A.M. Links: Clinton Leads Trump by 5 Points in New Poll, Samsung Ending Production of Galaxy Note 7, Gary Johnson Blasts U.S. Foreign Policy

|

  • State Department

    New poll: Hillary Clinton 42 percent, Donald Trump 37 percent, Gary Johnson 10 percent, Jill Stein 3 percent.

  • Gary Johnson: "It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify an instance where our military interventions and regime changes in the past 15 years have improved the lives of anyone."
  • Samsung is officially ending production of the Galaxy Note 7 phone.
  • "Russian President Vladimir Putin has canceled a planned visit to France next week, a Kremlin source said Tuesday, in an apparent snub to French President Francois Hollande, who suggested Moscow was guilty of war crimes in Syria."
  • Jeffrey Goldberg has been named the new editor in chief of The Atlantic.
  • The Australian Parliament has rejected a bill aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage.

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

NEXT: Elderly Couple Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Challenging Arizona's Rigged Asset Forfeiture System

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hillary Clinton 42 percent, Donald Trump 37 percent, Gary Johnson 10 percent, Jill Stein 3 percent.

    So very close.

    1. If only Jill Stein wasn’t stealing those Trump voters.

    2. Hello.

        1. Couldn’t find the right socks and tie combo.

    3. Why do they harp on the popular polls when we all know that the election is decided based on electoral votes? And according to what I saw on CNN last night, the electoral race is close – something like an eight votes margin in Clinton’s favor.

      1. 538 has the EC Votes at 333.1 to 204 Clinton over Trump.

      2. They harp on polls showing Clinton winning trying to discourage luke warm Trump voters from voting.

        Even to the point of rigging the polls by including many more Dems than Reps.

        I just read about one of them having 52% Dems amd the rest made up of Independents and Reps.

        1. Basically if NBC or CNN put out a poll, assume it’s a lie and you won’t be led astray.

      3. The electoral race is not close, and Clinton is running away with this.

        She’s also gained like 6 points in the matter of two weeks thanks to Trump stupidity.

        I’m not happy about it, but realism folks.

    4. The most fun part about this poll:

      Voters also think very little of the candidates after the debate. More than half of those polled said Trump is racist and out of touch with average Americans and 60 percent said he is sexist. Sixty-three percent of voters said Clinton is overly secretive, 55 percent said she was corrupt and 52 percent said she was “extremely liberal.”

      Hillary can’t put Trump away despite his horrific past two weeks because most people hate her. It’s really fascinating – the country as a whole is basically begging Trump to give them a reason to not vote for her and he can’t seem to do it either.

      1. I don’t know. She’s pretty close to putting him away. This is the largest lead she’s had.

        It will be interesting to see if he get any bounce whatsoever for the debate.

        1. Yes and no. The lead is widening, but her numbers don’t grow anywhere near as much as his shrink. That’s what I find fascinating. There’s no mystery as to why that is, but it’s still interesting to watch.

          1. So where are they going? Just people not admitting to voting for Trump or switching to third party?

            1. You’re right. I just looked at some of the RCP polls. While she’s grown a little, most of her gain has just been from Trump’s losing people.

    5. Sure, for anyone that believes polls.

  2. It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify an instance where our military interventions and regime changes in the past 15 years have improved the lives of anyone.

    Defense contractors don’t count?

    1. I was gonna say the same thing

    2. “3 Pinnochios for ignoring defense contractors and their families.”

      /Politifact

  3. Samsung is officially ending production of the Galaxy Note 7 phone.

    Too many people warmed to the product.

      1. Thank you.

    1. Build your customers a fire and they will be warm for the night.

      Set your customers on fire and they will be warm for the rest of their lives.

    2. I wanted to wait for the Note 7, ended up settling for their S7. Glad I did.

    3. Does that mean they’re cancelling their marketing contract with Bruce Springsteen?

  4. Russian President Vladimir Putin has canceled a planned visit to France next week, a Kremlin source said Tuesday, in an apparent snub to French President Francois Hollande, who suggested Moscow was guilty of war crimes in Syria.

    And the French so love getting chances to be hospitable.

    1. I never cancel dinner parties when the host accuses me of war crimes.

      1. You would never get a free meal.

        1. And the conversation is lively.

  5. Jeffrey Goldberg has been named the new editor in chief of The Atlantic.

    He career went downhill after Jurassic Park 2: The Revenge of Dino.

    1. I thought Magazine Editors Are Easy was the peak of his career.

    2. Goldberg, who joined The Atlantic in 2007 from The New Yorker, succeeds James Bennet, who left the company this spring to become editorial-page editor at The New York Times. Goldberg is The Atlantic’s 14th top editor since the publication was founded in 1857. His appointment is immediate, and he will report to Cohn.

      Wow. I mean, I don’t read the NYT editorial page often, but I didn’t notice a huge surge in great editorials in the last 3-4 months.

      1. What a tiny little circle jerk the news and opinion business is.

    3. Why should we care how progressives organize themselves?

      1. We need to understand how a virus originates and spreads.

        1. Find patient zero!

          1. I believe the current and most prevalent strain originates IVO Salem, MA, circa 1692.

  6. The Australian Parliament has rejected a bill aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage.

    I have nothing for this one, I’m just going for a sweep.

    1. That’s ok, the Aussies rejected it because they were too busy going for the Sheep

      1. Swiss, can we get a badly forced rhyme narrowed gaze over here, sometime?

  7. So….what happened to anyone but Fist for that first minute?

    1. I was here before any comments appeared but you know… Phone

      -this message sent from my windows phone

      1. A phone? My phone is avocado green, has a rotary and a cord, like God intended.

        1. I have that same model phone.

          It doesn’t work because the local network got digitized to touch tone only dialing.

          1. It was a black Western Electric 500-D model that used to grace the walls of my home. I wish I still had it! It was beautiful and we made it ring (a sort of nasal-y tingtintintintintt) so I could try to relive my childhood.

            1. Was that one of those big Bakelite models that was indestructible? You could beat a home invader to death with it and still call the cops when you were done.

            2. I have no doubt whatsoever that you can find one for sale on the intertubes.

        2. Quit calling that your phone.

        3. Does it hang on the wall like mine ?

          1. Probably not. But it does have a crank. (the owner)

          2. Puts a whole new meaning to twisted pair

            1. You need surgery to correct that.

              1. Why would he want to correct it? His whole identity revolves around it.

        4. You laugh, but it occurred to me a couple of weeks ago, that I should probably explain to my almost three year old that those things on the wall in stores were also phones, just like the lumps of metal and glass daddy and mommy stare at when we are trying to ignore him.

    2. I didn’t even bother to show up before 9:03.

    3. It’s Eugene’s comment section, we just visit it.

      1. We are all just NPCs in his virtual reality.

  8. The Australian Parliament has rejected a bill aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage.

    Fucking teabagger Rethuglicans!

    1. It’s somewhat of a misleading headline from Reuters (yeah, I know, I’m looking for my surprised face).

      The vote was actually to conduct a national plebiscite to determine how widespread public support was for gay marriage. If a majority supported it, then the government might have been induced to actually bring a bill to parliament legalizing gay marriage. On the other hand, even if the plebiscite went in favor of gay marriage, there was no obligation for the government to even bring it up for a vote. It was going to cost several million dollars to run and the Labour Party basically said, screw that.

  9. The Australian Parliament has rejected a bill aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage.

    Peoples who actually have a queen shouldn’t be allowed to be anti-gay.

    1. The Queen is dead, Elton John is just holding his tiara.

    2. +30 Odd Foot of Grunts

  10. For some reason ESPN, which should probably be renamed OSN for the Obama Sports Network, is having Mofo on again tonight, I guess to give him the opportunity to inflict his virtulent racism, hatred, diviseness, and hostility on us all and give America his giant middle finger one last time. Apparently, we aren’t getting hammed with enough Obama worship from MSNBC and the other 90% of the political news media.

    Do die in a fire, Obama Sports Network.

    1. ESPN is worth watching for two things: Live sports and SVP’s midnight ET SportsCenter. Everything else is trash.

      I’m guessing, though, that the Obama shit is forced on them by Disney/ABC.

      1. Dan LeBatard and Stu Gotz are hilarious though. Those ‘look like’ bits are outstanding. Sure he thinks Degrasse-Tyson is smart and sometimes has these clowns on but it’s minimal. Irreverent sports show.

        But I agree. ESPN is for the live sports and certainly not for the reading. Some of those writers are plain terrible and without a single thought of substance.

        1. I always forget that they’re national now. Used to them being a local thing here.

      2. I do appreciate that I can watch pretty much every college game being played every weekend, unlike the limited choice of NFL games available

      3. Live sports

        I have never watched anything else on that channel. Even then the events I like tend to get delayed by shit like junior high school girl’s baseball, and then when my stuff is over the braindead jokers that do their studio segments have me leaping across the room for the remote.

        1. I used to watch Sportscenter, back when it actually had highlights and commentary of games that occurred that day. That was a long time ago.

        2. A number of their 30 For 30 films are quite good.

          But my viewing of ESPN (all the channels) has plummeted dramatically. Probably helps that I have zero interest in the NFL or in MLB for the most part.

          1. Ditto. I only wind up there for the occasional soccer match – when pee-wee badminton doesn’t run over, that is.

          2. A number of their 30 For 30 films are quite good.

            The one on the Duke lacrosse team is one of the best sports docs ever. It’s hilarious watching a bunch of people who let their confirmation bias and SJW instincts overcome whatever sense they possessed exhibit actual physical pain when explaining how they were wrong about everything.

            1. Extra-ironic now that ESPN has become SJW-central.

              Once Brothers, The Two Escobars, Hillsborough…there are several docs that are really, really good.

              Hillsborough will have you wanting to kill everyone associated with Sheffield Police and the Football Association at that time. It was wrenching.

        3. leaping across the room for the remote.

          I think you’re doin’ it wrong.

  11. As goes The Atlantic, so goes America. Get the fuck out of here.

    Jeffrey Goldberg spent countless hours on his knees “interviewing” President Obama, trying his best to help the president explain his ridiculous foreign-policy and national security decisions.

  12. I have a feeling come election day that paralyzing fear of “the other” will diminish the 3rd party vote. I would like to see Johnson get at least 7 or 8?.

    1. 5%+ comes with a $10 million participation trophy for next time.
      That’s not a bad ante considering that GJ has raised something like $8 million so far this time.
      It’s not govt welfare when the money goes to a good cause

      1. Like Ayn Rand with Social Security, the LP should work to abolish it and take every penny until they do.

        1. Loot while the looting’s good, i always say.

    2. Is a conclusion drawn from history really just a feeling? Third party candidates have always ended up with fewer actual cast votes than they poll before the election.

    3. The only states I can see him getting more than 5% are Utah and New Mexico. I’d love to see him actually win one or two, but ultimately I think it’s a pipe dream.

      1. He’ll get 10%+ in Utah, Mexico, Alaska, Wyoming, and maybe Colorado.

        He’ll top 5% in dozens of other states. Only a few will be below 5%.

        My prediction is ten million votes total.

  13. Understanding Trump

    This is how progs interpret Trump.
    “And I have assets? big accounting firm, one of the most highly respected? $9 billion $240 million. ?In fact, one of the big banks came to me and said, “Donald, you don’t have enough borrowings. Could we loan you $4 billion?” I said, “I don’t need it. I don’t want it. And I’ve been there. I don’t want it.”” – Lie
    “I’m going to build a wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it” ? Lie
    “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. ? They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” ? Lie
    “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful ? I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything?Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” ? tots true

    As I have been saying, Welch and the rest of the Reason staff- and the media in general – don’t understand Trump. At all. Apparently they haven’t dealt with people like this. But who hasn’t met the guy whose car is faster, golf game is better, and dick is bigger than yours ? at least that’s what he keeps saying. Many CEO’s display this behavior.

    1. cont’d

      Trump is a crude, macho braggart. His fame and fortune make him more prominent than others.

      The boorishness is what types like Welch obsess over as they try to maintain their cosmotarian status with their PC friends. The machismo is what draws in many of his true believers who want to give the power structure the finger.

      Trump is the inevitable product of the Clinton-Bush-Obama government dysfunction and media fragmentation. People are looking for a strongman to ‘put things right.’

      Hillary is the continuation of the dysfunction. Safe, scheming, keeping the sausage-making hidden.
      Fortunately the Founders put considerable limits on the damage a President can do. Hillary will cunningly traverse this Constitutional minefield ? as Obama has done. But Trump will be stymied. Even his Heffalump ‘friends’ will be anxious to prove their virtue by reining him in. The press will be after him like dogs taunting a circus bear.

      Vote Trump ? the safe choice for 2016.

      1. Just to be clear what is the definition of Cosmotarian?

        It seems to be a lazy straw-man around here, judging from the use the definitions could be:
        Libertarian who’s socially liberal culturally as well as politically
        Libertarian from the coast
        Libertarian I disagree with
        SJW Democrat Prog who for some reason is posing as a libertarian because that’s so popular and cool
        Libertarian who’s afraid of his/her SJW friends and thus has betrayed the cause.

        1. “Libertarian I disagree with” seems to be the most frequent common usage, though one can’t discount that it’s merely a nickname for the staffers.

          1. Nah, it’s a specific type: social liberals with an inside-the-beltway POV. That this tends to describe a significant chunk of the staffers at a political opinion mag is pure coincidence.

            It tends to get used as a catchall insult around here for whenever a more conservative libertarian questions the motives of a liberal’s conclusions.

          2. It means “Libertarian I disagree with” insofar as “yokel” means the same exact thing. It’s more of a left right dichotomy within libertarianism itself, at least on these boards, the yokels being the right and the cosmotarians being the left in that analogy.

            1. If you’re at an HnR board and you don’t know who the yokel is, it’s you.
              BTW, I’d take a “Yokel” like Tom Woods over a Suderman any day.

              1. I’d take a “Yokel” like Tom Woods over a Suderman any day.

                Yes indeed. I have no time for squishiness or surrendering territory to the left just on the off chance that they might like me and think I’m one of the cool kids. cough cough Robby cough cough

            2. That was the vibe I was getting from things, I didn’t know if there had at some point been a more concrete definition.

            3. Good logic Free Society.

        2. Libertarian who’s afraid of his/her SJW friends and thus has betrayed the cause.

          I would say this is closest to it. The easiest litmus test is Robby’s articles. If you find yourself rolling your eyes at least once when reading a Robby article, you’re a Yokel. If you find yourself white knighting for Robby after reading his article, you’re a Cosmo.

          I think it comes down to one’s reaction to SJWs. Some people seem to think they have good intentions but bad solutions. Other people think SJWs have awful intentions and even worse solutions. That dichotomy is bound to cause tension when we discuss Kulturkampf issues.

          1. Question: What if you dislike his use of weasel phrases, but also find the rending of garments, wailing and gnashing of teeth here to be so hyperbolic and over the top that you can’t help but feel contempt?

            1. Then maybe you’re neutral? I would refer you to the definition in the second paragraph. Do you find SJWs to be well-intentioned but misguided, or are they an embodiment of everything that is wrong with society?

              1. Some of A some of B. Decent amount of them are Kids who want to do what they can to make the world a better place but have no concept of history/political reality. Some are shamelessly trying to game the system, some are essentially operating as religious leaders for a fucked up secular cult, and some are just tyrants using the cause of Social Justice as a cover.

    2. As I have been saying, Welch and the rest of the Reason staff- and the media in general – don’t understand Trump. At all. Apparently they haven’t dealt with people like this. But who hasn’t met the guy whose car is faster, golf game is better, and dick is bigger than yours ? at least that’s what he keeps saying. Many CEO’s display this behavior.

      Yep. All highly successful heterosexual alpha males talk this way, though they’re usually more circumspect about it. Even less successful upper middle class guys sometimes joke like this with their close friends.

      The only men who never, ever talk this way are gays and neutered betas who usually end up having to settle for a woman with a face like a bulldog’s.

      1. Not ‘all’, but very many.

        1. It is certainly a known archetype, and anyone who’s known one for any period of time knows that when they’re on one of these hyperbolic rambles, they’re not talking about what actually happened. Some are even aware that they do it and know people don’t take it seriously.

        2. I would say some.

          There’s also a flavor of alpha male that is so secure that they don’t talk trash.

          Actually, trash talking usually a symptom of being a beta male, properly defined. Beta males aren’t submissive little nancies (contra the popular usage of the term). Beta males are the second rank males scrapping for the alpha spot. The submissive little nancies are actually gamma males.

      2. Actually generally speaking successful people don’t have to shout “look at me I’m successful” their success is to some degree self evident. People who constantly draw your attention to it are typically insecure. Now successful people have things that tend to show their success, fast cars etc. You might count that as showing off, but Trump literally shouts about how rich he is.

        1. But self-promotion is rather appropriate when the brand you’re promoting is yourself and your own name.

          1. If you think he’s someone without a lot of deeply held insecurities and mental fragility that’s your interpretation. Mine is different

            It could all be an elaborate work, in which case I applaud the man’s method acting.

            1. I didn’t say anything about him personally, at all. I’m not making those judgements because I don’t pretend to know his inner mind. What I am saying, is that when the name on the building is your own, when the star of the TV show is you et cetera, it makes rational sense to promote yourself. You are the brand in that scenario.

    3. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best

      A white lie. They’re actually sending us Haitians.

  14. I visited my parents over the weekend. My mom, who is a lifelong democrat and also a “Lady in Black” anti-war protester, is thoroughly disgusted with this election. She’s decidedly not pro-Hillary. I’m not sure if she will sit out this election or not. She was able to defend ol’ Obama though.

    The old man, who is a life long conservative, is not a fan of Trump -especially after the “pussy” tape. I have no idea what he is doing with his vote – if anything.

    I imagine there are going to be a lot of people sitting out this election.

    1. I think we need a minimum threshold amendment.

      An office for whom a certain voter threshold is not met remains vacant for the term in question.

      1. This.

        We also need “None of the above”.

        1. “None of the above” is the better option, rather than a threshold. Apathy shouldn’t prevent an office from being filled, but antipathy definitely should.

    2. I really, really hope so. Either outcome is supremely embarrassing for the nation; the least the electorate could do is have a record low turnout.

    3. She’s decidedly not pro-Hillary. I’m not sure if she will sit out this election or not.

      Based on this description, I would give better than even odds she will vote for Hillary.

  15. Well, if this is what the Mourning Lynx is turning out like today, I suppose I should go back to work!

    1. Man, I’m half drunk and am trying to keep up with you well rested bastards. Go, then, I tell ya.

      1. Well rested? What’s that?

        1. You’re not sharing my futon.

          1. That there is a helluva euphemism!

        2. It’s a condition that happens to buckets that fall off of their ropes.

          1. Sounds like a B.C. comic.

  16. btw- I’m getting work / home / bookwriting / politics overload right now. Somethings got to give (my liver is the most likely).

    I’ll be out for a while but will return in a fury of guzzoline powered hell – to commiserate over what shitbag wins the election.

    Until then I’ll be working on a new novel, working on the house upgrades, and trying not to drink myself to oblivion.

    Stay strong, brothers and sisters (or whatever you identify as).

    1. Come visit for the Election Day shitshow!

      1. Stay for the salty ham tears!

    2. You’ll be missed! Reason should send you a contributor’s commission for the work you do here!

    3. A wise decision, H.

      My engagement with news, politics, and this board has been cut back, although not as consciously as you are doing.

  17. Gary Johnson: “It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify an instance where our military interventions and regime changes in the past 15 years have improved the lives of anyone.”

    Well, there’s the politicians and their cronies and financial backers. Their lives have been improved enormously, you heartless beast.

    1. Fist pointed out that Lockheed Martin shareholders certainly benefit. It’s probably helped my 401k.

    2. Clinton has done pretty well for herself on the strength of these ‘interventions’.

  18. Bill Clinton’s longtime personal aide Doug Band savaged Chelsea Clinton as a “spoiled brat” who created unnecessary problems because she hadn’t found her “focus in life,” according to bombshell emails released Monday.

    Shocking that a princess who gets paid millions of dollars from corrupt rent-seeking outfits like MSNBC to do almost nothing would be spoiled. Who could image!

    1. Who could image, indeed. No nickname for Chelsea?

      1. Belchie Barfton

        1. Felchie Queefton

      2. There has to be a chipmunk joke in there somewhere.

      3. White Privilege Barbie?

        1. White Privilege Barbie would be prettier.

          1. BEAUTYIST!

      4. “Diane Reynolds”.

      5. Childsis Hubbel

      6. Chelsea Hubbell. She looks more like Webb all the time.

        http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-…..1780376180

        I don’t usually buy into these “conspiracy theories”, but look at that picture of her sitting next to Bill at the last debate and tell me again they are related.

        http://fortune.com/2016/10/09/…..l-clinton/

    2. Ivanka immediately unfriended her on FB.

    3. /stomps feet.

      Chelsea: ‘Make me eat my vegetables’.

      /sticks tongue out.

      Aide: I can’t make you do anything. You’re 30. Besides, that’s what your father does.

  19. The Australian Parliament has rejected a bill aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage.

    Did you know that kangaroos have three penises?

    1. Don’t they have forked penises? Like Slick Willy.

    2. What do you do with a kangaroo with three balls?

      You walk him and pitch to the koala.

      1. These masturbation euphemisms are getting pretty abstract.

  20. Joy Behar just called Bill Clinton’s sexual assault victims ‘TRAMPS’ on ‘The View’

    Behar thought Hillary Clinton, whom co-host Whoopi Goldberg said was the real victim in the rape and sexual assault cases, should have said “I would like to apologize to those tramps who have slept with my husband.”

    1. This is going to misfire, methinks. And I’ve been waiting for this, oh my word yes Haven’t I just. The sight of illiberal progressive sweethearts hoisting their lame-duck lifelong public parasite over her many scandals on the backs of victimized women. Fuck those women! Yeah! Judgment, petty sniping, name-calling, slut-shaming. For you, Hillary!

      There’s an entire generation who genuinely believes that victimized women are sacrosanct. And these aging feminists think they’ll just.. what.. forget that ideal entirely because of who is involved?

      Possible. Possible. Entirely possible, although I think it just as likely that she’ll lose points off the polls if they keep this up.

      1. Yes, they will. We saw this clearly in the 90’s. Team think is the only true ideology.

        When Feminist leaders and Democrats were teaming up to crucify Republican congressmen for unforgivable transgressions such as having their secretary type up descriptions of their single-life exploits for their memoirs, we were told that even speaking of things of a sexual nature in the workplace was a cardinal sin, rendering one unfit for public office. Even when such descriptions were part of a legitimate work function.

        Fast forward 2 years and having an intern give you hummers under your desk – while married – without even having the common courtesy to reciprocate is not only unobjectionable, it is a heinous invasion of privacy for anyone to even mention it. The exact same people – not people of similar political leanings – the exact same people were adamant in their defense and devout in their support of the POTUS.

        So no, feminists will not be shedding their cognitive dissonance to abandon Hill-dog in droves.

        Over at Jezebel – where proven fake-rape is still a serious offense and should be treated with all due seriousness – there was a lot of excited talk about how the commentariate was super-turned-on by Bill, even at his advanced age. They were pretty well unanimous in their desire to jump in bed with this married accused rapist. Not a dissenting voice to be found. Even though the same people grab their pitchforks for Robby because he dared question a made-up rape.

        1. So no, feminists will not be shedding their cognitive dissonance to abandon Hill-dog in droves

          I suspect this lens is zoomed too far out. This appears to be predicting what all feminists between the ages of 18-85 will do based on the actions of the feminists in 1998.

          Someone born in 1998 can be a feminist voter today. They are less apt to find Slick Willie’s sexual escapades a personal, meaningful fight with the immediacy of those who argued it, and Millennials are not in the can for the Hil-Dog. You know who likes Hillary? Older educated professional women for whom 1998 would mean something.

          I do agree that team ideology uber alles is a very predictable trait in people. We seem to merely disagree on who women under 30 are likely to identify as their team; safe space cis-shitlord privilege-checking victim hierarchy, or the Democrats of 1998.

    2. ALWAYS BELIEVE THE VICTIM…………unless they’re accusing a prominent lefty.

    3. I have no idea how Jebediah digests those buffoons but Behar is one of those smug, rude, stupid, ignorant progressive.

      She’ll be suspended, right?

      Right?

      Right. It’s not ‘rape-rape’.

    4. A quick search on the topic and I don’t see any coverage of this from the MSM (yet), odd?

  21. I’m starting to get extremely worried that the horribleness known as Trump is going to result in a complete Dem sweep, including the House.

    1. Especially since Trumpkins are loudly saying they will not vote downballot, so as to ‘punish’ the GOP for being so mean. There’s a real possibility we’ll get the worst outcome available.

      1. Which is why most Republican members of Congress have taken the middle road of criticizing Trump while continuing to support him, which means they’ll be unlikely to be hurt by a backlash from their base. If Trump continues his downward spiral he’ll probably have negative coattails for the Senate, but I can’t see the House slipping because of him. People hate Hillary too, and if the popular Obama couldn’t bring the House along for the ride in 2012 I can’t imagine Hillary doing it.

      2. Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court William Jefferson Clinton.

  22. We continue to tumble down the death spiral:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2…..customers/

    1. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!

    2. The pitchforks and ropes should be out. Government puts its hands on the largest segment of the economy and turns it to complete shit.

      1. Nah, brah. Trump said something objectionable, therefore Clinton gets a total pass on supporting this heinous unworkable catastrophe.

  23. Via Tweets of Old, headlines from old newspapers… now this is what you call racist Halloween costumes:

    R.L. Ripples
    ?@TweetsofOld

    It’s none too early to make ready with Hallowe’en suits. Characters include: Swede, Negro, Turk, Jew, Cannibal. phone 40. PA1923

      1. Because other savages were cannibals as well?

        1. No, no, no … the correct response is “what were the other savages, chopped liver?”

      2. No Redskin?

        Fail.

  24. The Australian Parliament has rejected a bill aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage.

    I thought Europe was so much more enlightened than America?

    1. Not sure if serious about calling the Antipodes part of Europe…

      1. Thatsthejoke.jpg

        1. Why do you guys fall for that EVERYTIME? Oh wait, maybe you didn’t and I’m the one who’s missing the double joke. Or am I?

        2. I suspected it might be, but I wasn’t too sure.

          1. You know, Australia, the home of Kangaroos, Boomerangs, and Hitler.

              1. that was is Argentina

                FTFY

    2. +1 Dumb and Dumber

  25. Here’s the audio of Hillary talking about the 12 year old that was raped. Evidently Snopes has “debunked” that she is laughing about getting the rapist a reduced sentence. Maybe she isn’t. “Well this guy’s ready to come from N.Y. to prevent this miscarriage of justice. (laughter)”. Sounds like she’s laughing at “miscarriage of justice” like she knew he was guilty. Anyone following this?

    1. When I first heard it it felt like she was laughing at the reliability of the polygraph because she knew her client was guilty. She did her job.

      At the expense of a 12 year-old girl.

      A tramp in the eyes of despicable humans like Behar.

      For shame.

      1. I thought she was laughing at the polygraph results as well. Regardless, she was laughing at getting a guilty guy off. I will leave it to you lawyers to argue if that is ethical or not to do it by impugning a 12 year old girl. I am not a lawyer. Politifact claimed it false as well since she was not laughing directly at the girl.

        I understand Politifact also has debunked the scrubbing of the illegal server because Trump said, “Acid Wash”, and no actual chemicals were used in the destruction of data so therefore, it is false.

        Fact checkers have resorted too Micheal Mann levels of fact checking.

        Next they will debunk the claim that Hillary was not available to take the 3 AM call during the Benghazi fiasco because it was in fact 2 PM in DC when the call was made.

        1. You in Colorado? Lived there for years, but now I’m an Eastern Sloper.

        2. I will leave it to you lawyers to argue if that is ethical or not to do it by impugning a 12 year old girl. I am not a lawyer.

          I am not a criminal lawyer, but I have serious questions about the ethics (legal and otherwise) of submitting an affidavit containing unattributed hearsay that the girl was a slut who throws herself at men.

          You will note that accusing rape victims of being sluts who throw themselves at men is no longer allowed. It was allowed then, I’m pretty sure, but the fact that she eagerly engaged in a tactic was later effectively banned does cast light on her character.

          1. I have serious questions about the ethics (legal and otherwise) of submitting an affidavit containing unattributed hearsay that the girl was a slut who throws herself at men.

            I would say that it’s just as ethical as using testimony from plea-accepting “co-consiprators” that wasn’t heard at trial to determine an amount of drugs for calculating sentencing at federal drug trials.

      2. She was laughing about it ten years later (and after the guy pled guilty in a plea deal).

        There’s so much else to go after about her character. She’s not ‘cackling’ at ruining some girl’s life. She laughs a few times in reminiscing about an old, fucked up case which was assigned to her. That’s what people do.

  26. Why are comments so slow on the lynx today.

    These are the most low-energy lynx I’ve ever seen without getting error messages from squirrels, almost the Jeb of lynx…

    1. Oh damn, low energy commenters getting called out by Hit’n’Run’s curmudgeonliest curmudgeon? Shit, y’all.

      1. It’s good to see you too, X

      2. Reason’s Debbie Downer isn’t pleased? Shocking.

        1. Why are you standing on his lawn?

          1. UCS bought a house with no lawn specifically so there would be nothing for no-good Kids These Days to be on. It saves him a lot of time.

            1. I have one of those. My property consists of bedrock, cactus, rattlesnakes, and gila monsters. And I like it that way.

  27. Users enraged, confused over YouTube censorship

    YouTube users are up in arms over the platform’s recent censorship of content, the most notorious example being the removal of videos showing Hillary Clinton stumbling during a 9/11 event.

    1. You tube is going off the rails. The You tube heroes program is some creepy hierarchy of outrage victims. That being said, how you didn’t also link to this story for that site is beyond me.

      1. I went through a lot of reactions to “YouTube Heroes”, including commentary by people I don’t ordinarily pay any attention to. The bulk of the comments that were at best neutral were about the alleged intent of the program. The problem with that half-hearted defense is that they overlooked what had everyone else worked up – the potential abuses of the program by highly-motivated people. And no one is more highly motivated than someone with an ideological agenda to push on the world.

        1. Yep. The “I just want to be left alone” crowd isn’t going to be spending hours online, scouring for badthink just to get the privilege of being a mass flagger. It’s creepy.

  28. Bless Instapundit for posting a daily “FBI agents are really pissed and should resign over the Clinton investigation” article, but I think Dr. Reynolds is FAR more hopeful than me that anyone is going to do anything other than grumble. Nobody’s quitting over this. Are you going to leave the FBI and go join some state police bureau where you can make less money and be the biggest fish in a smaller pond because you did your job, filed your report, and the boss said, “we’re going a different direction”? No. They’ll bitch about it at the bar and go back to work the next day.

    1. Agreed. It’s all bitchy bluster.

    2. Yeah, he is too optimistic in thinking that agents are going to put the good of the country ahead of their careers. I don’t think people like that actually exist in government anymore.

      1. Of course not, they all resigned in protest already.

        1. You haven’t resigned in protest…

    3. That is probably true, but in the end it will mean disfunction. I wouldn’t want to be a president with an FBI filled with agents dying to put a knife in my back, probably sabotaging half of what I need them to get done.

      1. It would be great if one or two of these disaffected FBI agents would release some of the backstory. Maybe notes from the Comey-Clinton or Comey-Obama or Comey-Lynch discussions. Maybe some emails (Putin, are you listening?)

  29. Jesus, are all the government employees still digging out of their Columbus Day backlog of emails?

    1. The e-mails I got over the weekend were all automated

      I didn’t have to answer more than three. (Everyone who’d mail me was also out.)

      1. Ha. We had an “IT emergency” at a public sector client on starting on Wednesday night and continuing through Friday night/Saturday morning. On Friday morning this was causing a “safety issue” and was “critical.” Friday night, things were better but still bad. Disable the job that’s creating the proximate emergency (that never worked before Wednesday for a year, but is also somehow, critical to safety). I work all Saturday afternoon to fix some code that was failing on overload that probably shouldn’t. Tell everyone, “okay, I worked all day on this, but we should really test it and not shoot this code up to production.”

        Answer back on Monday: “We’re all off until Tuesday. We can test then.”

        My takeaway is that critical safety issues are less important than holidays off.

        1. You know what you have there? You have some layer of the business that is flightl and panicky about compute issues, probably management or lawyers, and you have the end users who know the system hadn’t worked for the past year. The management/legal group has a lot of pull to cry “fire!” and make the headless chicken scramble start, but the end users know they won’t get paid holiday time if they test, and that it’s not really as big a deal as the panicking group mistakes it for.

          It’s a really common occurance.

          1. Worse. Half the managers are doctors. Anything that inconveniences them is a critical issue of patient safety. (In fairness to them, because the nurses and pharmacy techs are such incredible pains in the ass*. I could not manage nurses.)

            *Not all nurses, but the ones that are…

            1. I was extrapolating using the agencies I’ve worked with. Fortunately, I’ve never had to deal with medical facilities in that manner.

            2. Jesus truly weeps for any IT person that supports doctors.

  30. The fucking Europeans are talking their way into a shooting war with Russia and we have the most feckless idiot ever to hold the Secretary of State job.

    Meanwhile, in the Hunger Games media, we’re worried about random assholes wearing clown makeup.

    1. They are talking us into a shooting war. The Europeans have no military to fight that war. We will do the fighting and of course the dying.

      1. Yes. Right. If they wanted to bomb each other flat , I might cheer them on. Its the part where our idiot diplomats who think that because they were the smartest people in 11th grade, know everything they need to know to “control” this situation that scares me. What’s the Hunt for Red October line? “Someone is going to screw up and people are going to get killed.”

        1. IT is a lot more tempting to start a way when you are not the one who is going to have to fight it.

          1. Why would they think the fighting won’t hit them? In a shooting war, the US is still far superior in materiel and capability over the Russians, and the fighting will generally be in Europe, so once the Russians start taking serious losses, what are the chances they escalate to nuclear? Or maybe Obumbles just lets the Russians roll, in which case the Euros are still taking the damage.

  31. Hillary Clinton 42 percent, Donald Trump 37 percent, Gary Johnson 10 percent, Jill Stein 3 percent

    They just hit Trump with what likely is their best shot and they still can’t get Hillary over 42%. The question is do they have worse that they are saving for the weekend before the election or is this the best they had. It could be either. Remember, Hillary knows everything that Wikileaks has. She knew all of this stuff about her working with the media and leaking shit about the Bernie Campaign and all the rest was going to come out this week. And the media of course didn’t come out with that tape until Hillary told them to do it. I am inclined to think they released the tape when they did because the knew the Wikileaks was coming and was going to be bad and wanted to get the best thing they had out there to combat it. Assange says on Tuesday he is going to start leaking again and the following Friday they drop the tape. That is not a coincidence.

    The effects of the tape are going to wear off over time. The Rasmussen poll that had Hillary up by 7, had Trump in the lead with independents. Hillary’s number barely budged. Trump’s dropped because it had him winning only 71% of Republicans. As time goes on, that number will go back up as Republicans get over the tape

    1. There are only four weeks left and Trump has a big margin to make up. I don’t think he can do it, but it would be more fun if he did. I do like an exciting election.

      1. The margin is smaller than it appears. All of these polls are weighted something like Dem +10. The actual electorate is more likely Dem +6 at best.

        The other thing is that Trump has been down big in the past and the same thing always happens. Trump gets down and then gradually the newness of whatever he said or did wear off and people remember just how awful Hilalry is causing Trump to pull back even or in front.

        And four weeks is forever in this media environment. What was the story dejour four weeks ago? I can’t remember honestly. I doubt many people will remember or care about the video four weeks from now. What they will be caring about is anyone’s guess but I bet it won’t be the video.

        1. We’ve been down this road before. I seem to remember similar confident predictions in the last election.

          Then the Obama admin and their data guys did a magnificent job of busing voters to the polls with an impressively designed tactical system that allowed them to react within minutes at the precinct level to bad trends in voting. Not to mention the outright and blatant ballot stuffing in Philadelphia that made it inevitable that PA would go for Obama.

          That same aparatus is still in place. In fact, thanks to 4 years of various email harvesting schemes (the chief of which, I am convinced, was Obamacare’s federal and state exchanges), they have even more data to guide their actions.

          Trump has no such sophisticated ground game. It’s all slapdash.

          Unless he were leading in even the heavily biased polls, I wouldn’t expect him to win.

          “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

          Still hoping I win my bet with my wife, but it’s looking increasingly unlikely.

          1. Let’s talk about the last election. It was not unreasonable to think Romney would win. The fact that he didn’t did not make the predictions that he would unreasonable.

            You know what is unreasonable? The predictions that Trump had no chance to win the nomination or that if he did would lose all 50 states and create such a landslide for Hillary that the Republicans would lose Congress. I recall you and a lot of other people making just such a prediction.

            You are right, we have been down this road before. And every time you think Trump is doomed and Hillary sure to win in a landlside, things change.

            I think you have a lot more to answer for you for claiming Trump couldn’t win a state and was going to lose in a landslide than I will ever have to answer for saying Romney would beat Obama.

            I also recall being told for months on end how the Republicans were never going to take the Senate in 14 and how they would never take the House in 2010. I said literally the day after the election in 2008 that the Republicans would win huge in the midterms and was of course dismissed on this board.

            1. The predictions that Trump had no chance to win the nomination or that if he did would lose all 50 states and create such a landslide for Hillary that the Republicans would lose Congress

              I only predicted that Trump had no chance to win the nomination. The others are other people.

              And yes, I do have egg on my face. For some reason it’s less egg than when I predicted that Al Gore would win the Democratic nomination for the 2008 race, which was an even worse miss. I think it was on a forgettable thread so nobody throws it in my face.

              With that having been said, I should point out that I agreed with your prediction in 2012 vis a vis Romney. And in the comment you were replying to, explained why that prediction failed.

              Rather than taking it as a personal attack, I would be interested in why you think things are going to play out differently this time. I think Obama’s campaign apparatus has one heck of an OODA advantage over Trumps. It handed him the election last time ? easily. Why won’t it do the same for his even more crooked successor?

              1. I think that it will play out differently if it does because Hillary is not Obama. What happened in 2012 was people liked Obama and were willing to turn out and vote for him. In 2014 and 10, Obama wasn’t on the ballot and people didn’t turn out. And they didn’t turn out in spite of all of the big data and turnout advantages that the Democrats had. They didn’t want to lose the Senate and put everything they had into keeping it. It just didn’t work in 2014. The reason for that I think is that no amount of big data and GOTV is going to get people to the polls who don’t otherwise want to go. GOTV efforts are successful when the candidate is successful. Not vice versa.

                Ultimately, I don’t think people are going to turn out for Hillary. No one likes her. There is nothing about voting for Hillary that makes anyone feel good or positive. It is strictly a negative thing. That will certainly motivate some but it won’t motivate people the way voting for Obama did. So, the electorate is going to look like it did in 2014 not 2012 and that makes it hard for Hillary to win. She might still win but it is going to be tough.

            2. But he’s running out of runway to land this turkey. Four weeks out and the Clinton campaign is holding God knows what close to the vest, but likely even saltier and seedier clips. At some point he has to put the bird down.

          2. For Trump to win, his lead would have to be outside the margin of fraud, and I just don’t see that happening.

            1. Again WTF,

              If the fraud was that good, they would never have lost the Congress.

              1. Electoral votes are based on state wide totals. The congressional votes for the house are based on district wide totals.

                Hence all the bitching I had to endure from progs a couple of years back that if you summed the number of votes cast for the victors in congressional races binning them by politicial party, the number of votes cast for Republicans was much fewer than the number of votes cast for Democrats. Supposedly that proved that Democrats were getting less representation than they deserved.

                On the other hand, John’s point about the Senate is quite valid. The Senate races *are* state wide (just like the presidential race), and the Democrats have been facing a bloodbath over Obamacare.

                However, I expect that rage is subsiding and we’re going to get a regression to the mean.

                One thing to look at:
                1) Do voters who are willing to consider voting for Trump and other Republicans see them as a monolithic block or are they making independent decisions. My guess is that they are making independent decisions on each person.

                2) If they refuse to vote for a scumbag like Trump, does that mean they also refuse to voter for Senator Jones as well? My guess is no.

                1. I think the people who don’t like either, mostly stay home. So it will be a context between those who like Trump and those who like Hillary. You wouldn’t know it by reading the media, but a sizable majority of this country loves Trump and can’t wait to vote for him. Virtually no one loves Hillary and will vote for her only out of party loyalty or hatred for Trump.

                  Ultimately, I think people bother to vote more often for positive reasons than they do to stop the other guy. And love him or hate him, there are a lot of people who like Trump and want to vote for him not just against Hillary. Hillary has more negative supporters but those supporters are a lot harder to motivate to get to the polls.

                  1. Trump is going to get his ass kicked. Clinton is going to get 300+ EVs no problem. The GOP have an almost impenetrable hold on the House though, thanks to gerrymandering. There’s almost no way they will ever lose it at this point. The Senate is going to be extremely close.

          3. Then the Obama admin and their data guys did a magnificent job of busing voters to the polls with an impressively designed tactical system that allowed them to react within minutes at the precinct level to bad trends in voting. Not to mention the outright and blatant ballot stuffing in Philadelphia that made it inevitable that PA would go for Obama.

            They had the same system in place in the 14 midterms and still lost their asses. Sorry but if that system worked, it would work in every election not just in ones where there is a candidate at the top of the ticket people want to show up and vote for. You are getting the causality backwards.

        2. This election is like watching two basketball teams with players fouling out every other minute. What happens if neither team has any players left and there is still time left on the clock. I guess the bigger question would be, how would the last player foul out.

          1. “My opponent is a liar and you shouldn’t listen to a word he says.”

    2. That she’s unable to beat Bill’s 43% from 1992 would be lulz worthy.

      1. 32.34% would be perfect – then she’d only have gotten 77 votes for every 100 Bubba got… (Proportionally speaking)

    3. And the media of course didn’t come out with that tape until Hillary told them to do it.

      I don’t think that was Hillary. There’s pretty strong evidence that it was actually leaked by Dan Senor and his wife Campbell Brown (she basically confirmed it on her Twitter account)–Senor is a Ryan advisor and was the lead on Romney’s campaign, too.

      1. So it was a #NeverTrump hit. Nice.

    4. The question is do they have worse that they are saving for the weekend before the election or is this the best they had.

      They’ve got more. The moderator badgering Trump on his denial that he has ever actually grabbed a pussy was a crystal-clear set-up.

  32. Hey guys,

    I have an extra large porn cache and I’m looking for the acid wash recipe that Hillary Clinton used to scrub all of the Benghazi emails so I can pour it down the floppy disk hole before my wife finds out I’m looking at Japanese up skirt videos. Does anyone know where I can find it? That Trump is smart. Thanks,

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bcNm1gfpU

    1. I like your posts better when you’re giving us economic wisdom from your pizza delivery driver friend.

    2. AmSoc derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, AmSoc is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

    3. “What, like with a cloth?”

      1. I think that’s the way Hillary did it– presumably at 2am in her Clinton Foundation secret bunker.

        1. American idiot is totally cool with a presidential candidate who destroyed evidence while it was under subpoena.

          1. The cunt doesn’t even know that’s what the crooked old hag he loves actually said in a press conference.

    4. God, that’s so tame. Are you embarrassed she’ll find out you’re so vanilla?

    5. It’s called Bleachbit, you lying little retard.

    6. american socialist|10.11.16 @ 9:43AM|#
      “Hey guys,
      I have an extra large porn cache and I’m looking for the acid wash recipe that Hillary Clinton used to scrub all of the Benghazi emails so I can pour it down the floppy disk hole before my wife finds out I’m looking at Japanese up skirt videos.”

      Some jackass was here last night claiming chlorine was an acid and you could use that.
      Can you believe a stupid shit like that posting where the world can see he’s a bran-damaged POS?
      Oh, and fuck off.

      1. Eh, that’s a $4.99. Believing HRC dissolved her hard drive in a vat of acid as surely her perennially outraged detractors believe? That’s priceless.

        1. Yours is the first I’m hearing about it.

          And I figure it means acid washing it, you know, for that retro hipster effect. Really brings out her colorful history as a lifelong fraud.

          1. (To say nothing about her close aides smashing Blackberries with hammers, but I don’t suppose that counts as physical destruction of data-capturing hardware.)

    7. Let’s not forget that amsoc was outed as yet another Tulpa sock last night.

      Hi Tulpa!

      1. You’re shitting me!

        1. Terran, I just saw black minivans full of undocumenteds going down I-5 getting ready to vote. Forget it… This election is in the bag For Clinton. We win, you lose.

        2. Derpy and Playa arrived at that conclusion.

          https://reason.com/reasontv/201…..nt_6462057

          To sevo’s objection, I’d say Tulpa likes to play dress up.

      2. No, YOU’RE Tulpa.

        Shut up, Tulpa.

        1. it’s Tulpas all the way down.

  33. I had a civil conversation on facederp with some high school classmates (they think Hillary has it in the bag and can afford to be magnanimous).

    According to them, there has been no Obama-worship or manufactured hate towards minority groups. These guys read slate religiously.

    1. I am amazed at how people can rewrite history to suit their goals. Your friends should terrify you. If they can deny reality to the extent that they can now pretend that no one ever worshiped Obama, they can convince themselves that murdering you is necessary for the common good. At this point, there is nothing such people cannot be and will not be manipulated into supporting.

      1. Bit 0 to genocide there bro.

      2. Your friends should terrify you.

        They’re not my friends, pal! 🙂

        Actually, they do.

    2. I’m avoiding facederp until after the election for the most part. I do plan to post uplifting stories and cool ‘photos everyday just to help people out. Like this one:

      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sco…..s-37307195

      If Trump wins, I may avoid FB for the next four years.

      1. I got off Facebook about six months ago because the political bullshit was making me lose respect for people who i actually like in real life. I don’t think i miss it enough to go back.

        1. I did the same about Feb of 2008.

          I havent been back. I use to pop in every 3 months to see things, but havent even looked this year.

          1. I’ve been seriously debating quitting Facebook for a few years. The problem is that there are certain extended family who only communicate with me through FB, so I’d inevitably lose contact with them if I left FB. Instead, I just deleted the mobile app, installed Facebook Purity, and set it up to filter out all the crap I hate about FB. It gets about 90% of the political crap filtered out, so it’s a much better experience.

        2. That’s exactly why I’m avoiding it: people I genuinely like and respect writing idiotic things and/or TEAM talking points.

  34. Did I miss the conversation about Trump’s assertion that Aleppo has already fallen? I thought that Trump’s foreign policy answer was the most interesting part of the debate.

    1. Aleppo is become that thing that shall not be named on reason.

      1. that is unfortunate. it took Trump 45 seconds to walk back decades of White Man’s Burden foreign policy.

  35. “World Economic Forum Launches San Francisco Tech Policy Center”
    […]
    “The World Economic Forum, the Swiss-based group that sponsors that annual Davos gathering of world leaders, is opening a San Francisco office to explore policy and regulatory questions surrounding new technologies such as artificial intelligence, automated vehicles and blockchain.
    […]
    Many “policies and regulations were written before the Internet was invented. Policy-makers don’t know what to do,” he said.”
    http://www.voanews.com/a/reu-w…..45206.html

    Never stopped ‘policy makers’ before…

      1. What am I seeing here? Open-air urinal?

        1. Yes. In a park.

  36. An outfit called Free and Equal is hosting a Presidential debate. Trump, Hillary, and several third-party and independent candidates have been invited.

    The event will be crawling with SJWs – Ramsey Clark and Ed Asner will be speaking – and it will be held in Colorado.

    In short, it sounds like ideal Gary Johnson territory.

    Alas, Johnson isn’t one of the three candidates who has accepted so far.

    Fortunately, Darrell Castle has accepted their invitation, so he’ll be there to make the case for economic freedom and reining in the federal government.

    1. It seems that Gary is focusing his efforts on the states that he sees as most winnable (Utah, Alaska), Colorado does not seem to meet that criteria. It would be a good opportunity to get some additional visibility, though.

      1. I think the debate will be on the Internet.

      2. Last I checked, gary was at 15% here in CO.

        1. Again, this thing will be on the Internet.

          You don’t have to be in CO to have Internet access.

  37. I had a Democrat canvasser come to my house this weekend. Undoubtedly, they think because I’m registered “no party”, my vote is up for grabs. I told her I was voting for “neither”, she said “Oh, so you’re undecided?”. I said “absolutely not – I’m very decided.”

    When I told her I was voting for GJ, she said “I know a lot of people who feel that way” (emphasis mine).

    I said “I don’t base my vote on feelings.”

    Then she left.

    1. “Oh, in that case, let me give you some non-feelings-based arguments for Hillary Clinton…[rummages through notes]…hmmm, I must have left those back at headquarters.”

      1. “No, wait, I have some here…”

        “Bear in mind that I already agree that Donald Trump sucks.”

        “Um, you’re not giving me much to work with…”

        1. “Ah, wait, my foreign-policy argument. This pamphlet explains why we need to fight the Russians in Syria.”

          “That’s a photo of a child.”

          “Yes, and that child will be sad if we stay out of Syria as your Gary Johnson suggests.”

          [based on an example from the debates]

      2. I was thisclose to telling her I would vote for Her Royal Clintonness if she could name one principle that guides and informs Clinton’s political life. Just ONE.

        (my guess would be that she doesn’t know what a principle actually is, so she’d say something like “Abortion!”. Then I would have to tell her “abortion” is not a principle. Then she would have said “teh childrunz!!!”, then I would have had to tell her that children are not a principle, and I hate kids anyways, so I don’t give a shit. Then she would have lost and I would go about my merry GJ-loving way.)

        1. She would probably say something like “social justice” or “women’s rights” or “fairness.”

          1. Only one of those approaches being an actual principle.

            1. How about “family.”

              Capitalize the “F,” and that’s her actual principle.

        2. This argument you had with your mirror sure is interesting. You pwned that bitch hard and good.

        3. (someone I have blocked made a comment…dare I open it?)

          1. Don’t bother.

          2. Only if you care to discover someone whose IQ is about 3 standard deviations below the mean.

            1. You know, you can just scroll down and ignore comments that you don’t want to answer. Are you guys so far up Trump’s ass that you can’t bear the sight of any criticism?

    2. “I don’t base my vote on feelings.”

      Get a load of Ms. Spock over here.

      1. Goddamn right!

  38. Oooohh, happy, happy, happy, happy…

    More unhinged megalomania at 3am? YAA-HOO… CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES

    Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump
    It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to.

  39. My butt hurts for some reason.

    1. Bully

    2. MINE TOO. THROAT SORE TOO FOR SOME REASON

  40. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.