of course, all that can change in a split second.

  68. OT-was arguing with someone about the Clinton foundation and the pay to play stuff. Is there any actual evidence? All I hear is how charitytrack rates them a A.
    Im a lurker just asking a question. Thanks in advance.

    1. “Clinton Foundation Official Requests State Lunch Invitation, Special Seating for Foundation Allies, Emails Show”
      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..d=41695275

      “A non-profit group that has received favors from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), including a free membership that entitled its officials to rub elbows with world leaders, issued its top rating Thursday for the Clinton Foundation.”
      http://dailycaller.com/2016/09…..y-website/
      Note that Charity Navigator, up until several weeks ago, did NOT rate them at all, since their ‘business model’ made no sense to Charity Navigator. Not long later, the rating changed.

    2. And am I correct in presuming you were a false-flag commenter hoping no one would have that data?
      Just asking a question.

      1. No, I was actually looking for help. The answer I get is that “she did favors for people and the money went to charity. Show me proof she was actually benefitting”

        1. I see; my presumption was correct.
          You’re an apologist for that miserable hag and hoped that your pathetic defense would convince those with a lick of sense?
          Fuck off.

          1. I was actually looking for help Sevo. How do they actually benefit is what I am actually trying to prove. Again-any help is appreciated.

            1. OK, I’ll take you at your word:
              “Clinton Foundation Official Requests State Lunch Invitation, Special Seating for Foundation Allies, Emails Show”
              http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..d=41695275
              In this case, she (the “foundation”) traded access for contributions; those who contributed were given favored access to those in power. Commonly called ‘peddling access’.
              If someone thinks that peddling such access is of no value to her, you ought to ask what could possibly be of value to a hag wishing to increase her political ‘standing’.
              Does that tell you how she personally benefited?

              1. God you’re fucking stupid Sevo.

              2. Thanks man.

            2. Their number look terrible – e.g., $177.8M in in 2014, $5.1M in grants, $34.8M in salaries, etc.

              At best, it’s a way to give cushy jobs to various cronies. Add into that that tons of things – private jet travel, hotels, etc. – are charged to the foundation when they’re giving their various “important” speeches, and it’s clear it’s mostly a slush-fund for their lifestyle. T

            3. Jerms-

              Clinton and Obama were selling off gov’t positions, and actually used the words “pay to play”.

  69. Oh, I have to say: What the fuck is it with this ‘failure to confront’ remark? I don’t have to justify my failure to confront anyone, to anyone. Some of us have jobs and care about things that matter, and don’t go around confronting confrontables all day long.

    1. I’m confounded by your comforting of contemptible confrontables!

      1. I love this blog…. Even though most of you are assholes.

    2. What the fuck is it with this ‘failure to confront’ remark?

      Yes, its one of the more retarded accusations in common-use today.

      It allows idiots to assign collective blame for anyone’s individual behaviors, and claim you share responsibility for failing to police them

      I would have flagged it myself, but that paragraph is like a multilayered onion of stupid. i simply don’t think Shikha’s bullshit is worth the effort to deconstruct it.

      e.g. ‘Republicans have no black constituents‘, etc.

    3. Sort of like Hillary Clinton being blamed for what her husband does?

      1. Sarah Jackson, PHD|10.8.16 @ 10:00PM|#
        “Sort of like Hillary Clinton being blamed for what her husband does?”

        Was that intended to mean anything other than giving the hag a pass?

        1. Giving her a pass, for something somebody else did. Yeah, I guess.

          1. Sarah Jackson, PHD|10.8.16 @ 10:21PM|#
            Giving her a pass, for something somebody else did. Yeah, I guess.”

            So giving her a pass.
            Thanks. I knew you could be forced to be honest about something.

            1. BTW, what was the last name you used? I’m curious to see what sort of bullshit you shoveled under that handle.

  70. AT (Associated Topic):

    “Russian involvement?
    The emails released Friday range […] And they come just hours after top national security officials accused Russia of trying to influence the US elections through highly-coordinated hacks.
    US accuses Russia of trying to interfere with 2016 election”
    (The presumptions here is that the “national security officials” are unbiased, as of course ALL executive branch personnel are, and that Russia would prefer Trump to Clinton; assumes facts not in evidence)
    —————————–

    1. “Podesta fired off a series of tweets Friday night, blasting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and pointing to Russia as the source of the hacks, although there is no official link between his specific emails and hacks by Russia.
      “I’m not happy about being hacked by the Russians in their quest to throw the election to Donald Trump,” Podesta tweeted Friday night. In another tweet, he said, “Don’t have time to figure out which docs are real and which are faked.”
      The Clinton campaign declined to confirm whether the emails were Podesta’s.”
      (Blaming the Russians is easy and less than believable. Is there anyone who imagines that the Russian spooks don’t have the entire content of Clinton’s hall-way server? If is, I have some Chinese rocket technology to sell cheap.
      If the Russian were interested, they’d drop the dime on her blue-light specials peddling influence and be done with it. And they’d do it noon on a Monday so it hit the evening news everywhere.)
      Link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/…..index.html

      1. This is just the Dems trying to deflect to the source of the emails rather than the content. If it is the Russians they’re doing us a favor.

      2. I’ve heard this supposed Russia-Wikileaks connection before from, of all people, Bryan Suits, a conservative talk show host. Where does this story come from? Clapper’s ass? Or is there an actual link?

        1. I’ve seen only claims by those who either want to hide the from the emails or right-wing conspiracists. I know nothing about Suits.

  71. Bernie Sanders is such a whore.

    1. Right now, he’s bent over, well as far as he can, while Huma shoves a huge dildo up his dried old arse… Sugarfree, calling Sugarfree….

  72. Hey for you trolls on the government payroll…. While you were in your cubicle hating your life cuz the reprobates here can wake up from a three day drunk and still show how fucking stupid you are, I was home fucking your wife. She tells me you have a really small cock.


  73. Cover Story
    Who Will Get Our Votes?

    Katherine Mangu-Ward

    reason’s 2016 presidential poll

    Let me guess. Other than the principled non-voters, they’re all in for Hitlery but 4/5 of them lie and say GayJay. Nobody votes for Trump except maybe one token “contributor” or other tangentially-attached individual.

    1. SIV, you’re FOS.

  74. And another 500 comment thread

  75. The deplorable. The despicable. The outlawed, and the dishonored never apologize.

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

  76. Gary Johnson: GOP is dead.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..going-die/

  77. Oh, honor for all
    All the big and the small
    Well, the taller they stand
    Well, the harder they fall

    We live for today but we die for the next
    with blood in our veins and the air in our chest
    Oh, we step into war with our hearts on the line
    Dirt on our boots, it shakes free over time

    Read more: Dishonored – Outro Lyrics | MetroLyrics

  78. The music, it fades, the violin slows
    The darkness, it rises, as the sun goes

    Love is a distant aroma at best,
    A withering smile thats stuck deep in your vest.
    The night air it wraps its fingers around,
    Your body, it shakes from the now distant sound,
    Oh, the sound of her voice – a sweet symphony,
    Played over and over until you are free.

    Read more: Dishonored – Outro Lyrics | MetroLyrics

  79. The music, it fades, the violin slows
    The darkness, it rises, as the sun goes

    Love is a distant aroma at best,
    A withering smile thats stuck deep in your vest.
    The night air it wraps its fingers around,
    Your body, it shakes from the now distant sound,
    Oh, the sound of her voice – a sweet symphony,
    Played over and over until you are free.

  80. The music, it fades, the violin slows
    The darkness arises, as the sun goes

    Can you feel the new day rising,
    Climbing up the east horizon?

    They can’t hold us,
    Now we’ll fight through
    Each and every one
    will start new

  81. The music, it fades, the violin slows
    The darkness arises, as the sun goes

    Can you feel the new day rising,
    Climbing up the east horizon?

    They can’t hold us,
    Now we’ll fight through
    Each and every one
    will start new

  82. Well, we shall not stumble
    No, we shall not fall
    We shall not crumble
    No, we shall stay tall

    Well death, it will come
    As sure as the night
    We will not run
    No, we live but to fight

    With blood on our hands
    And dirt on our knees
    We tear at the ones,
    Who brought the disease

    The music, it fades, the violin slows
    The darkness, it rises, as the sun goes

    Can you feel the new day rising,
    Climbing up the east horizon?

    They can’t hold us,
    Now we’ll fight through
    Each and every one
    Will start new

  83. Anyone wanna talk about Trump?

    1. The real estate guy? Why?

      1. I heard he purchased Harambe’s dead body and had it stuffed and is now using it as a sex toy.

      2. Ivanka has to be shitting her pants about what this does to her fashion line.

        Dad losing his show where she could show off her shitty product lines was already a big blow, now this.

        1. I doubt Ivanka is nearly as concerned as you seem to be.
          BTW, what was the last name you used? I’m curious to see what sort of bullshit you shoveled under that handle.

          1. Wasn’t it “Hank Something”? You peddled the same sort of ‘all-opinion, no-evidence’ bullshit.

          2. I don’t have a last name. I’m like Fabio.

            1. Sarah Jackson, PHD|10.8.16 @ 11:40PM|#
              “I don’t have a last name
              There is one reason to change names: you hope people won’t associate the bullshit you post now with what you posted in the past.
              Fuck off.

            2. Sarah Jackson, PHD|10.8.16 @ 11:40PM|#
              “I don’t have a last name
              There is one reason to change names: you hope people won’t associate the bullshit you post now with what you posted in the past.
              Fuck off.

          3. You’re right, actually this might be an opportunity for her. She could offer a line of work clothing with Kevlar crotches to keep guys like Trump from grabbing women by the pussy at work. Sort of like a chastity belt for the 21st century.

            And if anybody questions whether such accessories are tasteful or necessary, she can reply “I know my dad.”

            1. Oh, look at that attempt at begging for attention! Is this eddie under another name? A human who has to throw shit around in the hopes someone notices?
              Or a random imbecile who shows up here to prove random imbeciles are random imbeciles?
              C’mon, what was the last name you hid behind? The bullshit ration is obvious, but the name escapes me.

              1. “Is this eddie under another name?”

                Sevo should talk.

                Sevo is one of my socks – I created his persona to make atheists look dumb.

  84. All I want to see is a video of Bill and Donald taking turns with an underage girl. We could watch Hillareans and Trumpanauts heads explode.

  85. Y’all got troll rolled.

  86. We are hihnfected by the hihnfector hihnslef:

    Michael Hihn|10.8.16 @ 10:39PM|#
    “Several surveys reported. Scroll down roughly 2/3 to the bold header, ‘How Libertarians See Themselves.””

    Oh, goodie.
    Fuck off.

    1. he’s still talking about that as though it means something?

      i avoid the “L word”. Not because i think there’s any problem with libertarianism, but because i’ve lived most of my life in NYC and i’m not interested in people treating me like a leper

      1. Yep, he seems to be fixated on the label and his definition of what that means. I’m an old fart, but don’t seem to suffer from that confusion.

        1. Sevo
          Yep, he seems to be fixated on the label and his definition of what that means.

          One more time for the king bullshitter. That’s CATO’s definition, as you’ve seen over a dozen times.

          I’m an old fart, but don’t seem to suffer from that confusion.

          (laughing) You just stumbled over your confusion … but not as crazy as you saying an actual campaign platform would be STATIST!!!!

          Cato survey

          Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: ?.”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” We asked the other half of the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?”

          “In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way.”

          All over hundred of pages here, libertarian goobers suffer severe denial that they are rejected by 91% of libertarians. Self-righteous much?

          1. Hey look its that bitch I own who replies when I make him

            So reply bitch, I own you

            1. F*ckoffTulpa gets pwned

              So reply bitch, I own you

              Here’s my reply, psycho

              “Fuck Of Tulpa’s” thuggish aggression has gone totally off the rails.
              To hide his own bullying and aggresion, he shamelessly lies about my comments.

              1) Edit my comment to remove the attack I responded to.
              2) Include one or two lines – claiming I was the attacker,
              3) Include no link, to protect your lie

              But he’s not a psycho liar.
              Well, I’ve documened just one. Linking to the REAL comment.
              One is enough to prove his abject moral depravity.

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6457815

              This is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians
              53% of Americans (at least) are Nolan libertarians.
              5.3% (at most) are Paul libertarians.

              (chuckle)

    2. It’s blue Hihn Sevo.
      That spells
      M-O-O-N
      The real Hihn is too much of an egomaniac to noy link his name to his bullshit blog.
      =D

        1. Not clicking on that. No way.
          But you could try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pL4KviDKfI

          1. Brother I don’t need an airgun.
            I just re domesticated a feral cat that brings me chipmunks, rats, squirrles, rabitts, large birds, and mice on a daily basis.
            I love this cat.
            =D

          2. Now I know what Sevo’s voice sounds like

            1. Dude. Sevo is the Jack Russell Terrier of dogs on this board.
              He is a fucking Troll hunter.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIHFKT44Lc

              1. And judging by the mess on the carpet, somebody put yogurt in his doggie bowl.

      1. Aggression means initiating an unprovoked attack.. Verbal aggression is protected speech, but obviously the same mentality as physical aggression. Watch them go all self-righteous, defending their right to cyber-bullying. As they sit and giggle together.

        1. How does it feel to know that every time we interact, I own you and make you look like an imbecile.

          Go ahead and reply, you’re too obsessed not to, and you’ll do what I tell you.

          1. My stalker returns! Falls on face. Again.

            F*cloffLosewr
            Go ahead and reply, you’re too obsessed not to, and you’ll do what I tell you.

            (snort) Responds in a thread that does not involve him … launches a NEW unprovoked aggression .. says I’m obsessed!
            Following in defense of serial aggresion

            “Fuck Of Tulpa’s” thuggish aggression has gone totally off the rails.
            To hide his own bullying and aggresion, he shamelessly lies about my comments.

            1) Edit my comment to remove the attack I responded to.
            2) Include one or two lines – claiming I was the attacker,
            3) Include no link, to protect your lie

            But he’s not a psycho liar.
            Well, I’ve documened just one. Linking to the REAL comment.
            One is enough to prove his abject moral depravity.

            https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6457815

            This is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians
            53% of Americans (at least) are Nolan libertarians.
            5.3% (at most) are Paul libertarians.

    3. Like Trump. Denies hard, undeniable proof. Because 91% of libertarians reject HIM!

  87. If a man or woman cannot abide by the articles that they voluntarily have signed, then they should be lined up and shot.

  88. How is it that I just learned about this? This is sort of thing we should be feeding infants to toughen them up.

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

    1. Watch more episodes of “River Cottage” mate.. 😀

    2. “In modern times it is usually made from a mixture of whipped cream, whisky, honey and fresh raspberries, with toasted oatmeal soaked overnight in a little bit of whisky.”

      In other words, what’s in my disposer. Yum.

      1. Playa.
        Make some whipped cream using Left Hand Milk Stout as flavoring. You will not be disappointed. =D

        1. Intrigued. But I’ve never seen it here for sale here. Ever.

          One of my best friends from HS is from Longmont, maybe he’ll know.

            1. Thought is was Colorado for some reason. Sorry, I’ve been drinking. Not that, but something.

      2. whipped cream, whisky, honey and fresh raspberries, with toasted oatmeal soaked overnight in a little bit of whisky.

        best served off a set of teenage titt-ayyyyyyyyyyyyys

  89. Trump sucks.
    Hillary sucks.
    Gary, and Weld suck.
    Bernie sucks.
    Keelhaul the lot of them.
    Your life matters.
    No Gods.
    No masters.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-Z_psXODw

    1. Pyrate, I’m always glad to see you posting. Let’s get shitfaceded.

      1. You too brother. =D
        On my way there. =D

  90. 600 comments! Imagine if this comment system wasn’t such a total POS, how many there’d be!

  91. This is probably as good a time as any to bring up that Hillary Clinton is guilty of domestic violence.

    “There was blood all over the president and first lady’s bed,” writes former White House reporter Kate Anderson Brower. “A member of the residence staff got a frantic call from the maid who found the mess. Someone needed to come quickly and inspect the damage. The blood was Bill Clinton’s. The president had to get several stitches to his head.”

    “The Residence: Inside the Private World of The White House,” is due out Tuesday from publisher Harper, but excerpts began making the rounds Monday. Ms. Brower is a former reporter for Bloomberg News.

    Stories circulated after the 1998 fight in the White House that Mrs. Clinton had brained her husband with a lamp in a fury over the revelations of his sexual affair with Miss Lewinsky, a White House intern. But according to the book, White House staff surmised that Mrs. Clinton hit her husband with one of the dozens of books that she kept on her bedside table.”

    —-The Washington Times

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..etailed-n/

  92. “During the height of President Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky scandal, a White House maid entered the bedroom to clean and was shocked to find the president and first lady’s bed covered in blood.

    . . . .

    All of a sudden, he heard the first lady bellow, ‘goddamn bastard!’ at the president ? and then he heard someone throw a heavy object across the room.”

    —-New York Post

    http://nypost.com/2015/04/05/w…..use-tales/

    Bragging about being able to do whatever you want with any woman you meet is embarrassing for Trump, but domestic violence? If Hillary is a spousal abuser, how can we reward her with a trip to the White House? What kind of message would that send to spousal abusers everywhere?

    1. No way of knowing who the aggressor was.

      1. Well, I’ll go out on a limb and say it wasn’t the one who needed stitches.

        1. Not necessarily. Sometimes the aggressor gets carried off in a bodybag.

          1. Shut up you fucking retard.

            1. What a clever riposte. At this rate you’ll be out of diapers any year now.

              1. Shut up you fucking retard.

          2. When the cops go on a domestic violence call, they take away the person who isn’t bleeding.

            Hillary needs to recognize that violence is never an appropriate way to express herself within a family relationship, and she needs to apologize to the victims of domestic violence everywhere for setting such an unhealthy example.

            Once Hillary owns the responsibility for being a spousal abuser, completes a course of anger management sessions, and enters into family therapy, then maybe we can start healing as a nation.

            1. When the cops go on a domestic violence call, they take away the person who isn’t bleeding.

              And we know cops are right about everything!

              Next you’ll come around saying that barking dogs deserve to be shot.

      2. Who throws the ashtray first? Was the ashtray thrown against the wall or at someone? Was it thrown in the fish tank or at the fish tank, breaking the glass?

      1. My point is that Hillary Clinton sometimes indulges in a little domestic violence. And that’s something voters should probably know about before they vote in November.

        The voters should know that Hillary Clinton took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, and they should know that she’s a spouse abuser.

        That’s my point.

        Domestic violence is a serious issue, and at the very least, Hillary Clinton needs to acknowledge that she has a problem, and apologize to the nation before the healing can begin.

    2. I thought he was a rapist? Did I miss the memo about the party line changing?

      1. Yeah, definitely can’t be both. That’s inconceivable.

        Fuck off, Bo.

        1. What gets me is that Hillary is blamed for Bill’s evidencelessly alleged rape and other sexual fiascoes because she tolerated him doing it AND for abusing him for said fiascoes.

          1. “What gets me is that Hillary is blamed for Bill’s evidencelessly alleged rape”

            No stupid asshole, no one anywhere blames her for his behavior.

            Even your stupid fucking attempts to defend her are garbage

            “AND for abusing him for said fiascoes.”

            Spouse abuse isn’t ok.

            That you try to defend her for it says a lot about your morals.

      2. “Thought he was a rapist? Did I miss the memo about the party line changing?”

        People physically abuse their spouses for all sorts of reasons. I suspect infidelity is one of the common reasons, but there’s actually no legitimate excuse for domestic violence.

        You’re not having a very good night, Sarah. First, you indulge yourself in some slut-shaming and victim blaming, and now you’re making excuses for domestic violence?

        What field is your PhD in, anyway–being wrong about everything?

        1. Personally I don’t see how domestic violence is worse than any other violence, all else being equal.

          Certainly a big strong man beating up a smaller woman is absolutely wrong regardless of what relationship they have or where it occurs.

          Hitting a grown man with a book if he just did something horrible to you? Wrong, and subject to coercive punishment in a NAP sense for sure, but understandable.

          1. Certainly a big strong man beating up a smaller woman is absolutely wrong regardless of what relationship they have or where it occurs.

            You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie, pal. It’s been my thorough and well-tested experience that people with a size advantage have serious finesse deficit. Give me the smart fighter over the brute force buffoon any day. Anyhow, it’s not as if the diploma’d cubicle drones of today have any idea how to scrap. It’s a Dad-bod man-bun world, and those skills have been transferred over to filing complaints with HR and Twitterfights.

            Frankly, any smaller person worth their salt who consistently loses fistfights today needs to seriously rethink their choices in life.

          2. “Personally I don’t see how domestic violence is worse than any other violence, ”

            That you think anyone cares about your opinion says everything.

        2. “What field is your PhD in, anyway–being wrong about everything?”

          I’d imagine that anyone who actually holds a Ph.D. would know that it’s not abbreviated as “PHD”.

  93. Playa, you following the Deutsche Bank fiasco? Black swan probability high, medium or low?

    1. By fiasco, you mean persecuted by the US government?

      It’s election season. High probability of the wheels falling off the wagon, at some point.

      I’m hedged. The rest of the moolah is in Oceania. No sweat off my balls.

      1. Won’t somebody think of the megabanks?

        1. You think the Obama administration stupidly igniting a worldwide financial crisis by announcing an arbitrary penalty about the same size as the bank’s market cap is defensible–because you don’t like banks?

          Even Obama isn’t that stupid–he walked the fine back.

          Seriously, if that’s what passes for judgement for you, Sarah, no one should trust your judgement on anything.

          My guess is that you’re uninformed . . . as usual.

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/de…..1475267815

          Do you ever think about anything you say before you say it? Do you embarrass yourself at meetings a lot?

          Do you just work for the government?

          1. If fining a bank can ignite a worldwide financial crisis, there’s something wrong with the system, not the fine.

            Too big to fail is too big to exist.

            1. That could be the dumbest take on anything ever.

              Stick to fucking off bitch.

            2. Obama arbitrarily fined the bank for its entire market cap, you buffoon, and he did it–in the name of stabilizing the banking system!

              Obama burned a house down to protect it from a wildfire–he is a stupid, stoopid man. And everyone in the world who knows anything about this situation is agog at his stupidity.

              If it weren’t for all the pointless suffering Obama caused, it might even be funny. Hey everybody, let’s see what this Obama-retard does next!

      2. Is my Oxnard condo in Oceania?

        1. Maybe after the San Andreas ruptures.

    2. Db is sitting on about 50 trillion in derivatives with a 17B cash reserve. Their problems run deep. Unless BO was looking to crash them, the fine was a stupid move. As it is, DB is probably going to get nationalized/bailed out by the Germans.

      1. Merkel can’t bail them out and survive elections in 2017.

        She also can’t bail out Deutsch and then stand firm on not bailing out other EU partners like Italy.

        The amazing thing is that, according to reports, Obama wanted to wait until the other two European banks they’re going after capitulated, too, so that he could make one giant announcement–and really grab some headlines.

        If the size of the fine against Deutsche hadn’t been leaked, the announcement would have had an even greater impact, can you imagine?

        According to sources that were talking to the FT, the fine was all about generating headlines for the Democrats during an election year. To make Hilary and others look like they’re tough on banks, Obama stupidly sent the international markets into a tailspin–on purpose?!

        It’s been amateur hour in the White House for eight years.

        1. Obama stupidly sent the international markets into a tailspin–on purpose?!

          This is like the 5th time people have said this =

          Look at a chart of the MSCI EAFE (60/40, EU/Asia)

          Where’s this “tailspin”?

  94. Why are you morons feeding Bo again?

    1. Holy shit. It all makes sense now.

  95. I want to make comment #666.

    1. You did, successfully, for the record. I came to the page when it was 668 and there were 2 after you per “reasonable” extension.

    1. And she can nail him right back, pointing out that Trump himself hires foreigners over Americans, whether it be at his modeling agency or at his resort.

      Trump basically is the other side of the coin of Clinton. Every bad behavior she has done, he has done. And vice-versa.

      Though at least Clinton believes in free trade (or some semblance of it).

      1. You really don’t see the difference between hiring foreigners and marrying someone with a green card vs. open borders and importing a million Muslims?

  96. Did someone say something about my boy Harambe? He’s not dead, he’s chilling on a beach with Tupac right now, papa bless.

  97. So is everybody else as excited as I am to hear Lady GaGa is playing the half-time show at the Superbowl? I believe this halftime show will set the all-time record of 51 times in a row I haven’t given a rat’s ass about the half-time show.

    1. I’m stoked. Gaga definitely appeals to your average football fan. Great choice.

    1. Would reporting a custodial death be self-incriminating?

      I don’t know the ins and outs of the law in this area, I’m just curious.

      1. The agency has a duty to report, not necessarily the individual who feared for his life because the guy was coming right at him making furtive movements toward his waistband.

  98. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is scheduled to have a meeting on the campus of a technical college in Rock Hill, South Carolina…figuring that they will only be there briefly, people decide to chill the heck out.

    Nah, just kidding about that last part.

    “”With all the unrest going on in this country, it would not be a good look for York Tech or Rock Hill and York County,” said William “Bump” Roddey, a York Tech alumnus who is the only black member of York County Council. “We have come a long way in this area, and this re-inflames what we are trying to get past.”…

    “Roddey….said tuition and fees from students and tax dollars from the people of York County and South Carolina support York Tech.

    “This is not the image we want in York County,” Roddey said….

    “Roddey,…said no one should be surprised if there are protests against the event.”

  99. Bad news – the Pope has just named 3 new American cardinals, one of them the “moderate” (radical liberation-theology Leftist) Archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich. Cupich has condemned libertarianism so all y’all sonsabitches are going to Hell.

    1. The funny thing is the blogpost from just a couple months ago entitled Cupich Manipulates Election, Rams Through “Francis” Over Heads of Parishioners (He Wants the Red Hat) speculating that Cupich is a kiss-ass commie being rewarded with a remarkably quick rise through the ranks.

    2. The Catholic Church has always been a friend of centralized power used in the name of “good”, why would it change now?

  100. I am amazed that this melodramatic outrage over Trump’s raunchy talk will be to the benefit of a candidate who is running on Bill Clinton’s record.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.