Northwestern Quadruples Down on Safe Spaces, More Trump Accusers: P.M. Links

|

  • Trump
    Todd Krainin / Reason

    How many safe spaces will be enough for Northwestern University students?

  • Hey, look at that, another woman says Trump did to her the bad thing he claimed he does to women.
  • He also did creepy things to Miss USA pageant contestants.
  • It's a long shot, but Evan McMullin could become president.
  • Listen to me on Federalist Radio discussing Title IX, Donald Trump, and "sexy Harambe."
  • And if you're in New York City on Tuesday, October 18, you can see me discuss political correctness with CNN's Sally Kohn and Mic's Jamila King.

NEXT: "You Libertarians Sure Are a Contentious People." "You've Just Made an Enemy for Life!"

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. How many safe spaces will be enough for Northwestern University students?

    And what if they overlap?

    1. You can never be too safe.

    2. Double secret safe spaces?

    3. Hello.

      Sally Kohn?

      Yeah-k.

      You have to pay me.

      1. It’s Sally KKKohn.

    4. Do you have to have that tag hanging from your rearview mirror to use those spaces?

    5. WTF? I showed up at 4:32 and Robby has the links posted? DAMNIT!

      1. That’ll learn ya . . .

    6. Is there some kind of safe space singularity where they all overlap, and existence itself is not tolerated due to othering the ethereal and differently existentialized?

      1. I’ve said this before, but the ultimate safe space is a coffin.

        1. One! One Safe Space! AH-ah-ah-ah! Two!!! Two safe spaces!

    7. So, they’re building cemeteries?

    8. Money quote:
      Faculty and staff facilitated six focus groups at the Black House and multicultural center; only 63 of 510 invited students participated. Only 154 students of 658 who identified as black or part black completed the survey, and 215 answered at least one question.
      Given that students were bribed with chances at gift cards to complete the survey, the fact that three out of four blew it off should tell anyone listening just how important this issue is to the average Black student.

  2. It’s a long shot, but Evan McMullin could become president.

    So you’re saying…there’s a chance?

    1. If momentarily forgetting what Aleppo is, is a disqualifer for being President, I’m pretty sure filing at the last minute in only a handful of states also qualifies and being a disqualifier.

      1. This cycle, the disqualified is probably the most qualified.

    2. If the election gets thrown to the House, I can barely imagine the shit show that will follow. There’s not enough popcorn in the world for the high entertainment in store for us.

      1. In the unlikely circumstance it goes to the House and the Republicans are still pissed with Trump (and why shouldn’t they be?), then the entertainment value will depend entirely on which party wins the Senate. If the Republicans maintain control in the Senate (as polls indicate is likely) and don’t want Trump, then the Senate will confirm Pence as VP and the House will adjourn without picking a president, making Pence the President. The only way this gets interesting is if the Senate goes Democrat or there is a large pro-Trump faction that insists on affirming his election.

        1. I think you’re vastly underestimating the entertainment value of Herself winning a plurality of electoral votes and then not being crowned President. The salty tears will render most of the coasts sterile and barren for years. I would expect full on rioting and garment rending editorials.

          1. Um, pretty sure the coasts bump up against large bodies of saltwater currently.

    3. Egg McMuffin, Ed McMahon, Evan McMullin

      Are these the same guy?

  3. “How many safe spaces will be enough for Northwestern University students?”

    42

    1. I like this one a lot.

    2. AKA 6×9

      1. Now you make base-13 jokes?

        1. I prefer Deep 13 jokes

          1. Coleman Francis for president!

  4. Hey, look at that, another woman says Trump did to her the bad thing he claimed he does to women.

    Maybe Comey can cover for him.

    1. It’s a new meme.

      ‘Can you Comey me’?

      1. Comey Comey Comey Comey Comey Chameleon.

        1. You come and go?

      2. Does The Donald only grab Democrat women by the pussy or is he an equal opportunity pussy grabber ?

        I would love to see the political history of all these last minute accusers to see if all of them are Democrats and Hillary supporters.

        Are they with her ?

        1. not sure what youre trying to get at here. youre looking for women who have been sexually assaulted by trump who also plan to vote for trump? conversely are you insinuating that it is suspicious that women who claim to have been molested by trump do not vote for trump or vote for the candidate with the greatest likelihood of keeping their alleged groper out of office? because that doesnt strike me as all that weird. not all claims of sexual misconduct are real but who the background of many of these women combined w/ trumps recorded admission that he uses his position to grab the genitals of strangers & the bullshit/obv false defenses trump has used makes these accusations highly credible

          1. You’re a day late. Go to a current thread and do a “RE:…” post.

            Nobody appreciated having you corpse fucking a thread. If you have something to say, do it currently and you will happily get a well reasoned reply (I get the feeling that’s not at all what you’re looking for).

            Coward.

    2. Extreme petting.

  5. He also did creepy things to Miss USA pageant contestants.

    Beauty pageants draw creeps?

    1. A few nights before the preliminary show, they kicked everyone out and they wanted us to do just a runway show for Donald Trump,” said a contestant, who asked not to be identified by name because she continues to volunteer at pageants. “We had to literally parade in front of him.”

      Really? That is it?

      1. Creepy that the sponsor would want to see the product before he offered it to the public.

        1. Also, speaking of creepy, when we were about 16, my buddy dated a girl who did all the “Miss Teen” pageants, and I don’t think any of these girls would have been surprised by that.

          1. I dated one of those when I was 16. They, and their mothers, are batshit insane.

        2. Or that beauty pageant contestants who spend their lives participating in a contest that requires them to parade in front of judges could never be asked to that in front of anyone else.

          The whole thing is so stupid.

      2. Isn’t that what a pageant is?

      3. “We had to literally parade in front of him.”

        Like they had to do normally. Just, without cameras this time.

      4. “Really? That is it?”

        No that is not it. Trump is on record as bursting into the dressing rooms of the Miss Universe pagaents to perform “inspections” that allowed him to ogle naked women and IIRC about a half dozen female employees have claimed Trump sexually harrassed them, including non model staff such as a member of the camera crew. Plus there are the complaints made by male employees that Trump would graphically interrogate them about their sexual preferences among female contestants. Im sure there is more but theres only so much I can fit into one comment. But Im sure its all just part of that vast leftwing conspiracy. Couldnt imagine a classact like Trump harrassing women.

        1. there is nothing quite like partisanship to get people to abandon anything even resembling rational, ethical thinking. When you find yourself literally defending a mans decades long track record of sexual assault maybe its time to take it down a notch. I wonder how many folks in this thread called Clinton a rapist & are now pulling out the 90s DNC playbook because, fuck it, Go Team!

          1. Corpse fucking this thread again, I see.

            1. Clearly one of Hillary’s paid trolls looking to get in the “last” word on old threads to add credibility to his argument.

    2. Worse than the mental abuse Simon Cowell laid on us?!

  6. http://www.americanthinker.com…..rick_.html

    Michael Isikoff, who was a leading reporter during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said in a Thursday discussion that NBC should release a 17-year-old tape of an interview that it conducted with Broaddrick. Broaddrick has long claimed that the interview that NBC aired edited out her claim that Hillary Clinton was involved in quashing Broaddrick’s rape claims.

    “NBC has the full tape of the original Lisa Myers interview,” Isikoff said during an online discussion on Sidewire.com. “NBC ought to check its archive and run the full interview. (AS long as they’re now culling their archives!)”

    Apparently some old videotapes are really super duper important and others are just old news.

  7. It’s a long shot, but Evan McMullin could become president.

    Someone’s been watching Designated Survivor

    1. lol, that wit man. So quick!

      1. THIS SEEMS LIKE I’M BEING HIT WITH SARCASM RIGHT NOW

        1. Nah man, I’m a fist fan! None of these other jamokes deserve to reign.

          1. ^obvious Fistsock

    2. lol, that wit man. So quick!

      1. Lookout FoE, another sarc from the skwirrlz!

        1. He’s aces but you’re on the list!

    3. That show is so unsure of what it wants to be. Like, if the President is supposed to be this nerdy wallflower who’s in way over his head, why is he played by an actor that in recent pop-culture memory is most associated with ultra-macho terrorist killing? If Virginia Madsen’s character is supposed to be his foil as “the opposition”, why do they seem to just agree on everything? And why the hell does everyone seem to be taking the fact that 9/11 times a thousand just happened so well in stride?

      1. The President may be in over his head but his goodthink will enable him to overcome these problems. This is going to turn into the West Wing very quickly. That said, I’ve been enjoying the show and so far the show has had good pacing of story.

  8. “Hey, look at that, another woman says Trump did to her the bad thing he claimed he does to women.”

    Show us on the electoral map where he touched you

    1. Right in the crosshairs pubic hairs!

  9. Today I bought 800 lbs of apples to make cider with. I’m going to need a lot of alcohol to get through the next Clinton Presidency. I still need to get about 1200 lbs more to fill up all the fermenters and carboys.

    1. Stock up on toilet paper. Quality Apple Cider ought to have you shitting your pants.

      1. I have no idea what that means.

        1. It’s very simple. Some things, like fruit, make you more inclined to shit. Doubly so if you allow some fermentation to take place.

          1. Perry is known for making you shit because of excess sorbitol but cider (fermented apple juice) is not known to have a laxative effect. Cider is just apple wine (often with carbonation). I make mine completely dry (no residual sugar).

            1. This is so much more information than I was looking for . . .

            2. Maybe apples aren’t apples where you live. Here where I live, there are about a dozen orchards in the area and our town is absolutely awash in natural cider and fermented cider in the fall. Around here it’s pretty much unanimous that cider means poopy time. My own anecdotal experience agrees.

            3. Yes, but can you chlorinate your pool with it?

          2. It’s very simple. Some things, like fruit, make you more inclined to shit. Doubly so if you allow some fermentation to take place.

            I’ve been drinking French mousseux and cidre with the in-laws in Normandy for the last 20 years, and I’m happy to report that it has produced no such ill effects on me.

            Well, other than the fact that I’ve frequently become shit-faced.

      2. If it’s yellow, you’ve got juice there fellow.

        If it’s brown, you’re in cider town!

          1. “Urine cider”
            Golden shower rape!

    2. Don’t you live in central VA? We should be friends.

      1. Yeah — you live around Charlottesville right?

        1. Been watching you baby
          for a long time
          you look so good
          got my eyes on you
          I’ve been watching you
          for so very long
          trying to get my nerve built up to be so strong
          I really want to meet you
          but I’m kind of scared

        2. Staunton now

          1. I’ve been meaning to try and organize a meetup but the last few months have been hectic. Sometime in the not too distant future…

            1. Any central Virginia meetup should be in Richmond, because fuck you that’s why

            2. Next Sunday, AD?

              I’ll let myself out.

              1. OK, now I’m frightened, because just a little ways upthread:

                Chipwooder|10.14.16 @ 5:02PM|#

                I prefer Deep 13 jokes

              2. Wiggily poo do the wiggily poo!

            3. Whatever you do, don’t get to calling yourselves a league of some sort.

          2. Ah I work over on that side of the mountains. I’m in for a Reason meetup.

            Going to Williamsburg this weekend to meet up with some old friends (I’ve never actually been before).

    3. How much cider does a literal ton of apples make?

  10. One black student was offended when a fellow dorm resident asked why she was wearing a shower cap in the shower: “It made me feel like ? weird having to explain.”

    Totally weird, like when I got caught yankin’ it in the shower. I now know they were aggressing my culture.

    1. Are shower caps cultural appropriation? Didn’t they steal those from white women?

    2. “I can wash my cock as fast as I want.”

      1. I found this much, much funnier than I really should have.

        1. As did I…

    3. Never ask a black woman about her hair.

      1. Why not? She can then right the 13,135,3789,999,676th article about it on the Internet.

        1. Do you like to right articles? Cause I prefer to wrong articles. Sometimes if I’m in a hurry I’ll left an article.

          1. Black women are never incorrect, so SF’s usage is appropriate.

      2. Yep they touchy about that

    4. There is a shower cap in every hotel bathroom I visit.

    5. If you don’t want to explain something you are not obligated to explain, there are a number of ways to go about it. Being a pissy, passive agressive cunt about it is probably the least effective.

      More effective:
      “Hey, why are you wearing a shower cap in the shower?”

      “Um, get the fuck out of here. I don’t even know you. Why are you talking to me when I’m in the goddam shower?”

      Or even:
      “Bitch, step back RIGHT NOW or I will cut your ass.”

      But:
      “That makes me FEEL weird. Somebody protect my FEELINGS!” is bullshit. Fuck your feelings. Nobody cares about your feelings but you. I don’t, and you can’t make me.

  11. Listen to me on Federalist Radio discussing Title IX, Donald Trump, and “sexy Harambe.”

    Speaking of overlap…

    1. The term “ewwwww” simply isn’t sufficient for this…

  12. Robby gives the commentariat the Fuck You they’ve been begging for. Good on ya, Soave.

    1. it just makes it more fun to kick him around. Its Friday, Monday Robby will be back on here writing “well sure this looks bad but campus SJWs mean well and the real problem is how people are overreacting to this” articles and we will be kicking him in the nuts once more.

      1. I agree. I think its given in sport on both sides, but I’m glad he brings it back.

        1. I take as good as I give.

    2. no, he would have posted at 4:39 if that were the case…long enough for that downfall video and for fist to bloody his refresh finger.

    3. He cucked*, that wasn’t all-Donald he promised.

      *it applies, right? You can cuck yourself?

      1. So the legends say. It requires lampblack* and ketamine though.

        * – depending on your skin tone

      2. Are you suggesting that Soave may be disreputable and cowardly? Not our Fruit Sushi.

      3. “You can cuck yourself?”

        Wow. I read that wrong the first time . . .whew!

  13. Hey, look at that, another woman says Trump did to her the bad thing he claimed he does to women.

    You’re a dishonest cunt, Robby. There’s that trivial matter of consent, that he specifically mentioned, that doesn’t really matter I guess, a pussy grab is a pussy grab. Someone apparently grabbed yours too hard.

    1. Um, saying they’ll let you is not the same thing as saying he had consent, not actively fighting back against a poweful person assaulting you is not the same as consenting.

      1. Right, I forgot “power differentials”. I never received any proper training in SJW talking points theory. It’s harder to be hyperbolic without that knowledge.

        1. Yeah I’m not into the whole sjw affirmative consent thing either but “letting you” and “are totally cool with” are not in any way shape or form the same.

          Now he may very well have had consent every single time he touched a woman in such a way, he may never have even done what he described but he most certainly did not state that he had consent before he acted

          1. “He thought they wanted it.” He may have been wrong about that.

          2. Yeah I’m not into the whole sjw affirmative consent thing either but “letting you” and “are totally cool with” are not in any way shape or form the same.

            To the extent that it matters ethically, yes it is. Besides, he made a rather factual statement, when you’re a star, women let you fuck them more often. That’s absolutely true. And in the case he described, he actually said that the woman turned him down, he failed. Can you believe it? A woman actually had agency enough to decide not to have sex with him despite the intersectionality of “power differentials” and boorishness.

            Regardless it doesn’t even begin to approach sexual assault.

            1. You’re throwing some interpretation there. I would disagree with Robby that Trump said necessarily constitutes sexual asssault, but it definitely might constitute it. Rasilio is correct imo. ‘Let’ does not necessarily imply consent. It is somewhat ambiguous. I’d say it’s a borderline case, whether what he was describing is consensual or not.

              1. No, interpretation is saying that when a girl “let’s you” fuck them, you’re actually raping them because they don’t know how to say “no”. It doesn’t get anymore interpretive than that.

      2. Um, saying they’ll let you is not the same thing as saying he had consent,

        Of course, in the sexual arena, “letting” somebody often is, in fact, the only evidence of consent (or not) that you’ll get.

        That’s the thing with this affirmative consent nonsense. Sex isn’t a series of discreet documentable transactions. It is an incremental process. I note a couple of things about the accusations against Trump

        One has some specific veracity problems, in that the “victim” claimed Trump raised the armrest on an airplane seat at a time when many/most such armrests couldn’t be raised.

        Another basically said that Trump got handsy with her (so far, so good), she was OK with it as long as it was above the waist, but when he went downtown, she objected and Trump, that monster, stopped.

          1. High school, college, nightclubs, etc. The initial sexual encounter is really what I had in mind. It used to be, and I bet it still is, you try something, if she “lets you”, you try the next thing, etc.

            The idea that women have no obligation whatsoever to make their wishes known, which underpins affirmative consent, is a pernicious one. I can think of more than one initial sexual encounter where practically nothing was said, and consent was implied from the lack of objection (as well as a degree of participation, of course).

            Was Trump a boor? Sure. Did he sexually assault anyone? I highly doubt it. Bragging about women letting you get all handsy with them is a long way from sexual assault.

            What I’d like to see (maybe its out there, I’m not following super-carefully) is an account of Trump being told unequivocally “no” (or being physically resisted) and continuing anyway.

            1. The dude said that celebrities get pussy, pussy rains from the heavens, pussies launches at them from all sides. He said that because of star power women let you. That fact shouldn’t be controversial.

              1. Eddie Murphy explains this whole Trump The Pussy Grabber situation succinctly.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDQ1lxB0goY

            2. I’d say this does scussion exposes the fact that there is no clear line, it’s a continuous spectrum, and context and assessment by a reasonable person are necessary.

              In theory, trying to kiss a girl you’re on a date with and being rebuffed, and trying to kiss a complete stranger you walk by on the street are similar events. The latter may be interpreted as a crime, the former should not. Why though? The context. Not something codified the in the law.

              In some contexts (and not far fetched ones) what Donald talked about doing would probably be interpreted as nonconsensual in a criminal way, and in others it wouldn’t. Copping a feel while making out in the bedroom and groping a married woman in public who has shown no romantic interest in you should probably be interpreted differently.

              1. Just so, Mark.

                And think about the contexts Trump was in. Swanky parties packed with party girls.

                A couple of the stories actually show no assault at all. In one, he took some woman he was interested in shopping, made some moves, got nowhere and . . . moved on. In another, she was fine above the waist, but objected when he went below the waist and . . . he stopped.

        1. I’m not saying Trump ever sexually assaulted any one or that I necessarily believe any of the new accusations against him, it is entirely possible that if he has ever done what he described himself as doing every time he did it he either had consent first or had a reasonable belief that he had the womans consent. I am merely pointing out that saying “they let you” is not the same thing as saying “they consent to it”

          1. I am merely pointing out that saying “they let you” is not the same thing as saying “they consent to it”

            It depends on context, of course. But, generally speaking, I actually do think that “they let you” (assuming they aren’t unconscious) is about the only proxy for consent people get in a non-trivial number of cases..

          2. That is true. I just think all of these things should some kind of statute of limitations on them. Whatever the truth, if a woman never tells anyone or takes any action for years, I don’t think she is very believable when she finally does, especially a month before an election.

            1. Yeah credibility does decline with the elapse of time. People who really care about sexual assault should drop all the SJW bullshit and tell women to report immediately, that would solve most of the issues. As it stands, sine it’s been a long time, memories are clouded, conflicts of interest and perverse incentives have arisen, video evidence probably gone. The longer you wait, the more justifiable skepticism you invite.

              1. There is also some proggie star quality to coming out with such an accusation now.

                “Hey everybody Trump wanted meee toooo” !

                ” Look at me. I’m too old to get the wolf whistles and catcalls now, but back in my day I was a hottie. Even someone rich and famous like Donald Trump wanted to grab my pussy”.

          3. I don’t recall him saying that he tied her up and threw her in the back of a van before she let him. Maybe she wants to bang to further her career, maybe she just wanted to get fucked by a celebrity, maybe she didn’t want to fuck at all and said “no” because women are creatures with agency that can make their own choices. I don’t assume that a girl that “let’s you” fuck them are lacking in free will, but then I’m not trying to score cheap points by denying that women are capable of making their own decisions.

        2. Sex isn’t a series of discreet documentable transactions.

          Not till Libertopia!

      3. He did completely steer into ‘dishonest cunt’ territory with the whole ‘his statements are admission of the crimes he’s accused of’ nonsense a couple days ago. Speaking of which, did they ever change that completely irresponsible and unprofessional statement?

        *checks article* Nope. They did not. Because defamation is fine, as long as Trump, I guess.

        1. I missed that. That is pathetic. That says a whole lot about Robby’s character and none of it good.

    2. Trump said “Grab them by the pussy,” and the new accuser is saying Trump “grabbed her by the pussy.”

      Robby said nothing incorrect, but he should still apologize for hurting your feelings.

      1. Robby said it was a “bad thing”.

        Sometimes, grabbing a woman by the pussy is a bad thing, sometimes its a good thing.

        If you’re a Manhattan party girl/groupy, for example, at a swanky party to meet rich and powerful men, its probably a good thing. Once again, meaning comes from context.

    3. I admit I’ve done worse. I put my penis into a girl’s vagina, and I didn’t receive verbal consent… hundreds of times. They just let me do it.

      Which camp should I report to?

  14. Hey, look at that, another woman says Trump did to her the bad thing he claimed he does to women.

    Let’s just call it ‘trumping’.

    1. Eleven Trumpkins Trumping?

      1. “Yeah she tried to avoid it, but I trumped her anyway.”

        1. I bid one no trump.

          1. The Trump hump!

    2. I have been.

      Ok I haven’t. I’ve been saying “gave her the Trump”

  15. …you can see me discuss political correctness with CNN’s Sally Kohn and Mic‘s Jamila King.

    She was great in Back to School.

    1. The answer is……..four?!?

  16. Hey, look at that, another woman says Trump did to her the bad thing he claimed he does to women.

    When I’m taking my last shaky, staggering steps through the rubble and the fire and the corpses after the nuclear attack, I’ll die contented, knowing that it could have been so much worse. “Praise Hillary!” I’ll shout gleefully with my dying breath.

  17. Today is 950th anniversary of Battle of Hastings, and The Spectator has a cute article on it: Normans were the original Remainers.

    Coincidentally, remain is one of the thousands of words that have come to us from French, with between a quarter and half of all English words originating with our neighbours (although most came after the end of Norman rule, in the 13th and 14th centuries). Leave is good old Anglo-Saxon, just like the battle cry used on October 14, 1066 ? ‘Uit!’ (out!).

    1. Norm!

      1. McDonald?

        1. Sorry. Peterson, we were looking for Norm Peterson, character on Cheers.

    2. Harold’s brother tried to get him to remain behind in London and let him fight the Normans while Harold raised another army and Harold refused. Had he done that, the Normans would have never been able to beat another English Army, which Harold could have easily raised. Instead, Harold really seemed to believe in a sort of trial by combat where God would decide at Hastings who should rule England.

      1. Wasn’t there something about Harold fearing he can’t keep fyrd in the field much longer? Although William was probably in the bad position too, what with winter coming, and him having to press the claim or have the army disband, possibly after killing him for dragging them out there with promises of payment rather than, you know, actual payment.

        1. That’s how I learned it. The fyrd had already met its service obligation for the year, everyone was getting itchy to get home and prep for winter, but since the fyrd was only half the available military force by definition, John’s point seems valid, too.

        2. Much of the fyrd had left, by the time Hastings happened, but he was well within his legal rights to raise them again and was nowhere near exhausted in terms of manpower.

      2. You’re not talking about Tostig are you? Because he fought againstHarald.

        Harald’s army was in bad shape from a Norwegian invasion that happened weeks prior to the Norman, and immediately after beating off an attack from Tostig and chasing him into Scotland – they were limping back from the NE bleeding and exhausted when William landed at Hastings.

        1. No Leofwine Tostig was killed at Stamford Bridge. And yes the army was in bad shape. But it wasn’t the whole army. They had not received all of the troops they were due by feudal obligation. There were many more troops to be had in England had Harold sent Leofwine and his other brother ahead and had time to raise them.

          1. I did not know that. It seems I always felt sorrier for Harold than I should have.

            1. There is a great book called “The year of the Conquest”. It is short, very readable, and tells the whole story. I highly recommend it.

              http://www.amazon.com/1066-Year-Conqu…..0140058508

              1. How dare you discuss these interesting historical facts.

                The Donald grabbed a pussy and 1066 is what you are talking about ?

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuj5oI_fGkA

                1. One more pussy makes 1067

        2. Harold. Harald being the Norwegian king who attacked.

        3. He had two other brothers that fought with him, Tostig was being pissy that he was exiled some years earlier during Edward the Confessor’s reign and not promptly rescinded by his brother.

      3. Harold is a very sad historical figure. There was no reason he had to lose the war or even Hastings, most of the fyrd were still fresh and ready to be raised again, he could have easily raised more men and merely waited for the Norman supply lines to run dangerously thin while avoiding direct battle. He had the advantages of time, geography, popularity and a loyal following. The one advantage he lacked, was the backing of the Pope. The fact that William of Normandy had the Pope’s blessing to dethrone Harold, utterly drained him of his will to fight. He thought God had forsaken him and there was no hope and he acted thus in his decision-making. Silly Papists.

        1. Not the first nor last king who’d be better served by an autocephalous Patriarch. Fucking Great Schism, man…

          1. You’re just jealous that you can’t Crusade. Deus Vult, motherfucker.

            1. Who needs Crusades when we have Imperial Reconquest CB?

              It does remind me, I should try and search for ‘Dondolo’ every 10 years or so, to make sure the line is completely exterminated…

              1. Imperial Reconquest is garbage compared to holy war or crusade/great holy war, you don’t get the titles of Christian rulers automatically, so now your kingdom is filled with *shiver* Karlings.

              2. Have you reunited Christendom in your game yet? I remember that was one of the achievements available along the path of recreating the Roman Empire, but I forget if it allows you to start crusading as an Orthodox.

                1. I did, which opened some holy war options on West Francia, after they refused to convert to Orthodoxy. Which, after I took Duchy of Apulia (2 counties) gave me +50% threat because reasons.

                  However, you still can’t Crusade. It’s just not part of the Orthodox tradition – I think it was Emperor Heraclius who asked that some of his soldiers be celebrated as martyrs for dying fighting the Arabs and churchmen refused, because they died spilling blood.

                2. It doesn’t, all it does is make Catholicism a heresy and the rest of Europe tends to convert to Orthodox pretty quickly. Orthodox is one of the few religions that doesn’t have a great holy war CB in any context. I know the head Patriarch can give you an Invasion CB, but since he’s way more easy to influence/control than the Pope he doesn’t have crusade options. Makes divorce really easy though.

                  This is why you just go with Reformed Norse, because then you’re the BattlePope and get to call your own great holy wars on whatever you want.

                  1. Reformed Norse, I kind of like the sound of that……

                    1. Oh, their options for norse are great. You can raid instead of conquering, which raises your prestige, so more people will turn up next time you raise an army. Being at peace too long reduces their opinion. You can sacrifice people to Odin (extra prestige if they are priests/mullahs) and you can reform Paganism to make it more like Abrahamic religions (formal priesthood and temples, missionaries and such) and in case of Norse, you become the head of religion yourself.

                    2. You get raiding, can spent prestige for massive early game armies, easy piety from blots, events that grant you traits that improve martial and general opinion, possibility of feudalization, republicanization and primogeniture inheritance, still get to have three concubines, can call your own great holy wars every 30 years, and did I mention you’re the goddamned BattlePope?

                      Reformed Norse: Best religion in the game.

                    3. This is why you just go with Reformed Norse, because then you’re the BattlePope and get to call your own great holy wars on whatever you want.

                      That sounds fun, I’ll have to try it sometime. I remember trying the Vikings once, but after consolidating Scandinavia I got steamrolled by the Holy Roman Empire. I may have made a few mistakes that game…

          2. Strangely enough, the Pope’s big problem with Harold was the English branch of the Catholic Church being fiercely independent and giving sermons in English (Anglo-Saxon) as well as translating Bibles et cetera. A situation that centuries later would lead to some serious bloodletting on the continent.

            1. Again, this is why it’s a shame Schism happened. Sermons in native language and different traditions among different countries are accepted part of the Orthodoxy, with councils being preferred method of settling disputes.
              On the other hand, Catholicism did conflict with temporal power in the way Orthodox churches never did, leading to the idea of separation of church and state eventually…

              1. On the other hand, Catholicism did conflict with temporal power in the way Orthodox churches never did, leading to the idea of separation of church and state eventually…

                And that’s huge. There was a time when the Pope had more credibility with people even within the Byzantine Empire because the Patriarch was so obviously a puppet of the Emperor and the Orthodox Church was so obviously a tool of the government, while the Pope, entirely through historical accident, wound up un-beholden to any earthly monarch (at least for a time).

            2. ^ This. Old English vernacular scriptures are unique in the early medieval world. And the homilies about how orcs and goblins are descended from Cain and the race of Giants from Genesis are truly precious.

            3. When I was younger I felt bad for Harald being defeated at Stamford bridge, and that Harold had it coming to him by WIlliam. But then I learned that by that time, they were all fucking Christians anyway.

              1. The English still posessed their pagan body of culture and mythology that they adapted to Christianity, like pretty much everywhere else did for a time after conversion.

                1. Yeah – I don’t think most westerners of today would recognize what the eleventh century Anglo-Saxons practiced as “Christianity” as anything like our understanding of that term.

                  1. And thankfully we retain Yuletide, aka Christmas. I hope people don’t think the ancient Jews were really all that fond of traveling to Northern Europe to cut down evergreen trees to put inside their house.

                    1. And it sure wasn’t Jesus who got nailed with mistletoe.

              2. Wasn’t Harald still a pagan, despite long years of service in Constantinople?

                Besides, fuck it. Harald died in battle in his 60s, making a play for a kingdom, after a life of riches and adventure! Nothing to feel bad about!

                1. The Saxons thought of Jesus as a war god, much like Thor.

                  This was the deliberate strategy Pope Gregory came up with to convert them (as memorialized in Bede’s History of the English Church and People).

                  Gregory knew the Saxons would have no interest in a bookish guy who said “turn the other cheek.” So he instructed the missionaries to lead with stories like the walls of Jericho coming down, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the like.

                  The plan was to convert the Kings with tales of power in order to able to start setting up churches, at which point they could start working on the more peacey parts.

        2. He also did not have the benefit of hindsight.

    3. Ya know…William traces his lineage back to Alfred the Great. Also, the Normans were the “original” Brittons…as in they fled Britton before Rome fell…to get away from Saxons…who are Germans, like Celts, also Germans. The “first nations” people of the British Isles were distinctly separate from the Celts and Saxons and Romans. They had tribes named Ordovices and Silures and Iceni. Which, incidentally, were Beakers/Hallstats…which were Germans.

      1. William was the bastard son of the Duke of Normandy and a seamstress. He traces his lineage back to Rolo the Viking but I am not sure about Alfred.

        The English had always elected their kings. The problem was Edward the Confessor was a nut who told William he could have the thrown upon his death. William bragged about that. When Edward died, they elected Harold as they had always planned to do. William then looked like a fool. And a man in William’s position could not afford to look like a fool and had no choice but to launch what was really a pretty crazy expedition to take the crown.

        1. Here’s the genealogy of House Windsor showing the many kings related to Alfred.

          William is not related to him, but his aunt married Ethelred II and produced Edward the Confessor.

          1. Yes, that was what I referring to…not descended but related I guess.

            1. related in a civil sort of way.

              1. Enough to press the weak claim, at least. Luckily the realm was being invaded for the throne, so he was able to!

                Fuck, Crusader Kings 2 is like an abusive spouse. I keep reminding myself how awesome it is, I load my game with 97% threat where any war I declare brings 76 nations on my head (all muslims, most pagans and all Christians except Bavaria) and I just close it again.

                1. I kind of like that feature. I can usually achieve the necessary objectives before any significant force can mass in my territory.

                  1. Good news is latest patch lets you turn it on or off before the game starts, without disabling achievements/Ironman status!

                    1. I can’t get Ironman to work with any of my mods, and I can’t play the game vanilla.

                2. I keep reminding myself how awesome it is, I load my game with 97% threat where any war I declare brings 76 nations on my head (all muslims, most pagans and all Christians except Bavaria) and I just close it again.

                  This is because you’re not playing the game right Pan. Crusader Kings 2 is not all about murder and warfare. Ok, a lot of it is, about half of it in fact, but it’s also about love. Loving your wife. And your son’s wife. And her cousins. And your cousins. And your sisters.

                  Basically what I’m saying is that your game clearly doesn’t have enough Seduction focus and inbreeding. Come on, you’re Primogeniture and have easy divorce, you can do whatever you want.

                  1. Ironically, the greatest and current ruler of my realm (despite Basil I’s unbelievable 30 years on the throne) is a woman named Nona the Gentle. Ok, Nona the Saint now, as I’ve created Kingdom of Jerusalem and healed the Schism. She’s also on her third husband but too old for breeding.

                    Funny story – I had to divorce my first husband when he became adventurer and invaded Italy. Because if I didn’t I couldn’t push his younger brother’s claim on it. Which I had to, because stupid game wouldn’t let me just help my stupid husband in his bid.

                    And have I mentioned, fuck the AI? Twice, after I took over a country and it offered to handle 30+ stupid vassalages, it sent my heir off to be a Bishop, and revoking the title didn’t do a thing.

                    1. My Roman Empire game got way too easy/boring after I started playing as Empress Claudia. Like her male namesake, she was conquering Britain, when her husband became an adventurer and requested help to press his claim. To the Holy Roman Empire on Gavelkind. Then the AI was so retarded it almost lost before I dumped a hundred thousand troops on Germany. After that and wiping out all the goddamn pagans in Scandinavia it just became a Karling stomp.

                      Are you not vassalizing smaller titles like bishoprics and towns yourself? There’s a button when you open the holdings/build panel that gives it to a random courtier it makes up. Then you just make sure to include lower titles when you give the primary holding to someone else.

                    2. See, they may have done something to change this, because when I husband declared war, I was like “Sweety! 50K troops! Varangians! Kataphracts! I want Italy much more than you do! LET ME HELP!” and game was like “Nope! And you can DoW Italy. Because you are married to King’s brother. Same brother who is invading for the throne, yes. Fuck you anyway!”

                      Yeah, I didn’t know there was an easy way to assign empty holdings. Because Paradox UI. I stared at 40+ holdings, and when advisor was like, “I can handle it for you” I was all sure and he was like “Hey, Prince David is now a Bishop of Acre. Have fun!”

                      Luckily, my Empress was pregnant when she divorced her first husband, and able to reclaim her newborn when Italy fell. He just ended up with Italian name.

                    3. I would think that you would have been able to press his claim anyway because he’s in your court. You can press claims for anyone else in your court, why not your husband? They could have changed it but I was directly invited by my husband, I’m not sure if you can request to join your spouse’s adventurer war.

                      Yeah, I didn’t know there was an easy way to assign empty holdings. Because Paradox UI.

                      You do not get to complain about CK2’s UI. I used to play Victoria 2. You have First World UI problems.

                    4. Well, my husband also raised 107 ships in Constantinople along with the troops, then proceeded to march on foot to Italy while the ships remained behind. I’m not saying he was an idiot, but I married him for his claim, not his Learning stat….

        2. Edward told a lot of people they could have the throne after his death. He was easily swayed, a poor judge of character and prone to frivolous generosity, as some accounts recall.

      2. Also, the Normans were the “original” Brittons…as in they fled Britton before Rome fell…to get away from Saxons

        You’re thinking of the Bretons, not the Normans. The Normans were Anglo Vikings who hit the north coast of France shortly after the Angles & Saxons took over Britain, inspiring said exodus of Britons/Bretons to Brittany.

        The Saxons and the Angles are “Germanic”, but the Celts are not – they were undoubtedly in Europe for centuries prior to the Germanic tribes, and actually may have made the Central Asia-to-Europe journey via North Africa.

        But yes – the people who built Stonehenge were neither Celtic nor Germanic, but were possibly related to the Basques.

        1. The Celts are Germans is a joke reference to the fact they are mainland Europeans (as Germans per se did not exist yet). And I have read that Basque theory, which if I recall was based around DNA tests etc. Very interesting. I believe the Doggerlanders ruled the earth first though.

        2. The Bretons are an ethnic group located in the region of Brittany in France. They trace much of their heritage to groups of Brittonic speakers who emigrated from southwestern Great Britain including Cornwall to avoid the invading Germanic peoples.

          1. Isn’t that what I said? My phrasing was admittedly awkward, but my intent was “Bretons = those who fled before the Angles and Saxons in the fifth century.”

        3. No the Celts came from Europe to central asia. If you look at a map of Indo-European languages showing satem vs centum languages, the Tocharians and (those) Celts were off in the east, isolated from the rest of the centum isogloss.

          1. I’ve read too many different theories about that to have a strong opinion, honestly. The satem-centum spread to me looks like many groups were moving around in overlapping ways, and I suspect some “proto-Celts” went east, some went west, and who knows where any of the proto-Indo-Europeans “originally” came from.

            The Tocharians throw a wrench into just about any theory one can come up with. There are also inhabitants in the mountains of Algeria who have red hair and blue eyes, but I never came across anything about their language.

            Archeologists tend to lump the Celts and Germans together based on pottery styles, and it could well be that languages move somewhat independently from peoples, but some historians think the Germans first arrived in Europe with the Huns. So there’s that.

            All very interesting stuff (this is a lot of what I studied in grad school), but extremely frustrating in the abundance of implications and the paucity of conclusions.

            1. I’ve read too many different theories about that to have a strong opinion, honestly. The satem-centum spread to me looks like many groups were moving around in overlapping ways, and I suspect some “proto-Celts” went east, some went west, and who knows where any of the proto-Indo-Europeans “originally” came from.

              I like the Kurgan hypothesis myself. It has strong DNA and historical linguistic evidence supporting it.

              There are also inhabitants in the mountains of Algeria who have red hair and blue eyes, but I never came across anything about their language.

              Vandals and Visigoths dominated North Africa until the Islamic invasions. Until that point, North Africa was practically an extension of European civilization.

              Archeologists tend to lump the Celts and Germans together based on pottery styles, and it could well be that languages move somewhat independently from peoples, but some historians think the Germans first arrived in Europe with the Huns. So there’s that.

              Celtic and Germanic are closely related within Indo-European, they share a fairly recent mother language. And the Germans absolutely 100% did not arrive with the Huns. The Huns were pushed out of Central Asia and even Mongolia, the Germans originated in Scandinavia and the Baltic. Plus the Romans are well documented to have been fighting Germanic tribes long before the Huns arrived.

              1. Vandals and Visigoths dominated North Africa until the Islamic invasions.

                These people are pretty deep into Algeria, without related populations around, but you certainly couldn’t rule out that they’re Vandalic.

                1. Genetics are weird. Shit, Ataturk had red hair and blue eyes!

                  1. You should recall that some of the earliest accounts of the Turks describe them as tending to red hair.

              2. Celtic and Germanic are closely related within Indo-European, they share a fairly recent mother language.

                My expertise is in Germanic and Romance languages, not Celtic, but this doesn’t strike me as supportable. The Germanic languages have noteworthy similarities to the Indo-Iranian languages that aren’t shared by Greek, Latin, or the Celtic language, which supports a much later migration from Asia. But the centum-satem line is problematic in that context.

                But even so, the Germanic languages have long seemed to me to be more similar to Greek and Latin than any of the three are to the Celtic group. Grimm was able to formulate Grimm’s Law, for example, by comparing Germanic and Latin vocabulary. I don’t think you could do that with a Celtic language and German or Latin.

                “Come in with the Huns” is short hand for having come in around that era. I don’t think there’s evidence for a Germanic presence in Europe prior to the second century AD, is there? If the Germanic group shows similarities with both the centum and satem groups, and they show a highly fragmented social culture and religion, and they don’t show up in Europe until late, altogether that supports the idea that Germanic culture was a sort amalgam of mercenary cultures from Central Asia that maybe didn’t even really have a common root.

                The impossibility of proving anything in this arena is what drove me to study later medieval stuff, in the end.

                1. This is one thing that I love about Reason.

                  We joke and kid. Tease and cut. There is much *locker room* banter.

                  Then some topic comes up that gets people’s attention and things get serious and the brainiacs come out in force.

                  There is much knowledge, and wisdom as well possed by the commenters here.

                  More than I’ve seen at any other site. It is what attracted me to Reason several years ago and what keeps me coming back.

                  Kudos to you all, even the proggie idiots who keep coming back because masochism.

                  1. *possessed

                2. My expertise is in Germanic and Romance languages, not Celtic, but this doesn’t strike me as supportable. The Germanic languages have noteworthy similarities to the Indo-Iranian languages that aren’t shared by Greek, Latin, or the Celtic language, which supports a much later migration from Asia. But the centum-satem line is problematic in that context.

                  So I know it’s just the internet and I shouldn’t bother, but I’m weak and I cannot help myself. I’m about to come off like a real dick, for that I apologize. But only because of your claim to ‘expertise’ must I.

                  This post could not be more wrong on facts and theory. If you were just asking or theorizing I could let much of it slide without much explanation, but this is expertise supposedly. If you were an expert in Germanic and Romance language families, you wouldn’t be asserting that the Germans migrated to Europe from somewhere else. The Indo-Europeans migrated into continental Europe from somewhere in Eurasia. The Germans, just like the Celts, Italics, Greeks, Slavs et al, are the descendant peoples of those Indo-Europeans whose languages developed from proto-Indo-European in situ, in Europe.

                  1. (continued)Germanic languages are leaps and bounds more closely related to the other languages of continental Europe than they are to any of the Indo-Iranian languages. To say that it does strike you as “supportable” tells me that you’re entirely unaware of the tremendous body of knowledge that actually supports it. Your preposterous theory runs up against every scrap of credible knowledge accumulated in the fields of linguistics, history, anthropology, archaeology, genetics and probably five over fields of research I can’t think of right now.

                    I don’t think you could do that with a Celtic language and German or Latin.

                    It’s called the ‘comparative method’ (of reconstructing language change over time). You absolutely can do it between Celtic and Germanic, it’s precisely how they measure the relatedness of two languages.

                    I don’t think there’s evidence for a Germanic presence in Europe prior to the second century AD, is there?

                    Tons of it. I don’t need to dredge it all up. The Greek cartographer Pytheas chronicled the Germanic people in modern day Denmark and Germany in the 4th century BC. Julius Ceasar wrote about encountering them, as did Strabo the Battle of Teutoberg forest happened in 9AD.

                    1. If the Germanic group shows similarities with both the centum and satem groups, and they show a highly fragmented social culture and religion, and they don’t show up in Europe until late, altogether that supports the idea that Germanic culture was a sort amalgam of mercenary cultures from Central Asia that maybe didn’t even really have a common root.

                      The impossibility of proving anything in this arena is what drove me to study later medieval stuff, in the end.

                      I just face palmed so hard it nearly knocked me unconscious. The centum and satem distinction is considered valuable precisely because it uses the differences in fundamental core parts of the language, the number system and personal pronouns, “mother” or “father” et cetera because these parts of the language are very seldom borrowed or replaced. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, none, not even a cunt hair of doubt, that the Germanic language family is a centum language and part of the larger Indo-European family, is indigenous to Europe in the sense of it’s in situ development and is not a mercenary pidgin language, if there ever was such a thing.

                      You say that Germanic may not have had a common root with the other daughter languages of proto-Indo-European….this does not reveal an expertise in linguistics, let alone Germanic or Romance. That assertion is laughable on it’s face. Thank you for giving me a chance to use the word ‘preposterous’ for the first time in a long time.

                    2. I sincerely apologize for being a dick. I would have said the same thing to anyone who said the same thing you did. I can’t help it, don’t mean to make enemies or whatever. Best wishes.

                    3. And this is why I love Reason.

                      The truth shall set you free.

                      So much bullshit here but let a serious topic come up and WHAM !

                      I love this joint.

                    4. No worries. Full disclosure, my expertise is about 12 years stale, as I jumped fields some time back and don’t think about this stuff real often anymore.

                      I’d forgotten about Caesar, and confess to having been unaware of the Strabo reference.

                      But in the interest of balance, I’ll be a dick back.

                      I came across the “came in with the Huns” theory late in my research after dozens and dozens of books on this. Your certainty is cute, but betrays a lack of broad study.

                      What I was getting at is – there are linguistic theories; there are genetic theories; there are archaeological theories. They don’t agree with each other (last I checked – again, stale expertise here – they’ll probably revoke my degree any time because I haven’t published in 10 years).

                      Kinship terms are exactly what I was talking about – compare English, Latin, Pahlavi, and Sanskrit for “father,” “mother,” “brother,” and the like.

                    5. This is where (as I confessed) my expertise breaks down, but I don’t remember ever seeing any Celtic words as similar as Pater, Pitar, Vader, and Faeder. Perhaps there is an example I am unaware of – if you would share, you just may succeed in altering my worldview (not being snarky – I actually know almost jack shit about Celtic languages). But using Grimm’s law, you’re really not far off going from Latin to German – never seen a similar demonstration for a Celtic language.

                      OTOH, “hund” is clearly out of centum, yet in Latin the “c” softens into an “s” just like the satem group (which I find interesting), while in the Germanic it goes out the other side of the gutteral and becomes an “h”. A lot of older vocabulary compared between old Germanic languages and Indo-Iranian are strikingly similar – like OE snaca for Sanskrit naca; neither the common Greek nor Latin words for snake are remotely similar. Deeply problematized, as I said, by the centum-satem line, but an interesting thing to note, and one that could indicate later borrowing, but only if the Germans weren’t in Europe as early as many think.

                      It would be sooo nice if the stuff would just play fair and give us clear answers to our burning questions. Alas, it does not.

                    6. This is where (as I confessed) my expertise breaks down, but I don’t remember ever seeing any Celtic words as similar as Pater, Pitar, Vader, and Faeder. Perhaps there is an example I am unaware of – if you would share, you just may succeed in altering my worldview (not being snarky – I actually know almost jack shit about Celtic languages). But using Grimm’s law, you’re really not far off going from Latin to German – never seen a similar demonstration for a Celtic language.

                      OTOH, “hund” is clearly out of centum, yet in Latin the “c” softens into an “s” just like the satem group (which I find interesting), while in the Germanic it goes out the other side of the gutteral and becomes an “h”. A lot of older vocabulary compared between old Germanic languages and Indo-Iranian are strikingly similar – like OE snaca for Sanskrit naca; neither the common Greek nor Latin words for snake are remotely similar. Deeply problematized, as I said, by the centum-satem line, but an interesting thing to note, and one that could indicate later borrowing, but only if the Germans weren’t in Europe as early as many think.

                      It would be sooo nice if the stuff would just play fair and give us clear answers to our burning questions. Alas, it does not.

                3. The old celtic languages are much more clearly related to the Italic languages. When I first got into Celtic languages, I first thought that they must have a ton of Latin borrowings, but this turned out not to be the case many times, but rather the vocabulary was simply very similar. Not that they didn’t have a lot of borrowings, but it went the other way too perhaps as much. Also, the Celts and Italians were hanging out in southern europe together for forever, long before any trace of a German more than twenty kilometers from the Baltic shore. The Germanic languages are really the extreme outlier which are much more heavily derived than about any other group I can think of. If anyone, they kept a long relation with Balts and Slavs, which has resulted in some points of community, which are masked by the fact that German underwent extreme sound shifts since those days. The Centum/Satem divide is arteficial, probably anatomic and dietary in origin, and I don’t see the evidence supporting as an organic character of real genealogic importance.

      3. No, the Normans were not the “original” Brittons[sic], they were descended from Vikings who settled in Northern France under Rollo in the 10th century.

        The Welsh are the original Britons.

    4. I check the Reason comment section, and all I find is a bunch of Saxon violence.

        1. Pun fail. I meant to reference the gratuitous sax.

  18. Hey, look at that, another woman says Trump did to her the bad thing he claimed he does to women.

    Apparently (according to a headline I read, but then that’s what most people do) he is claiming that these women aren’t attractive enough for him to have made advances. Incredible.

    If he doesn’t totally crash and burn by election day I’m going to be surprised.

    1. Isn’t that what sunk Oscar Wilde?

  19. I can understand why these women have waited so long to come forward about this. Seriously, who knew Trump was running for President before a couple of weeks ago? They must have finally seen something in the news about it after the first debate and went “hey that is the guy who groped me”. The poor dears.

    1. America’s public schools have left us with a nation of drooling idiots who can’t recognize when they are being played.

      1. Apparently so. The idea that all of these woman could be groped by a deep pocket like Trump and none of them would tell anyone or sue looking for settlement and then also not say anything as Trump won the GOP nomination is so stupid that only the American voter could believe it.

        1. I’m hoping he sues the NYT, myself. Just for the discovery alone. I’m betting the NYT email system is bursting at the seams with slavering hostility to Trump and gleeful predictions that this or that story will bring him down. I bet there’s enough there to get him to “malice”, in fact.

          It will also be stuffed with coordination with the Hillary campaign.

          Finally, it will be very interesting to see how these women came to publicly make these accusations. As they say in Chicago, “Who are you from?”. Also, what investigation the NYT put into it, and what exculpatory facts, if any, they buried.

          1. I think he is definitely going to sue. And despite what Reason claims, he likely will have a case. It is clear from the wikileaks emails that the Times is in direct coordination with the Hillary campaign. These women were no doubt solicited by the Hillary campaign. And considering how stupid and careless these people are, there are likely emails out there from Times staffers to the Hillary campaign detailing the plan to canvass women associated with Trump and willing to make allegations with no concern for any corroboration or their credibility.

            What would likely come out is that the Times agreed to run this story before any of the women were actually identified or there was any evidence such women even existed and ran the story even though they knew that the campaign solicited their allegations with no concern or investigation of their truthfulness. That sounds like textbook reckless disregard to me, doesn’t it you? Then add in the no doubt hundred of slathering emails about Hilary and expressing hatred towards Trump and the overt cooperation with the Hillary campaign in developing hte story and you have actual malice as well.

            1. I think he is definitely going to sue.

              If he doesn’t win, he needs some way to keep himself in public eye. Going after a Beloved American Institution sounds like an easy way.

            2. John they will all be granted immunity and their memories will have faded with time and some of them will just say fuck it to the subpoenas and not even bother to show up and all of it will die a slow death uncovered by the MSM.

              I have no faith in the future of our *once* republic.

          2. I agree R C , of course it will all come after Hillary is coronated .

            So nothing much will come of it as Hillary’s MSM will be sure to sweep it under the rug.

        2. The “malice” part of the legal case won’t be the hardest, I don’t think. Because Trump is the plaintiff, he needs to make a decent showing that these claims are false. That’ll be tough, due to the lapse in time on these.

          1. As I explain above, you likely could get actual malice and reckless disregard and let the jury choose which one they like best.

    2. Also, isn’t one of these ladies represented by…Gloria Allred?

    3. I mean if they had come out before the tape was released they’d only have the implicit belief and support of every Democrat out there plus most of the media and a handful of other people too. Hell, the reaction to a claimed Trump groping is so positive I’m surprised no one thought to make the claim (whether true or not) before the tape.

      1. They may have.

        We have no way of knowing. They may have contacted the MSM only to be told to wait until they are summoned.

        Remember, this tape was held until the time was right. That time was right before the election and right before Hillary’s and Podesta’s emails were released.

        I have no doubt that this is a contrived and concerted effort.

  20. Fruit Sushi I hope your hair falls out. Have a great weekend.

  21. Leonard Cohen Makes It Darker

    Very long piece from The New Yorker.

    Cohen, whose family was both prominent and cultivated, had an ironical view of himself. He was a bohemian with a cushion whose first purchases in London were an Olivetti typewriter and a blue raincoat at Burberry. Even before he had much of an audience, he had a distinct idea of the audience he wanted. In a letter to his publisher, he said that he was out to reach “inner-directed adolescents, lovers in all degrees of anguish, disappointed Platonists, pornography-peepers, hair-handed monks and Popists.”

    As a young man, he had a kind of Michael Corleone Before the Fall look, sloe-eyed, dark, a little hunched, but high courtesy and verbal fluency were his charm. When he was thirteen, he read a book on hypnotism. He tried out his new discipline on the family housekeeper, and she took off her clothes. Not everyone over the years was quite as bewitched. Nico spurned him, and Joni Mitchell, who had once been his lover, remained a friend but dismissed him as a “boudoir poet.” But these were the exceptions.

    1. Very long piece from The New Yorker.

      Is there another kind?

        1. “I just liked the kitty.”

    2. Dylan went on driving. After a while, he told Cohen that a famous songwriter of the day had told him, “O.K., Bob, you’re Number 1, but I’m Number 2.”

      Cohen smiled. “Then Dylan says to me, ‘As far as I’m concerned, Leonard, you’re Number 1. I’m Number Zero.’ Meaning, as I understood it at the time?and I was not ready to dispute it?that his work was beyond measure and my work was pretty good.”

      Even before three hundred other performers made “Hallelujah” famous with their cover versions, long before the song was included on the soundtrack for “Shrek” and as a staple on “American Idol,” Dylan recognized the beauty of its marriage of the sacred and the profane. He asked Cohen how long it took him to write.

      “Two years,” Cohen lied.

      Actually, “Hallelujah” had taken him five years. He drafted dozens of verses and then it was years more before he settled on a final version. In several writing sessions, he found himself in his underwear, banging his head against a hotel-room floor.

      Cohen told Dylan, “I really like ‘I and I,’ ” a song that appeared on Dylan’s album “Infidels.” “How long did it take you to write that?”

      “About fifteen minutes,” Dylan said.

    3. Stay classy, Leonard!

    4. He is so overrated. He has all the vocal ability of Tom Waits. And his songs really are never that good.

      1. You write that second sentence like a bad thing.

        1. Okay he isn’t as good as Tom. Tom at least sounds like he is trying.

          1. Reason’s anti-Canadian singer-songwriter bias continues.

            *Listens to Dress Rehearsal Rag and cries…again*

  22. Worst PM links ever.

    Robby sucks.

    1. You have the power to help make it better. Will you join us in making it better?

      1. Lord Humongous puts more thought and effort into AM links than this.

    2. I suspect Robby just wrote a sentence about all the tabs he has open on his browser.

      1. Somebody’s gonna hire him someday because of his expertise on libertairans, too.

        Just like the Weigel–only worse.

    3. Robby sucks.

      Did you give him your consent or did he just grab your Johnson and have at it?

  23. Where were all these tapes and stories about Trump during the primaries? Or I guess i should ask why didn’t they matter then?

    1. Because Hillary couldn’t beat any of those guys!!

  24. The email exchange was between John Podesta, Paul Begala, and Hillary pollster GQRR back in January of 2008.

    One of the statements on the survey of Obama ‘negative facts’ was this one:

    * 7 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh)’s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world’s most populous Islamic country.

    So Hillary thought that Obama growing up around Muslims in an Islamic country was a negative fact? Wow. I guess when you are running for president, liberal tolerance only goes so far.

    It’s worth noting that the pollster writes “we have reworked the Obama message into the survey, as requested” and it then lists the negatives, including the Obama-Muslim connection. It’s clear that someone in the Clinton camp or Clinton ally requested that it should be a poll question.

    http://therightscoop.com/wikil…..narrative/

    Narrative Fail.

    1. Forget it.

      They… just…. don’t… care.

      We could show a videotape of Hillary Clinton holding a woman down while Bill anally raped her, and they still would be screaming “Trump!”

      Last night I had a lawyer I respect basically defend her spoliation of evidence under subpoena as being a manufactured controversy and the product of a miscommunication between her office and a low level staffer.

      We agreed to not discuss the matter further.

      These people haven’t hit rock bottom yet. They are completely in denial that they are creating a government that can do anything, kill anyone, seize anything. When it, like the Devil in a Man for All Seasons turns around and comes after them, they are in for the shock of their lives.

      All we can do is bear witness and hope that future generations learn from our countrymen’s mistakes.

      1. Trust not to hope, it has forsaken these lands.

        1. You tell ’em, Eomer.

    2. I’m not ignoring stuff like this, really. It’s more like Hillary’s acceptability as a President is so far gone, there’s really nothing left to argue about anymore.

      She took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

      If you can’t get people riled up about that, I don’t know what we’re supposed to do. At some point, the fault stops being with Hillary even and becomes the fault of the American people.

      The people who vote for Hillary are going to get what they deserve; unfortunately, the rest of us are going to get it, too–and we don’t deserve any of it.

      1. The people who vote for Hillary are going to get what they deserve; unfortunately, the rest of us are going to get it, too–and we don’t deserve any of it.

        Very, very true…

        1. Per Tony, and the fact that you were born in the same country as them means you deserve everything the tyrant they impose on you does to you.

      2. Between Wikileaks and the second debate she is like a fatally wounded animal. She is so discredited even if she wins the election it will prove a Pyrrhic victory. The woman is held in open contempt by the majority of the country. She will enter office more unpopular than Bush was when he left office. And it will only get worse from there.

        Think how unpopular she will become once she is actually held responsible for something and she no longer has Trump to distract people with? I still don’t think she is certain to win, but if she does it will be the strangest and most unpopular presidency in history.

        1. She is so discredited even if she wins the election it will prove a Pyrrhic victory

          I’m not sure about that. Her supporters know that Wikileaks, etc. are either unimportant and/or conservative lies. Remember, these are the people who point to Libya as one of her great achievements and a reason for electing her.

          once she is actually held responsible for something

          What makes you think that will happen?

          1. She doesn’t really have any “supporters” outside the media. She has various Democrats who support her out of loyalty or people whose panties are in a wad over Trump. No one on either side likes her, trusts her or has anything positive to say about her.

            Once she is President of course Democrats will defend her out of blind loyalty but and that will keep her from being impeached and removed from office but won’t get her much else. Meanwhile, God knows how badly Democrats will have to take it in the shorts at the Congressional and state levels defending her. Look how badly they suffered under Obama and Obama was a President people at least didn’t actively loath. Everyone would loath a President Hillary. The woman has been in public life for 25 years and has never once shown the ability to win anyone over or make herself more likable. Every time people see and hear her, she gets more unpopular. I can’t imagine how much people are going to hate her if she gets to drone on as President for four years.

            1. Actually, she does… my high school classmates… an older lawyer who was a mentor to me once… many of my relatives.

              They are all limousine liberals. They think they are educated. They read NYT and agree with everything in it. They think fox news is ghastly and liberatarians are either idiots or astroturf shills in the pay of billionaires.

              My discussions with them have left me appalled.

              1. I know a lot of people who fit that description and all of them love Obama thought Bernie was a great well meaning guy and think Hillary is embarrassingly corrupt and dishonest. The only people I know who like her are a couple of 40 something suburban moms I know.

              2. Add into that at least 90% of academics who swoon over her. A lot of the authors whose blogs I follow, musicians, etc. I know this is all anecdotal but a lot of her support is genuine.

            2. “Obama was a President people at least didn’t actively loath”

              I can’t even

        2. I expect she’s going to foment a war. She has to do something to unify the country – even grudgingly – behind her.

          I don’t think the Russians are making the noises they are making idly. I suspect that the Clinton’s state outside a state has been thoroughly penetrated by their intelligence services and they are privy to many of her plans.

          1. I hope you are not right but I frankly can’t really give any reason why you aren’t other than “surely to God the bitch isn’t that crazy”. Meanwhile, if that does happen, I hope the various media dickheads who shit their pants for months over made up Trump bullshit while ignoring the sick lunatic bent on starting World War III he was running against, die horrible and painful deaths in the resulting nuclear fire.

            1. Here is what I expect.

              They aren’t going to go toe to toe with the Russians in Syria.

              I think she will decide to fight people who can’t fight back. The Houti in Yemen is my most likely guess. But… the days when only the U.S. had smart weapons are drawing to a middle. I could, with off the shelf components, make the guidance system for an anti-ship missile. Marry it to a nice big warhead, and…

              So, wherever she intervenes, the U.S. is going to get some kind of bloody nose. And she will double-down. If it’s Yemen, the Iranians will be the weapons suppliers that are providing the smart weapons. And she will widen the war to fight them.

              Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Afghanistan… and the Russians, loath to see Iran stop assisting them in Syria, and with a common border with Iran will likely provide assistance to the Iranians…

              The harder she commits, the more bodies. The more bodies, the more pressure to escalate.

              I don’t think it will be a nuclear war. I think the Russians will be content to just bleed the U.S. in a pointless never ending counterinsurgency as they did in Vietnam.

              But… the U.S. economy is no longer capable of absorbing the economic shock of such a war.

              1. Going to war in Yemen isn’t going to affect the country enough to unite it behind her. Nothing short of a full on world war would do that. People are tired of bush wars in shit holes like Yemen. Going to war in a place like that would just make more people hate her.

              2. I don’t think go for any major war, nothing if Bush caliber, maybe some Mickey Mouse crap like Yemen.

                The thing is, if I were her, I’d rest in my laurels. I’d let my advisors run the state and I’d lay back and drink monitors for four years, and just do press conferences and stuff, maybe some token projects, but mainly try to keep things uneventful. Her vagina already guarantees her place in American political hagiography till the end of time. That’s what matters most to her imo, her legacy.

                Even her hawkishness as Secretary of State was, imo, mainly meant to give herself some ‘accomplishments’ to put on her resume for her campaign, not because she really believed in the cause.

                If she wins on nov 8, that’s it, she’s won. Legacy secure. Even if she loses in 4 years she’ll still be as revered as George Washington. She should just take 4 year victory lap try not to rock the boat.

                We’ll see if she’s arrogant enough to make the mistake of trying to be remembered for what she does rather than just being the first woman president, because if she is will probably backfire.

            2. hope the various media dickheads who shit their pants for months over made up Trump bullshit while ignoring the sick lunatic bent on starting World War III he was running against, die horrible and painful deaths in the resulting nuclear fire.

              That scene in Dr Strangelove when the guy rides the nuke to it’s target, yeah that’s the media during a major Hilary war.

        3. She could have done great things if all the sexists hadn’t sabotaged her from the onset.

        4. She’ll be the most hated person in office since Nixon when she walks in the door.

          She’ll be more hated than Carter was.

          Unfortunately, I’m afraid she’ll have the Senate behind her for the first two years.

          I’m scared she’ll get the House, too.

          I’m glad John Boehner isn’t the Speaker anymore. He’d capitulate to her like he capitulated to Obama.

          What’s that Revelation 12 say?

          “Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! For the devil has come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”

          —-Revelation 12:12

          Hillary knows she doesn’t have long. She’s gonna make the most of it. The whole time in office, she’ll have nothing to lose. She’ll be challenged by other Democrats for the nomination in four years. She’ll probably lose Congressional support big time in midterms. She’ll have two years to do whatever she wants–just like Obama did.

          Obama did most of his damage his first two years in office.

          1. She is not going to have the House or Senate even if she wins. Even 538, who pretty much exists to blow sunshine up Democrats asses, has given up on that dream

            https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/246303/

            She won’t get anything, except what dictatorial powers Obama has created has given her.

            1. 538 has the Dems at 60% chance of taking the senate, so that’s a likely scenario. The house, no way. Maybe in two years but by then she’ll already likely be an unpopular incumbent.

            2. Uh, 538 is still predicting the dems to take the senate.

        5. She is so discredited even if she wins the election it will prove a Pyrrhic victory.

          Sorry, John. At this point, she’s not Pyrhus, she’s the Roman Republic. Lose 20,000 men at Lake Trasimene? Recruit more. Los 40,000 at Kannae? Doesn’t matter, keep hammering until you out-atritt the other side.

          1. If she wins and I am still optimistic she won’t, things very well may come to a head. She is an unbelievably stupid, corrupt and awful person. She never learns. The White House will be an orgy of corruption. Meanwhile, she will go even more out of her way to offend the public and thumb her nose at her enemies. And she will have by being such a criminal so disgraced the office of the President that a lot of people who out of respect for the institution have restrained from violence will no longer feel such a compunction. It might not be pretty.

            1. The thing about Hillary is, Dems largely detest her personally; for them, because of her gender, it’s bigger than her; she’s just a symbol. For that reason, they need her not to fuck up too terribly, because they believe it will reflect on all women. She also doesn’t have the dynamism or assertiveness of Obama, who progs actually liked and therefore largely let him run his own show.

              Hillary’s advisers and ‘allies’ won’t follow her the way they do Obama; they’re actually liable to try to neuter her quietly for the sake of the party.

              Her major redeeming quality, ironically, is that her lack of redeeming g qualities means she is more beholden to the party than vice versa, and the party will have more of an interest in not rocking the boat.

              1. “Hillary’s advisers and ‘allies’ won’t follow her the way they do Obama; they’re actually liable to try to neuter her quietly for the sake of the party.”

                Are you kidding ? They have already followed her way past what they had to overlook with Obama.

                This woman is a treasonist crook and she still has her followers smelling her farts and claiming they smell sweet.

                1. “Are you kidding ? They have already followed her way past what they had to overlook with Obama.”
                  And most of the people “following her” don’t even like her; many hate her. She’s just a means to an end for most of her supporters.

            2. “She never learns”

              It seems that the truth is that we never learn, not her.

              What should she learn ? That she can’t get away with with anything she wants to do?

              No restraints at all. This last round of her getting off scot free for the bathroom server will teach her only that once she is President she can do anything she wants.

              We are Rome in it’s death throes.

        6. “The woman is held in open contempt by the majority of the country. ”

          Then why is she a *pussy grabbing hair* from the Presidency ?

  25. And if you’re in New York City on Tuesday, October 18, you can see me discuss political correctness with CNN’s Sally Kohn and Mic’s Jamila King.

    The way you equivocate around here, these two pro SJW’s will pound you into the dirt. Good luck. Better have a earpiece with Matt Welch on the other end helping you out.

    1. Ive seen his older stuff, hes fine.

      1. Good, I hope so. Even though I hope his hair falls out, he is likable.

    2. Considering how easily he trolls the commenters on here, Sally Kohn might end up on the floor in a blubbering mess.

  26. “the incident occurred on a night out in Manhattan in the early 1990s when she was an aspiring model.”
    Donald can I call you Don? Here’s what you need to do. Stop paying attention to the hair for a sec, ok good, aw fer fucksake yes let it go play with the hat, if that’ll appease them for now. Yes I know they both need to be fed… later what? NO! I don’t want to see that! WTF! Ok you need to hire a private investigator to find out who’s been grabbing all them pussies while impersonating the Donald. Yep get there on all the stations and tell them. You will find out who’s behind this conspiracy.

    1. the incident occurred on a night out in Manhattan in the early 1990s when she was an aspiring model.

      So, a Manhattan party girl out for a night on the town with rich and famous men had her snatch grabbed?

      Quelle surprise!

  27. The Shocking Pain of American Men

    The author tries to conflate prescription pain use with male unemployment. I’m not convinced. Nonetheless fewer and fewer men are graduating from college or working in full time jobs. I don’t see this getting any better any time soon. My prediction, PAIN.

    1. “I’m’n’a bust you up, sucka.”

      “Go for it.”

  28. I just can’t even.
    I’m considering trying to bury my head for the next few weeks and pretending that none of it is happening.

    I’m trying to resign myself to the Hillary win since apparently nothing will change anyone’s mind about her.

    I loathe sounding all delicate flower but this shit is starting to negatively effect my outlook.

    I consider myself a reasonable person. Meaning I can be persuaded by reason. Am I such a huge minority? In any reasonable world these emails would have buried her and the msm is just ignoring it.

    I hate trump but Hillary might just be evil.

    1. I’m with you, see above. This election is painful. It’s starting to get to me and hinder my quality of life when it really shouldn’t. It’s damn difficult but I might need a news moratorium.

    2. All that pain turns to joy when you finally say them 4 simple words:

      1. I am with her?

        1. 5 word fail. Go back to the woods, clown.

          1. If you get the words stuck together, it’s one word

            1. Indeed. A word known as a “contraction”.

              Pedant fail, bacon.

          2. You? Me? Her? Threesome?

      2. Fuck it, more drinking

      3. I love Big Brother?

        1. DING DING DING!! That’s a bingo!

    3. Nixon didn’t pay for his Watergate sins until after he got re-elected. So you got that going for you.

      Gray skies are gonna clear up, put on a happy face
      Brush off the clouds and cheer up, put on a happy face
      Take of the gloomy mask of tragedy, it’s not your style
      You’ll look so good that you’ll be glad you decided to smile
      Pick out a pleasant outlook, stick out that noble chin
      Wipe off that full-of-doubt look, slap on a happy grin
      And spread sunshine all over the place
      And put on a happy face!

      1. A clown face?

    4. Mr. Drew, you and I are in the same boat.

      Even as bitterly cynical as I am, I have been shocked that otherwise intelligent women do not think there is anything at all at stake in this election but keeping a misogynist out of the White House.

      Next time one of them starts down this road, I’m afraid I’m going to tell them that, as far as I can tell, this election is about which misgynist gets to live the White House, not whether there will be one there.

  29. you can see me discuss political correctness with CNN’s Sally Kohn and Mic’s Jamila King.

    And who is on the opposing team?

    1. GILMORE?|10.13.16 @ 9:46AM| block | mute | #

      Is there anything like FASCR for Android?

      fascr works with the Android version of Firefox. There is a link on the fascr homepage specifically to install it on Firefox for Android.

      1. Wow, thanks. I guess Im just dumb and never looked *

        I actually asked because im traveling and dont have mah desktop links and whatnot handy

      2. Sweet switching to firefox for android then.

  30. Delta accused of ‘blatant discrimination’ by black doctor after incident on flight

    Tamika Cross, a resident OB-GYN physician at the University of Texas-Houston, wrote in a viral Facebook post that on a recent flight from Detroit to Minneapolis, she tried to help an unresponsive man, but a flight attendant repeatedly blocked her and questioned her credentials.

    Cross wrote that even after officials on the flight requested help from physicians on board, a flight attendant allegedly told her: “oh no sweetie put ur hand down, we are looking for actual physicians or nurses or some type of medical personnel, we don’t have time to talk to you.”

    When a white man approached and said he was a physician, the flight attendant allegedly told Cross, “Thanks for your help but he can help us.”

    If I knew my doctor wrote “ur” instead of “your” on a Facebook post, I would immediately find a new doctor.
    When I was younger my doctor and I were in a bar at the same time there was a snowstorm. I drove a car – he drove his snowmobile and ordered a white wine spritzer. I never went to see that man again.

    1. That’s one way to get free air miles.

    2. Tamika Cross, a resident OB-GYN physician

      So she’s like 26. Don’t get me wrong, racial stereotypes are a thing and this could happen to a 40-year-old black doctor, too, but there’s a very good chance that this was an age thing, especially given the alleged use of the word “sweetie” to refer to her.

      1. Technically, residents are in a kind of no man’s land between medical student and physician.

        For example, in many (all?) states, they don’t have physician licenses. They have permits.

        They are not allowed to practice medicine independently. They can only do so under the supervision of a physician (which can be quite loose, but still).

        So, believe it or not, the flight attendant wasn’t even necessarily wrong.

        1. Racist.

  31. What an awful way to spend a Tuesday.

  32. Never saw that coming

    A New York City pharmacy that imposed a tax only on male customers has received some 3,000 hate messages, its co-owner said on Friday, amid a national debate over taxes on feminine hygiene products.

    Independent pharmacy Thompson Chemists this week announced it was imposing a one-day 7 percent “man tax” on its male customers after a 2015 study found that women’s products cost 7 percent more than products for men in the city.

    Jolie Alony, the pharmacy’s co-owner, said hate messages started pouring in by email, in phone messages and on social media after the owners placed signs outside the store announcing the tax on Monday, in an effort to draw attention to the issue.

    Income inequality remains persistent in the United States, where women working full-time earn yearly 80 percent of what men earn doing the same work, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research based in Washington D.C.

    So…. the inteded publicity-generating effect worked, IOW. And men are such pigs!!

    1. 80 percent of what men earn

      I thought it was seventy something percent. Why the complaining this is PROGRESS!

    2. “… after a 2015 study found that women’s products cost 7 percent more than products for men in the city.”

      That’s probably because women’s products are very different than men’s products in terms of ingredients and intended use.

      Besides, even if there were some sinister corporate plot to charge women more, I’m sure there are other things that cause men to pay more than a woman would. Just off the top of my head, men have greater caloric demands, and they must consequently buy more food over the course of their lifetimes.

      1. In other news, rich people clothes cost 100% more than poor people clothes. You ask, maybe because rich people prefer and are willing to pay more for rich people clothes rather than save some money by buying poor people clothes? Classist! Why do you hate the rich! I demand we tax men’s warehouse until it’s privileged customers are paying as much as the oppressed Armani customers pay!

      2. Why do I get the impression that ol’ Lizzy doesn’t understand most things?

    3. Not a question from a libertarian angle, but is that even legal?

  33. Wikileaks Reveals Clinton Camp Was Posting FAKE “Sexist Trump Job Ads” On Craigslist

    1. That ad is ridiculous. You can tell it was written by a girl who tried thinking like a man. I’m surprised it didn’t just flat out say “Big tits a plus” or something.

      1. It does lend credibility to Trump’s assertion that these women are lying in order to help Hillary win.

        Think about it. They say they are only coming out now because of the Billy Bush tape. Well who do you think is behind the tape’s release date? The timing of all this is beyond coincidental.

        BTW I’m not pro-Trump (I don’t even fucking vote), but Hillary’s organization makes Satan look like Saint Francis of Assisi.

      2. *Pulls up draft ad for new paralegal, scratches out “big tits a plus”.*

        1. but they totally are a plus. The real crime is being dumb enough to write it down.

          1. *deletes ad, bleachbits computer*

            1. Like, with a cloth ?

  34. I try not to bag on the US, but can’t you make your poonhound politicians be more like the French?

    France’s publishing sensation of the year is this week’s release of Mitterrand’s Letters to Anne, a book containing more than 1,200 letters sent to his secret lover (and, from 1974, mother to his child) Anne Pingeot between 1962 and his death in 1996.

    16 July 1970: I love your body, the joy that flows through me when I possess your mouth, the possession that burns me with all the fires of the world, the surging of my blood deep in the heart of you, your pleasure which bursts from the volcano of our bodies, a flame in space, the burning

    1. I’ve read before that Russian spies during the Cold War noted a big difference between Americans and the French in sex scandals.

      When they got pictures of an American having an affair with a Russian operative or a mistress, the American would completely capitulate. Don’t send this to the papers! Don’t tell my wife, please! I’ll do anything.

      When they’d do the same thing to a French official and threaten to send them to the newspapers, the French official would say, “Do you promise? Really? Thank you! Oh, and can I take these home to show my wife?”

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..-them.html

    2. Especially the burning…a sensation that won’t go away…

        1. I have to stop posting all this pornographic material.

          1. clickbaiter!

            1. If you are going to post silly clickbait, you should at least do it right.

              1. I was simply trying to give the Internet equivalent of a cold shower.

                1. You succeeded sir.

  35. From the CNN article:

    CNN has not yet independently verified Anderson’s account.

    Big surprise!

  36. Ginsberg sees the light – now tows the lion on progressive-stack-dogma

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday called her criticism of National Football League player Colin Kaepernick “inappropriately dismissive and harsh” and said she should not have commented on his protest against racism and police brutality in the United States.

    Ginsburg, a liberal justice, told Yahoo News on Monday that Kaepernick was “dumb and disrespectful” for refusing to stand during the national anthem before games.

    “Barely aware of the incident or its purpose, my comments were inappropriately dismissive and harsh. I should have declined to respond,” Ginsburg said in her statement on Friday.

    She actually called it right, she just underestimated the juvenile team-hissy-fit her acolytes would have

    1. Scalia would of backed dat ol’ ass up, like he did many of times in the past.

    2. Well, I think your gloss there is a little harsh. Towing the lion would have been to call Kaepernick an American hero and wax poetic about how protesting the national anthem while signaling to the world your support of Fidel Castro is the most patriotic thing you can do. Instead she just said she shouldn’t have said anything, which is an answer I can respect.

    3. A ninety year old judge, with one foot in the grave, giving a shit about the prog hive’s opinion says a lot about the mentality of lefties.

  37. AWESOME

    NYT actually gets a epic headline out of the boring Trump-pussy-grabbing stories

    Trump Assails His Accusers as Liars, and Unattractive

    “I would never grab that pussy. Just look at her, she’s a hag. I wouldnt let my caddy grab that pussy””

  38. Now I know you folks have been hearing things about Robby. I’m just here to say that there was absolutely no evidence that Robby Soave RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990. People should stop saying that ROBBY SOAVE RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990 because saying that ROBBY SOAVE RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990 is slander to his good name.

    1. Actually I’m legitimately not sure if Robby was even alive in 1990 in order to RAPE AND KILL THE GIRL he obviously did not.

      1. Some say he was sexually involved with several sheep back in the 00s. But those reports are unconfirmed.

        1. Until the sheep come forward, preferably all within a week or so, we really can’t know.

          1. They can’t pull the wool over our eyes.

            1. *narrows gaze and grins sheepishly*

              1. That is commenter appropriation and we won’t have that here sir.

                I say good day to you !

                1. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, no?

        2. Is that what he means when he says warm woolen mittens are his favorite things?

        3. Some say he was sexually involved with several sheep back in the 00s. But those reports are unconfirmed.

          I’m reminded of a litigious attorney from awhile back.

      2. I already outed him as a Breibart writer (one of the several people pretending to be Milo), so you’ll have to do better.

      3. Robby’s never had anerection, so we know that story is false.

  39. NYT Provides Handy Reference Information – may prove to be valuable over next 4 years

    How To Tell When a Bitch is Lying

    1. Her lips are moving?

      Her eyes are wandering?

    1. One thing that’s usually overlooked is that Chicago style thin crust is also superior to NY pizza.

  40. Remember when I promised to post a link to a cover band playing Bob Dylan?

    And you perhaps hoped I would forget to do it?

    Well, here it is.

  41. Next on Eddie’s Cover Countdown, a scantily-clad woman covers Guns & Roses.

    1. Was hoping for hot angry lesbian covering “I used to Love Her (But I had to Kill Her)”

  42. Next up – someone took the song “Pretty Fly for a White Guy” and made it whiter.

  43. And that’s about it for the covers, I guess.

  44. Whoa… we’re about to cross the streams here… Coen brothers are writing a movie about Ross Ulbricht.

    Get your woodchippers ready.

    1. That’s genuinely weird.

    2. The story, with its labyrinthine twists, was once described as Coen brothers-esque for its similarities to Fargo.

      Well yeah, with the dirty Feds and all. Hey, a movie that shows the true story could help reduce his sentence.

      That being said, I would like to audition for the Nick Gillespie and/or Agamemnon roles.

      1. Careful there. Many men have worn the Jacket, though few have lived to tell the tale.

      2. The Jacket will be playing Nick Gillespie.

    3. Somehow, I don’t think this will help Ulbrichts prospects for a new trial or at a new trial. Like that Vice article about him, replete with illustrations and animations of Ulbricht looking like Jesse Pinkman on a meth bender with murder in his eyes.

      1. “The Coen Brothers did a movie about my case, that will get me some public sympathy!”

        /nobody as far as I know

  45. More victims.. again… perhaps it’s been asked before… perhaps it’s been answered… Is there a term to describe the folk that come out after a any and scandals who show up years later and say ” ME TOO!”

    1. Any and all scandals… stupid drunk thumbs.

  46. Dicks out for Ed McMuffin

  47. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

    1. there computer? you don’t say!

  48. 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.