Election 2016

Reason Podcasts are a "counterweight to the echo chamber of conservative or liberal media"

Subscribe now for in-depth conversations with Penn Jillette, Gary Johnson, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and more.

|

The Reason podcast is back and it's better than ever! Check out our latest offerings of high-quality, cutting-edge discussions of politics, culture, and ideas from a principled libertarian POV. We make no apologies, take no prisoners, and leave no sacred cow safe in making the case for a world of "Free Minds and Free Markets." Best of all, we have fun doing it.

Subscribe for free at iTunes, Soundcloud or via RSS—we deliver the goods however you prefer.

Here's "conservatarian" novelist Brad Thor, for instance, talking about his latest best-seller Scot Harvath thriller, Foreign Agent and explaining why he's #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary, hates the alt-right, and is totally certain that he's "gonna wake up on November 9th with most of the country and we're gonna have a shitty president either way."

Other recent podcasts have featured Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson, spirited debates about Bob Dylan's politics and Nobel Prize, Instapundit Glenn Reynolds on getting suspended from Twitter, and Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne on the promise of bitcoin and blockchain technology to change the world.

Reason's mission is to bring a principled, persuasive, and attractive libertarian perspective to politics, culture, and ideas. We reach other folks in the media, policymakers, and business folks, providing better ways of thinking about government, defending innovation so it doesn't get strangled in regulatory red tape, and making the case for maximum freedom in all aspects of our lives. We're your voice in national debates and our award-winning reporting on everything from electoral politics to technological innovation to endlessly creative "experiments in living" helps to create the next generation of libertarians (I know encountering Reason in high school is why I'm a libertarian). We are champions of "Free Minds and Free Markets" and we're also constantly checking our own premises and working to revise, refine, sharpen, and help define what it means to be a libertarian.

So subscribe at iTunes, Soundcloud or via RSS and listen, watch, review, and rate!

Here's what new subscribers are saying about the Reason Podcast:

Never before have libertarian ideas and sensibilities been more widespread and influential—and never before have they been more needed to create a robust new operating system for a 21st century that is stuck in old, worn-out "binary choices" that make no sense in a world of inexhaustible possibilities.

Reason is hosting the conversation that susses out exactly what's wrong with contemporary politics and culture and how we can set them right by opening up everyone's possibilities to engage and influence the world around them. Here's one more taste of the podcast, this one featuring Reason magazine Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward, Weekly Standard writer Andrew Ferguson, and me talking about Trump vs. Hillary, why free speech defines American exceptionalism in many ways, and why Tom Wolfe is one goddamned great writer. Take a listen:

Don't miss a podcast! Subscribe at iTunes, Soundcloud or via RSS and listen, watch, review, and rate!

NEXT: Was it legal for the FBI to expand the Weiner email search to target Hillary Clinton's emails?

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. Wow, it’s really weird how all of those 5 star reviews use one of my troll handles that I… never mind.

    1. It’s just a pox on both houses man. Let’s talk about something cool like Lou Reed

      Signed
      The Jacket

  2. “Never before have libertarian ideas and sensibilities been more widespread and influential”

    What country is that happening in? I’m moving there.

    1. Liechtenstein, where the prince has granted every village the right of secession. The prince wanted to grant the right to every individual, but the parliament said no.

    2. “The Libertarian Case for that Shitty Lou Reed/Metallica Joint”

  3. Ooh, a new thread!

    Will you do a podcast on James O’Keefe?

    1. That’ hate speech right there, mister!

      1. What do think this is? ‘The Love Shack’?

        1. Reason could just change their name to Hate Shack.

          1. Hate, exciting and new
            Come aboard, we’re expecting you!

          2. Hillareason!

  4. OT – copied from the previous thread

    Researchers use software to find out what makes a book a bestseller.

    It turns out that the formula for a bestseller is to write about how more choices can mprove our lives and our politics, or about the successes of the libertarian legal movement.

    Ha ha, sorry Reason staff, I was only kidding. Here’s what one of the researchers said:

    “I’ll tell you what those features are, but first I’ll give you my caveat [blah blah blah]…

    “What we found is that bestsellers tend to have three dominant topics…. [The first] topic we called human closeness. It’s different from sexual closeness, which is a topic that the machine told us is not a bestselling topic. Sex did not sell, despite “Fifty Shades of Grey”, which is an outlier. But this topic of human closeness is much more about sort of connected interpersonal relationships.

    “When we study character ? we found that bestselling characters are engaged in actions ? less passive, more active.

    “And what we what we’ve discovered in the style chapter is that bestselling authors have a style that’s a bit more colloquial, a bit more in the language of a common person….”

    The book which best met the formula was The Collected Poems of Agile Cyborg…just kidding, it was *The Circle* by Dave Eggers.

    1. Human closeness, active, colloquial. That ought to rule out all those learned disquisitions on animal psychology, but little else.

    2. The New Yorker has a longer analysis.

      “”THE BESTSELLER CODE” TELLS US WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW…

      “…Readers, we learn, want a colloquial style, a decisive main character, a fast-moving, rhythmic plot. In a section on topic and theme, Archer and Jockers explain that people like to read books with a small set of central topics, and that it’s good if those topics are familiar and if they contrast with each other in an interesting way…Later in that section, after half a page of dramatic buildup, they identify the topic most predictive of a best-seller: “human closeness and human connection.”…

      “A best-seller code, packaged and licensed to wannabe authors and ambitious/avaricious/or some such publishing houses, could be very useful….It’s appealing to imagine that Archer and Jockers have built an intelligent catalogue of the American reader’s taste and will?a machine reader that would never have an off day, or take a pass on the next John Grisham, or care too much about a fetching head shot, or discriminate by age or race or weight….”

      “Similar attempts to introduce algorithmic judgment have been made in contemporary pop music, a genre where best-selling stylometrics are clearer, are mathematically transcribable, and have been central for some time….”

      1. “Archer and Jockers”

        I read that as Archie and Jughead

    3. Sex did not sell, despite “Fifty Shades of Grey”, which is an outlier.

      Then what the fuck are the Harlequin romance novels doing?

      1. McTavish the Highland chieftain wiped the blood of his Clan McDonald enemies off of his sword and wiped his boots on the paving stones at the threshold of the castle, as Heather had made him promise always to do.

        “Ach, may I be of any help in the kitchen?” McTavish asked as he entered the dining room.

        “No, thank you, honey,” said Heather, “you’ve had an exhausting day, so I fixed something all by myself.”

        There was a blazing fire in the fireplace, so McTavish took off his cloak to reveal his manly, bare chest above his kilt.

        Then he noticed that Heather had come in, bringing a plate of his favorite haggis.

        “Ah, Heather, that looks delicious,” said McTavish. “Come sit on my lap and we can eat this together.”

        “It’s just something I threw together,” Heather said modestly as she set the haggis on McTavish’s table and unloosed her bodice…

        “Ah, there’s one thing I’m hungry for more than haggis,” said McTavish, “and that’s you.”

        1. Dammit! What happens next?!

          1. He fixes the cable?

        2. She chose to “unloosen” her bodice? Did Rick Santorum write this?

      2. Romance is not the same thing as sex.

        1. The fuck you say?

    4. Research grant money well-spent!

      1. And while we’re at it, screw Dave Eggers. I’m sick of hearing about him.

    5. Written in a colloquial style: doesn’t know what “colloquial” means. Reading level is the same as YouTube comment writing level.

      I’ve missed Agile Cyborg been lately. For a little while there he was spewing comments like crazy on some posts and then vanished. Maybe he was short-circuited by the calculated probability that our next President will be highly evil and mostly stupid or mostly evil and highly stupid. Could his organic parts and inorganic parts be in a state of mutual rejection?

      1. Its not his first time to vanish. He’s off tripping through the galaxy. He’ll be back.

        1. I would imagine that he’s probably adrift somewhere near Alpha Centauri re-enacting the spirit world scene from Young Guns.

      2. I just wish he would restrict it to a handful of posts per thread. A little goes a long way.

  5. OT: I think I understand how the Russians could easily get Team Hillary’s e-mail. I haven’t studied the dark arts of hacking, but I imagine that it’s fairly straightforward when the targets are undisciplined, technologically incompetent, and think themselves above the rules regarding data security.

    What I can’t understand is how Putin put Huma’s State Department e-mail on Weiner’s computer.

    1. I’m reminded of the joke about the three retired businessmen, where the punchline has the first one saying to the second, “How do you fake a hurricane?”

    2. Didn’t you know that after the long bromance between Trump and Putin, they’ve merged into one evil entity known as the Trumputin? And now I fear it cannot be stopped.

      1. I like “Putrump” better.

    3. You mean having a gmail account and then never changing the password even after you have been hacked might make it easy to be hacked? But Podesta is a top man!!

      1. But Podesta is a top man!!

        It sounds like he has all the qualifications. “Who’s supposed to be responsible for changing my password!? Where is that guy!?”

    4. I think I understand how the Russians could easily get Team Hillary’s e-mail.

      They got it from her facebook page?

      1. Yeah, yeah, yeah … but how did Putin get Huma’s e-mail on Weiner’s computer?

        But I suppose the question should go even deeper than that … how did Putin manipulate Hillary to do so much stupid shit?

        1. I think Wiener twittered a picture of his junk to Putin with all kinds of state secrets in the background

  6. Was there a sign posted somewhere that said:

    “Wanted: Handle-hoppers who can spout unsupported bullshit and engage in oh-so-edgy critiques of well known commentors. Inquire within.”

    ?

    1. It’s just Tulpa being Tulpa.

  7. The cognitive dissonance over at NYT about Comey reopening the investigation is derptastic. Comey was a non-partisan hero when he didn’t indict Clinton, now he’s an evil Rethuglican, practically the spawn of Satan.

    1. Comey reopening the investigation is

      I think this description needs to stop being used.

      when you say “investigation”, which one do you mean? As noted – there are at least 3 (or more) this stuff is relevant to.

      the “investigation” most people mean was principally on “mishandling of classified information”. That was what Comey pretty much said was a dead-end back in July.

      But even that was never technically “closed“. There’s nothing to “re-open”. The actual question is which investigation is the current material being scrutinized *by* = people concerned about dirt @ the Clinton Foundation, people who think it might provide proof of destruction of subpoena’d documents, or one of the other issues?

      1. Well, my point was about the rank hypocrisy of the NYT commentariat, not the technicality of exactly what Comey’s action should be referred to as.

        1. The NYT comments are a goldmine if you want insight into the self-reinforcing delusions of baby-boomer lefties. beyond that, they’re good for maybe a laugh or two.

          they tend to be longer winded than the WaPo comments, which are just littered with psychotic juvenile partisans sniping and accusing each other of being paid trolls (*which they all probably are)

          One thing i’ll credit the Times with (compared to their peers) is that they used to carefully moderate what they’d publish, such that all the comments would be various versions of the same affirming echo-chamber stuff. they stopped doing that a year or two ago and they do actually have 10-15% sane-people in there now. Which i suppose is a bit like NYC itself.

          the thing which remains slimy about their approach is that they only enable comments on very selected stories – normally ones which allow their readership to vent their partisan spew. Anything that might be more ‘problematic’ for the admin or Clinton? they generally don’t let people comment. e.g. anything FP related, for instance.

          1. They have the worst commentariat on the intertoobz. At least the lefties on Politico and HuffPo keep it to a few words like ‘Rethuglican Kkklown Kkkar!’. At the Times, reading even one comment is painful. Mostly because of what you noted about them being long winded. They can ramble on and on and say nothing and then I’m sure they just sit and gaze at their own post marveling at how intellectual it sounds, when anyone else reading it thinks a chimpanzee must have written it because there are surely no humans that dumb. It’s also a hyper-partisan echo chamber. The entire theme is Democrats good, Republicans bad. They couldn’t think outside the box if their life depended on it.

        2. I think they already had an editorial up within the hour just to assuage the Democratic sheep.

          1. I first read that as “just to sausage the Democratic sheep.”

            1. Weiner is taking care of that.

            2. Sausage the Democrat sheep? That works on so many levels! I’m keeping that one.

      2. Why is Comey being so cagey? Why did he do it this way?

        1. I think the answer is as follows. 1. McCarthy at NRO has pointed out that Comey couldn’t get subpoenas for anything in the investigation in July because DOJ wouldn’t give him a grand jury, hence the immunity to Cheryl Mills and to the guy who did the IT and the destruction of that evidence from their computers as part of the immunity agreements. But they did get subpoenas for Weiner, and he is cooperating which makes it even easier. 2. FBI agents in the email investigation were required to sign non-disclosure forms, more extreme than usual; in Weiner, that was not the case, as DOJ didn’t care about the perv. 3. Everyone below Comey at FBI is totally pissed at both 1 and 2, plus the fact that the #2 at FBI had his wife get a half million in campaign funds from Hillary supporter McAuliffe, which makes everyone look bad. And people in the know were ready to start spilling if he didn’t act, so that kettle was about to blow. 4. Add that to the fact that there now reported to be 650,000 emails, probably including many from Obama and undoubtably showing explicitly how the pay-to-play worked. He had no choice.

        2. Possibly overlapping theories:

          1) Regret over the July decision and all the flak he got for it.

          2) Heading of a mutiny by unhappy agents.

          3) Something really big was discovered, big enough to disqualify Hillary.

          4) Trump somehow got to him.

          1. 5) It’s a sham, designed to cover really bad stuff that otherwise would have come to light.

            1. You’d have to have some amazing double-reverse epicycles to get #5 to work.

  8. Is Michael Weinstein a vampire?

  9. counterweight to the echo chamber of conservative or liberal media”

    They only moan UGH TRUMP 75% of the time instead of 95% of the time. Its like a breath of fresh air!

    1. Trump jokes have achieved the status of ‘George Bush is stupid’ jokes fairly quickly. My completely non-political Canadian mom is now making Trump jokes (she doesn’t like Clinton either, and she’s completely unaware of any of the scandals or corruptions, “she just seems like a bad person”). Really by this point what people say about Trump is way more reflective of them than Trump himself.

      1. My completely non-political Canadian mom

        I totally want one of those.

        re: Trump

        He’s pretty much obviously as boorish/retarded/mendacious as people say he is.

        Its just that once that point has been made, there hasn’t really any new substantial angle pursued.

        The M.O. is to just repeat hysterical exaggerations over and over again, until they’re treated like a popular consensus. If you point this out = “You accuse me of distorting truth!!? YOU MUST BE A TRUMP SUPPORTER”..

        Daring to suggest they need to get a fucking grip is apparently “not cool man”.

        e.g. “*Of course* Trumps “pussy grabbing” comments are a confession of sexual assault!”

        They can’t just be happy with saying, “look at this no-class shitbird and how he talks”.

        No, they have to start insisting that he’s basically the same as a convicted rapist now, and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly an enabler of rape culture too

        its when they cross that line, and insist that their idiotic pearl-clutching is “professional journalism”, and that all their critics must be Aggrieved Partisans that their credibility slides into the same sewer the MSM currently swims in.

        That’s my point about Reason’s ‘self-back-patting’ here. They want to pretend they’re somehow elevated and above the fray, but this cycle has shown that to be complete bunk.

        1. Look, either you condemn the Trumputin in the strongest terms possible, or you’re a Trumpet. It’s that simple.

        2. I was more commenting on the non-political remarks people are making about him now, like he’s become the ultimate cultural scapegoat, even for people with…’issues’. I.E. two days ago I heard a Trump joke from a friend who dropped out of high school and previously had a sexual harassment complaint thrown at him that was dismissed. I mean, really man? You of all people are going to roll into the ‘durr Trump is stupid and disgusting’ discussion?

          But you’re right, Trump can’t just be a thin-skinned and loud-mouthed buffoon, he has to be rapist Hitler 2.0.

          1. Agreed. The whole Trump is “Rapist Hitler 2.0” would be slightly more credible if they hadn’t spent years bleating shamelessly about how Romney (of all fucking people) was a new Pinochet. Their own use of overheated rhetoric (from the people who live by Derrida’s “words = violence” tripe) has come back to bite them in their delicate chafing assholes.

  10. And sometimes a counterweight to libertarianism.

    1. As Reason writers are to the commentariat!

  11. This election season has been rough, but can we take a moment to discuss something that is creepy as fuck?

    Stephen Hawking in his Dr Evil lair for those Jaguar commercials is just too much for me. The freak is scarier than a band of juggaloes on pcp. Seriously, I can’t see how anybody at Jag thinks using him is going to draw in business.

    1. I have a DVR so I don’t see commercials

    2. What’s the theme for that? Driving a Jag makes you as smart as Stephen Hawking?

      1. There are ten million million million million million million million million
        particles in the universe that we can observe
        your momma took the ugly ones
        and put them into one nerd

    3. isn’t Jaguar owned by Tata?

      It may help explain why their ads have gotten a bit ‘odd’.

      I don’t know what their US sales have been like since the takeover (2008), but my wild-guess based on what i’ve seen on the street is that they’ve gotten murdered by BMW/Merc in the 4-door category, and their new F-type launch as done “decent” but isn’t nearly enough. sports cars aren’t that big a category.

      Yeah, this points out that they’ve basically lost 2/3 of their sales in the US over the last decade

    4. Link to commercial

  12. So what happens if the Weiner gets indicted for sexting a minor? Does Hillary pardon him?

    1. Sure, because women who leave their husbands because the man can’t stop being slime are never vindictive. I can totally see Huma begging Hillary to pardon him.

      1. *And* she’s a career political operative. 50% of that job is trying to fuck over anyone who’s ever slighted you the least bit just ensure you cow the rest.

        Weiner’ll be lucky if he doesn’t end up in a CIA blacksite in Turkmenistan.

        1. Huma leaving her Wiener behind is proof that the Hildabeast isn’t human in her lust for power: even her greatest disciple/lesbian loved couldn’t bring herself to follow Her example and stay with a shitbag philanderer husband in order to maintain her perch at the top of the rungs of power.

  13. Where is everyone today? Watching the foozball?

    1. The Googles told me the game want until 630. I was going to go out to Lakewood to watch it. It’s on now, instead. Stupid Googles.

      1. How can you live in denver and not know what time the Broncos play?

        1. They make it difficult: they change the time every week.

          1. Huh? They either play at 1100 or 200. I guess weed is a helluva drug

    2. I only show up on weekdays.

      Or when I’m feeding the baby and missing the World Series.

    3. Was trying to install a new N2O system on my car all jacked up on cocaine. Not going too well. Lit myself on fire twice. So I thought I’d drop by Reason. Guess what? Apparently there’s no reason worthy news on Sundays here. Guess I can see if the neighbor lady needs her pipes cleaned. That’ll burn up all of 4 minutes. Should probably check myself into the Betty Ford clinic. No dumb idea. They’ll just sober me up, and bring me back to the pathetic reality of a Norman Rockwell painting. Video games!!! Fuck ya! I knew something would come to me.
      Thank you all.

      Kirk out-

  14. Hypothesis =

    the Wikileaks material – particularly the DNC emails, and i’ll guess maybe ‘some’ of the subsequent stuff that has come out of the hillary campaign?

    Was not “hacked”. At all.

    Definitely not in the popular conception that has been spread, where some russian agents use their supercomputer skills to crack security barriers and steal precious communications in order to achieve … uh….
    …some…..
    ….purpose….
    ….which is never actually articulated, because that part of the plot is clearly too sophisticated for people in Journalism. If they needed to understand *motive*, why, they’d probably all be writing for television.

    No; my theory is that a very large chunk of the stuff? has come out because there are Bernie people in the DNC who have very chapped-asses over the way they got handled.

    If not “bernie people” specifically, just left-leaning people who think the establishment Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, and aren’t trying to burn Clinton because they want trump to win, but they’re burning the DNC because they want to expose the DC hacks who conspired to undermine the genuinely-progressive movement in the party. Which i suppose is the same as saying, “bernie people”. meh.

    This isn’t that crazy a point. 99% of hacking isn’t super-cyber-fancy stuff. i think they are the outcome of internal politics in the DNC and not “foreign espionage”, which i think is one of the dumbest head-fakes of the century.

    1. Well there is the murdered but not robbed DNC employee to back that theory up.

    2. some russian agents use their supercomputer skills to crack security barriers and steal precious communications in order to achieve …

      the election of Donald Trump who will be Putin’s “puppet” according to Hillary in the 3rd debate.

      1. yes yes, i keep forgetting that Russia are the global boogeyman

        Reason at one point seemed enthusiastic about the idea that we should stop treating Russia like global Bad Guys. Now its a terrible idea, because Trump said it.

        *my memory is that Cathy Young was the resident anti-russian writer, and others were generally more sanguine, pointing out that the leadership were totalitarian dickheads, but that we should stop acting like Russia was a natural enemy of the US. There was a time when it seemed like Russia Today was hosting Matt Welch et al more often than MSNBC, if you recall.

    3. *measures Gilmore’s head for tin foil hat

      I keed i keed. It definitely is more reasonable (drink!) than thinking that Putin is some secret Trump fan.

    4. Interesting idea. And of course all it would have taken is one disaffected Bernie person.

      1. [[cough]] Seth Rich [[cough]].

  15. Bill Weld shilling for Hillary again. He says its inconcievable that the FBI would do this to Clinton.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjiyWMv3Uks
    If he really gave a crap about the Libertarian Party or movement he would be using this time to plug the parties policies like pointing out that this is one of the evils of big government. Or saying, “This is why you should vote for us, Clinton is corrupt and under investigation, the other candidate is crazy and were reasonable, sane and competent people with executive experience. Instead he just shills for Clinton.

    1. Bill Weld is a disgrace but I doubt he’s spouting this stuff without Johnson’s approval. I had made my peace with voting for their ticket even though they aren’t good libertarians but this Clinton shilling has pushed me back into the fuck them all I’m not voting group.

      1. I share your disgust with the top of the LP ticket.

        Johnson/Weld will get my vote even though the candidates do not deserve it, but I cannot fault anybody for casting a vote against Hillary or against Trump in some other way.

        However, many of the down ticket LP candidates do deserve the votes of libertarians. Not only are they the best candidates, in many states some minimum number of votes on downticket races is necessary for the LP to maintain ballot access.

        1. I’m with you. Yes, Johnson is far from perfect, and Weld is a douche. But, they aren’t going to win so they will still get my vote in the hopes of 5% to help out whomever runs next cycle. At this point it’s just about trying to create a third major party.

          And yes, most of the down-ballot candidates in my area are actually the best candidates. I would encourage everyone who can’t vote for Johnson to consider leaving the top of the ticket blank and voting for their local Libertarians.

          1. fuck all that. i will vote LP down ballot if there are any in PA, and i think there are, but i am vote Trump for the lulz and the sweet salty tears if he actually wins.

            1. I also believe Trump would be a benefit for liberty and libertarians, because he would be a huge blow to the GOP establishment, the Democratic establishment, and the media. Libertarians would inevitably have a better chance in the partisan chaos that followed.

              Of course, they’d have to give up on open borders to get anywhere, but if they did that, they would get somewhere. Libertarian nationalism. Jump on the anti-globalist bandwagon and steer it in a more libertarian direction. You read it here first! (Maybe.)

              1. Stefan Molyneux, is that you?

                1. Is that how he describes himself? Or at least a fair summary of his position? Interesting. I’ve seen his name around, but not enough to know exactly where he was coming from.

    2. I didn’t see shilling for Hillary there (though past comments of his were definitely worse in that regard). He’s just being really self important about his DoJ experience is all, IMO. He did make a pitch for the LP at the end.

  16. It started with exhortations to explore my own history when I took a Women’s Studies course. The personal is political became the mantra of the time and, given my surname, I was encouraged, in a parallel fashion, to study Slavic writers instead of the ones I did want to study. That’s when the outward-facing perspective I had taken to my education ? I wanted to absorb as much as I could from other people ? started to feel like dissent.

    That’s because my choice not to put myself at the centre of my own studies set me apart and not always in a good way. I was miffed at many aspects of the Zeitgeist, at what I divined was a hive mind bent on self-absorption. Worse, it made me look aloof; when I turned away from the kind of touchy-feely revelations my more tuned-in friends favoured, I was called arrogant. But for me, education was meant to feel like hard work with occasional bursts of fun; it was not supposed to feel like a long groping session with my own psyche. I didn’t come here to study myself, I remember thinking, confounded by yet another exhortation to do just that.

    Is Canada this rotten with the SJW crap or is it just Montreal?

    1. I tried reading that twice and I still don’t know what is being said.

      1. [my] experience of academic life exceeds 60 years

        I think I found out why.

      2. In short the article is an argument against ‘safe spaces’ culture, suggesting that it’s actively damaging to both the academic environment and the ‘social justice’ arguments of the activists themselves (i.e. they live in bubbles and thus develop poor arguments and assumptions). Then at the end he hilariously suggests that those who use terms like racist to silence their opponents are maligning them and should be charged with hate speech if we’re being consistent.

      3. Reads to me like she’s rebelling against the SJW shit.

    2. [Education] was not supposed to feel like a long groping session with my own psyche. I didn’t come here to study myself…

      That’s pretty good.

    3. Is Canada this rotten with the SJW crap or is it just the academic and political elites?

      Fixed it for you. ‘SJW crap’ is an upper class issue here, outside of the small BLM movement in places in Toronto. Once you get out of that urbanite navel-gazing crowd it fades pretty quickly. In cities no one in Vanier or Montreal North cares. Drive fifteen minutes outside of major cities and you get small, 95% white towns where people have no goddamn idea what you’re talking about. Now sometimes you get young people who start to spew the social justice stuff in these communities, but they quickly feel alienated and end up moving to a more urban location to whine amongst their own kind.

      1. Judging by the formatting, you didn’t fix it well enough. :-p

      2. ‘SJW crap’ is an upper class issue here, outside of the small BLM movement in places in Toronto. Once you get out of that urbanite navel-gazing crowd it fades pretty quickly.

        I think this is true everywhere.

        We get the impression it ‘matters’ because people in the Social-media world give the impression that the shit they care about is somehow important in the real world. And some of the major news media has catered to their perceptions by providing them their own blogs/columns.

        This narrow slice of the internet-media world seems just like the screeching activists on college campuses = a vocal, irritating 5-10% (*and that may be overly generous)

        I think there are multiple mistakes made in both ‘taking them too seriously’ (e.g. Robby style), and dismissing them as entirely irrelevant (a point HM sometimes makes). Maybe the problem is that you can’t do the latter without getting the former to stop.

        Unfortunately, when they get their teeth into the ‘real world’, very bad shit starts to happen. see: NYC law against ‘misuse of pronouns‘, the Trans-toilet-troversy, the expansion of public accommodation concepts to absurd extremes, etc.

        1. Well I also think that (racial) social justice has more of breeding ground in the United States largely due to the whole white-black historical dynamic. Canada just lacks that problem, historically it was always English vs. French and Protestant vs. Catholic. Our historical ‘racial sins’ were towards the Asians and the Indians. Asians don’t get a lot of pull in the social justice debate because they tend to do fairly well in this country. Indians have a larger market, but as the controversy around IdleNoMore showed, because they are largely self-governed it’s very easy to point out massive tribal corruption as a major source of their problems.

          Canada’s social justice breeding ground is largely driven by our national interpretation of ‘multiculturalism’, which is not something that is largely supported amongst the plebs.

          1. Of course, ‘English vs. French and Protestant vs. Catholic’ has bred its own collection of problems, see mandated bilingualism, the historical schools controversies, French nationalism/separatism, the constitution flat-out not having a separation between church and state, etc.

          2. Well I also think that (racial) social justice has more of breeding ground in the United States largely due to the whole white-black historical dynamic.

            True. or, yes, but i’m not sure how influential the SJW bullshit really has anything to do with *genuine* race-issues. The hardcore BLM types really don’t come from the Oberlin whine-set.

            SJW bullshit really comes almost entirely from college-age women. everyone else in the game is sort of for decorative purposes, as far as i can tell. If they obsess about race, i think they do it because they see it as a weapon. People tend to accuse others of stuff that they themselves fear. White chicks are terrified of being called racists = so that’s what they accuse everyone else of.

            “Social justice” is really just a toolbox of weapons that young white women use to demand attention/power/ and jobs.

            That’s just my current back-of-napkin theory of the moment.

            1. “Social justice” is really just a toolbox of weapons that young white women use to demand attention/power/ and jobs.

              Well that’s part of it, and it’s definitely the goal of the more pragmatic ones, but I do think there’s a genuine belief in ‘their way being the correct way’. Of course, that has less to do with some amazing selflessness on their part and more to do with their own ego.

              A lot of it is about narcissistic self-indulgence about how wonderful they are for embracing social justice. It’s an attempt to develop self-esteem through the pronouncement of your moral superiority in comparison to others, not just a power grab or employment plan. Those are just perks to most of them. A hundred years ago they’d be Bible-thumping Prohibitionists.

              1. A lot of it is about narcissistic self-indulgence about how wonderful they are for embracing social justice.

                Eric Hoffer, as always, nailed it =

                “There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless. “

    4. That piece mostly seems to be taking the side of Peterson, and saying that the Canadian Identify-Politics mafia has gone too-far

      the conclusion =

      Allowing one group to use freighted words like homophobe or racist or rapist to tarnish an individual’s reputation without proof violates a principle of fairness that some of us hold dear. If hate-speech is to be expanded in our criminal codes, and in Canada that seems inevitable, I suggest we include the egregious misuse of these accusations too. If we are to take the idea of diversity seriously, we can do no less for those who are falsely maligned.

      instead of starting with her argument, she put it at the end, like most college freshman. Academics often write like their audiences are being forced to listen to them (*its how they deal with students, after all)

  17. “Official: FBI knew for weeks about newly discovered emails”
    […]
    “In February 2013, Abedin signed a routine State Department document under penalty of perjury in which she promised to “turn over all classified or administratively controlled documents and materials” before she left her government job, and promised that she was not retaining copies, “including any diaries, memorandums of conversation or other documents of a personal nature.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..423005.php

    Clinton, of course, never heard of such a thing. Or she ‘forgot’ signing it.

    1. So either Comey shouldn’t have done what he did back in July, or Obama administration officials are trying to throw him under the bus. Or both.

  18. To me, it’s clear that the answer to electing a careful and calculating centrist who probably won’t do much to screw up the record of private sector job growth and relative peace of the Obama years is armed insurrection. I live in California so does anyone know the meetup.com site I should log onto so that I can shoot up the local federal building or abortion clinic? I want to be on the right side of this Glorious Revolution so let me know, fellow freedom lovers.

    1. “Communism Killed 94M in 20th Century, Feels Need to Kill Again”
      […]
      “During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism’s total by only 9 million.”
      https://reason.com/blog/2013/03…..ry#comment

      I guess asswipe figures you can’t be more free if you are dead.

      1. Hunh. That’s real interesting. Maybe you should find a communist to tell this to.

        1. Do you ever get tired of reinventing yourself every few days?

          1. When have I ever claimed I was a communist? Is this about that Yuri Gagarin post or the fact that I think Raoul Castro and Barack Obama deserve congratulations for ending travel embargoes? Jesus Christ, get over it.

            1. I don’t give a shit what you say about yourself. You are un-self-aware and a serial liar.

              What you have done is write paeans to communist regimes. Not just their leaders, but their governments and policies.

              Whether you are pretending right now to be a totally different person or not is irrelevant. You are a communist apologist which is just a redundant way of saying you’re a communist.

              1. What I’ve said is that countries with records that involve invading and occupying Iraq, invading Vietnam, destabilizing popularly elected governments in Central America, detonating two nuclear weapons in a defeated and demoralized country, huge and unnecessary defense budgets may not be the best source when it comes to criticizing the human rights’ agenda of other countries.

                1. Right, the people with true moral authority are those who’ve executed and/or enslaved their populations in the name of stamping out capitalism.

                2. “…detonating two nuclear weapons in a defeated and demoralized country,…”

                  If they were “defeated”, shy didn’t they surrender?
                  Fucking liar.

                  1. And wasn’t “unconditional surrender” Stalin’s idea? Without that, both the European and Pacific wars could have ended much sooner.

                    1. “Unconditional surrender” was driven by FDR

                      Churchill supposedly told an aide it would rally the Axis people and was against the idea of unconditional surrender, but he was not in a good enough a position of strength to argue with Roosevelt.

                    2. But FDR was driven by his aides, which included Soviet sympathizers and agents. I don’t think Stalin objected to the idea, which benefited him in the end.

    2. How many countries are we bombing?

      1. Who are we bombing? I think almost all wars are a racket but the liberation of Mosul– along with the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978– feel more like liberations to me.

        1. “Since 2004, the United States government has attacked thousands of targets in Northwest Pakistan using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Special Activities Division.[12] Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan.”

          Ignorant or mendacious? Or both?
          Both.

          1. I would say neither. I’m not a pacifist so I can, on the one hand, refuse to deploy to Vietnam to shoot up desparately poor villagers AND, at the same time, sign onto the idea of having drones kill Jihadi John.

            1. I’m not a pacifist

              Just a good, old-fashioned liar.

            2. “I would say neither.”

              Presented with clear evidence of your lies, of course you’d say that, since you are both an ignoramus and a habitual liar.
              Fuck off.

              1. At this point, about the only thing you can say amsoc has consistently defended is the greatness of Obama. Every other thing he has said has been contradicted by his own words. But he’ll always have his messianic worship of the great empty suit.

    3. Remember kids, two weeks ago amsoc said he wasn’t a shill for Clinton, the ‘careful and calculating centrist’ who somehow manages to be massively incompetent.

      1. I’m a Leftist, not a centrist. That’s why I’m not voting for her. Does pointing out that the right-wing wants to have a shoot-out with their fellow Americans because they aren’t getting their way count as shilling for you?

        1. “Does pointing out that the right-wing wants to have a shoot-out with their fellow Americans because they aren’t getting their way count as shilling for you?”

          No, lying about that is just your normal insulting bullshit.
          Calling that dishonest hag “a careful and calculating centrist” IS shilling for her.

        2. Hundreds of people are murdered every year in Baltimore, when Freddie Gray died half the pharmacies in the city got torched and looted, the mayor basically told the police to stop protecting people and their property, and… your fantasies about right-wing violence are the most pressing concern.

          Sounds legit.

          1. Mostly, I’m just pointing out how ridiculous these people sound. Although, given recent history and the Tim McVeigh’s, Terry Nichol’s, Eric Rudolphs’, Robert Lewis Dears’, Dylann Roof’s, Jered and Amanda Miller’s, Frazier Miller’s, Eric Frein’s of the world you can’t completely dismiss “wood chipper” comments as just the impotent rage of the right-wing loser.

            1. ridiculous … impotent rage … loser

              Come on, I almost got social signalling bingo here. Surely you can put in a better effort?

        3. Tell me amsoc, who here has offered up apologia for genocide? Who has advocated for forced labour camps for religious minorities they don’t like? Oh, that’s right, the self-proclaimed leftist.

          I get that you are extremely stupid, but rub a couple brain cells together and think for a minute: if you make statements like that, and then suddenly start flipping out about ‘right-wing shootouts’ it just might make you seem a little disingenuous and full of crap.

          1. “Tell me amsoc, who here has offered up apologia for genocide? Who has advocated for forced labour camps for religious minorities they don’t like?”

            Nobody.

            1. Thus you are a liar, for you have made those statements in the past, and now pretend you haven’t. And I’ve explained this to you before, but I’ll do it again:

              We’re not as stupid as you. We actually remember things you’ve previously said.

                1. Did you already forget about your mythical trip to the Cuban utopia, or was that just another one of your casual lies?

                2. Amsoc, you’ve played this game with me before, months ago, when I directly linked to your previous apologia for Soviet massacres. Then you ran away like a bitch. You don’t get a round two after that.

                  The record’s there, people can look for it if they want to, the majority of the people here are already aware of it. I’m not going to waste my time providing evidence to a compulsive liar that they said things they’re denying.

      2. I like how the wanton and egregious corruption Clinton partakes in like normal people breathe just gets brushed aside, too.

        1. I don’t expect amsoc to actually have any insight into the reality of the political sphere, he purely uses his politics as a crutch in the shitty little morality play that goes on in his head. Facts don’t matter, what matters is that he gets narcissistic indulgence for insulting ‘the other’.

          1. But if amsoc didn’t get to act out a self-indulgent morality play in his head, then he wouldn’t have anything at all. Well, except for a house he welched on the mortgage for.

    4. relative peace of the Obama years

      Do you even try any more? Or have you just gotten so deranged at this point that you really believe your own bullshit?

  19. As a Bucs fan since 1976 there’s one defining attribute of this team that I’ve noticed is always there.

    It doesn’t matter who the owner is, who is in the front office, the coaching staff, the stadium, or who the players are: They can always find a way to lose.

    The Raiders set an NFL record for penalties today and they still beat the Bucs.

    The Bucs had the game won with a 4th down stop at the goal at the 2:00 minute mark but an idiotic penalty away from the play gave the Raiders a new set of downs which they used to score and tie the game.

    At the end of the 1st half with 3 TOs and over a minute on the clock the Bucs run out the clock instead of trying a drive. That mentally set up the end game passivity that led to punting twice and giving the Raiders multiple chances in OT.

  20. I’m starting to think Clinton is a Caesar. The day of her inauguration, the enemies will start to gather and plot and
    the Clinton tide will go out as the people in the Democrat party who hate her start to think about 2020. Younger, ambitious Democrats will be freed from being her lap dog and the struggle to mold the future of the Democrat
    party will begin. The Clintons,win or lose, are finished.

    1. The older Clintons are on their way out due to age anyway but to say the Clinton machine is done depends on how well Chelsea and her husband wield the blackmail material and the money.

      1. I think the wiki leaks dump suggests that Chelsea may actually have more ethics than her parents, or at least doesn’t assume that the law doesn’t apply to her. She may lose those inhibitions, or they may be figments of my hallucination.

        1. Chelsea may actually have more ethics than her parents

          Regression to the mean.

    2. Yep.

      I’ve been saying for a while that a Clinton presidency is actually going to end up fracturing the democrats and causing conflict about what factions will inherit leadership once she’s run out of gas.

      The GOP can at least use being in the opposition as a period to restructure themselves. Dems cant really do that and also try and govern.

      That’s assuming Trump doesn’t win. I think much of the same problems apply to the GOP if he wins.

      When the baby boomers finally get the hell out of office, a lot will be up for grabs. This election is in many ways the last gasp of their shitty generation.

      1. When the baby boomers finally get the hell out of office, a lot will be up for grabs. This election is in many ways the last gasp of their shitty generation.

        Yep, as I pointed out earlier this year, this election was the ‘Reign of the Old Fucks’. On average this is the oldest set of candidates in American history, and it shows.

        The Republicans at least have some potential candidates that can push the party forward and reinvigorate it somewhat. Who do the Democrats have? Bernie’s dead or senile in the next couple of years, and I doubt the Democrats would ever let him near the upper ranks. Warren? She’s 67 and out of the picture soon. Booker? Maybe?

        1. Damn, I didn’t realize Warren’s so old. She actually looks good (meaning young) for her age. Must be the injun blood.

          1. Yeah, she does not look her age. She was quite a looker back in the day. No doubt a loon even then though.

        2. The Castro twins who were raised by a La Raza activist single mother ?

          1. Huh. I had thought they were raised in the wild by a wolf.

  21. This summary of the FBI investigations into the Clinton server, Clinton Foundation, and Weiner is informative and interesting. Nothing revolutionary, but it captures the what seems to be legit tension between wanting to investigate the cases fully while not seeming political. Or, if you are so inclined, it shows the desire of investigators to be more proactive and more politically-connected managers to back off. Or, if you are inclined the other way, it shows that lower-level investigators are unfairly pursuing a case that more disinterested managers think have no merit. Politics is fun because the same facts can be interpreted in so many ways!

    Either way it raises an interesting question: Should law enforcement change their behavior in any way when investigating a candidate running for office? On one hand we have equality before the law (supposedly), which would argue for absolutely not. And yet I do think there is legitimate reason to worry about partisan LEOs trying to influence elections through insinuation and potentially bogus investigations (a form of “the process is the punishment” – not saying that is happening here, but it could be, and it applies more generally regardless).

    1. Wouldn’t “trying to influence elections through insinuation and potentially bogus investigations” be a “change [of] behavior […] when investigating a candidate running for office?”

      It seems like you’re setting up a false association here, between the fair and equal enforcement of the law and the use of insinuation and procedural hurdles to affect a political outcome.

      1. It’s often difficult to tell the difference through all of the noise.

      2. That’s a good point. But let’s take the current situation. It sounds like the FBI really has no idea what is in these emails yet. Should Comey have gone public? Let’s compare a hypothetical low level staffer that no one has ever heard of but was/is under investigation for the same things as Clinton. Ignore for the moment the likelihood that such a person would already be in jail.

        1. If this was a Heffalump they’d be screaming too. Comey fucked up in July. He had Hildog dead on obstruction and espionage. And he blew his wad on his pants.

    2. remind me of the trick to read WSJ articles again? paste the URL in google?

      Ah. yes. that works.

      1. Doesn’t work for me

        1. Terri the headline instead of the URL

          1. Sigh. “Try”

            1. Worked, Thanks:)

        2. incognito mode ?

          1. That’s for porn

            1. Just the porn you don’t want to show up in your history

        3. What i was told (and which just worked) was copy-paste the URL into Google, then click the first link that pops up

          i forget why it works. there’s a ‘free trial’ version URL always out there, and it happens to default to the first result? idk. I get the paper version of the WSJ during the week and never go to their site.

          1. Real clear politics links to the Google search rather than to the article. I’m not sure why i it works, either, but it does.

          2. What I do is paste the first paragraph into Google. That usually pulls up a link to the whole article that’s not behind a firewall.

    3. Good piece. it clears a lot of stuff up.

      one thing i’ve taken from this is, “FBI sources talk to the WSJ” and definitely not CNN

  22. In the 8 or so elections I’ve participated in I’ve known for whom I was going to vote for months. I feel like in this one I’ll probably make up my mind in the booth.

    On the one hand, shouldn’t you vote for the candidate that most clearly expresses your values? That would be these guys… http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/

    On the other, can you really cast a vote that might get Donald Trump elected? In a world filled with decisions that require shades-of-grey reasoning is voting for an ideologically committed socialist who hates wars of all kinds just evidence that one has become an inflexible ideologue unwilling to make a hard call?

    I’m honestly conflicted.

    1. So, the answer is: yes, you really do believe your own bullshit.

    2. Just vote for the treasonous crook who sold the influence of her office for money like you plan on doing anyway and STF up about your fake inner turmoil.

      You neither impress nor fool anyone here troll.

      Don’t go away mad dude , just go away with your phony bullshit.

      1. Plus he said upthread that he is from California. Doesn’t matter a hoot in hell who you vote for in that state.

        1. Interesting that even in the “safe” state of CA, she’s polling at about 54%. Not much of a landslide, even here.

  23. Is this something of a spite podcast? Came back after Welch & Co. started up 5th column?

  24. Precious snowflakes get jobs.

    http://www.toddstarnes.com/col…..r-feelings

    1. “Well, boo-hoo and bless their hearts (as we say back in the South).”

      In case anyone isnt aware – ‘Bless your heart’ is code for ‘Fuck you’.

      This is how cowards operate. When they think they have the upper hand they attack, when the tables turn they beg and plead and play on sympathies. Seriously, fuck these guys. This only makes me want to step things up. Also, isnt it time for that pussy hack Wolf to retire?

      1. The sad thing about Wolf is that he actually seems oblivious to his obvious bias.

        1. It isnt that he is oblivious. I think, like Clinton and her criminality, 90% of the press doesn’t care. They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore. Charles Kuralt waited until he retired to admit it. With the current crop they are so certain they are right, actually believing their own bullshit, they flaunt it.

    2. “CNN’s Wolf Blizter unloaded on Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager — demanding that they stop heckling journalists.”

      Umm, no, Woflie Poo, the heckling shall continue unabated. Put on your big girl panties and grow a pair.

  25. “The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo…..ime-family

    1. 7,800 comments – WTF? You can actually sit there and watch the number go up.

    2. That’s exactly what it is. The Arkansas hillbilly white trash mafia. How low we have sunk.

      1. Easy Hyperion. I’m an Arkansan and my state is actually pretty great. At least where i live. I apologize from the depths of my heart for Slick Wllie. As a collective, yes we produced him. We had nothing to do with creating Hillary though. Don’t put that bad juju on us.

        signed, Lachowsky. The only Libertarian in arkansas. (that I know of)

        1. Oh, well shit, you’re forgiven. I live in the great Soviet Socialist Republic of Murland. There’s 3 known libertarians here and I think one is a commie plant. Also, there’s probably more rednecks in Glen Burnie and Pasadena than there is in all of Arkansas.

        2. For the record, there may not be many Libertarians in Arkansas, but there are a lot of libertarians in the north central part of the state. (I grew up there myself. Unfortunately, economics interfered and I moved to Indianapolis).

  26. While investigating Mr. Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged messages to a minor, they . . . recovered a laptop with 650,000 emails. Many, they said, were from the accounts of Ms. Abedin, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Those emails stretched back years, these people said, and were on a laptop that hadn’t previously come up in the Clinton email probe. Ms. Abedin said in late August that the couple were separating.

    The FBI had searched the computer while looking for child pornography, people familiar with the matter said, but the warrant they used didn’t give them authority to search for matters related to Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement at the State Department”.

    —-Wall Street Journal

    http://tinyurl.com/z75nrgr

    So what would you rather talk about, Mrs. Clinton? Your outrageous and ridiculous email server, or how there was enough evidence to get a judge to issue a search warrant to look for child pornography on one of your cronies’ laptops?

    Mrs. Clinton, are any of your other cronies under investigation for child pornography, or is he the only one?

    P.S. Has the FBI searched Hillary’s email server for child pornography?

    1. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but you still have to go to a judge for a search warrant in this country, right?

      And if the search warrant in question limited them to only looking for child pornography, that means a judge issued a warrant to search for child pornography–because he or she thought there was probable cause.

      Amirite?

    2. Donald Trump should have raped children instead of grabbing women by the pussy. Clinton would have defended him then.

  27. Wade Philips is doing to be OK. That’s good. Maybe all the… ahem… more mature staff should be wear pads, or have blockers, or something

    1. He got hit pretty bad, glad hell be alright

  28. Ok, first, Raaaaiiiderrrrzzzz!

    Ok, now that I got that over with, there’s this little tidbit.

    The adventure of the Hilldawg continues…

    I really love this, from a Hillary supporter:

    “”I’m livid, actually. . . .This has turned into malpractice. It’s an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn’t and now we’re all paying the price.””

    Yes, because there’s no way she could have known better herself. Someone else must be to blame. Like a toddler, someone had to tell her no. Bullthit, she knows better, it’s just that sociopaths who are professional criminals cannot control their own behavior. It’s what she’s always been and always will be.

    1. the WSJ piece clarifies that the FBI always had something like 3 separate investigations into clinton-related stuff ongoing.

      The media (with the help of the DoJ) was coaxed into the narrative that the “Mishandling of classified intel” was the beginning and end of it. And that’s what the average person thinks. But it always entailed people looking into potential graft @ Clinton Foundation, whether there was intentional destruction of evidence re: Benghazi, and so on.

      The real upset here re: Comey telling congress about the previously-unknown email stash is not that the stash is hiding any super-secret evidence that is ever going to result in any significant prosecution (*it could, but unlikely); the bombshell is that the very-carefully orchestrated narrative that the DoJ built was completely blown apart, because it exposed that there was never any ‘closure’ to the matter at all, and that there are many strings of Clinton corruption, not just one question of ‘mishandling’ stuff.

      The other thing that’s interesting about this stash of emails is that the DoJ/FBI very carefully immunized witnesses and isolated evidence such that it couldn’t be used in any of the other Clinton-related investigations. Basically, by ending the ‘mishandling’ case, the tried handicapping others in the process.

      This trove, however, was completely unprotected by all their maneuvering, and is basically virgin-territory for any prosecutor.

      thats what i got from the WSJ piece, at least

      1. We’re talking about Anthony Weiner’s laptop?

        “EXCLUSIVE: Anthony Weiner carried on a months-long online sexual relationship with a troubled 15-year-old girl telling her she made him ‘hard,’ asking her to dress up in ‘school-girl’ outfits and pressing her to engage in ‘rape fantasies'”

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z4Ku1mvPVL

        Satan only knows what’s on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. He could have sent Hillary anything!

        1. You seem a tad fixated on Weiner and his sexting thing.

          no one gives a shit about him and his dick-pics. people are far more interested in the fact that he happened to hand over lots of un-screened mail between huma & clinton to FBI investigators.

          but since you bring him up… something tells me that the Clinton crime-family is going to Fredo-him ASAP

          1. “No one gives a shit about him and his dick-pics. people are far more interested in the fact that he happened to hand over lots of un-screened mail between huma & clinton to FBI investigators.”

            Do we live in the same country?

            1. Must be /sarc

          2. “You seem a tad fixated on Weiner and his sexting thing.”

            I’m interested in the election thing.

            And, yeah, the fact that Hillary can’t talk too much about this without talking about how her cronies are under investigation for sexting with a 15 year-old girl is relevant to that.

            Hillary isn’t going to prison for any of this.

            This whole story is primarily important because of how it effects the election.

            Its secondary importance is how well it hobbles public opinion of Hillary after she wins.

            So, yeah, let’s talk about how Hillary’s emails ended up on a laptop the the FBI was checking for child pornography. In this way, the lowest 12% of the people on the IQ bell curve make their choices.

            1. the fact that Hillary can’t talk too much about this without talking about how her cronies are under investigation for sexting with a 15 year-old girl is relevant to that.

              I do think its sort of hilarious that nearly everyone involved in this election is married to a sex-criminal of some kind.

              I just don’t think the weiner news is news to anybody. he was so a few-years-ago.

              1. I think it’s brand new in its connection to Hillary in most people’s minds.

              2. I do think its sort of hilarious that nearly everyone involved in this election is married to a sex-criminal of some kind.

                No, not Melania too! I thought she was the only innocent in this election. Turns out she’s a rapist of some sort as well.

                1. 🙂 I was considering Trump the sex-criminal in that pairing. Robby told me he was a confessed serial groper, and that was affirmed by accusations made by former pornstars, which seems to me a pretty solid-gold-case.

                  I can’t begin to imagine the depth of perversion that must go on at the VP level. Or maybe they simply aspire to Clinton-esque levels of depravity. “One day i too shall fly to pedo-island with my billionaire cronies

          3. “hand over lots of un-screened mail between huma & clinton to FBI investigators”

            Yeah, man, who knows what’s there? Probably Hillary set Weiner up with his 15 yo girlfriend knowing what we know about the Clinton Family Crime Syndicate. As soon as the FBI reads those emails it’s sure to come out… I mean literally ANYTHING could be there.

            1. In all fairness, Chelsea Clinton seems to have been the one worried about the family crime syndicate.

              http://tinyurl.com/hcl5zlt

        2. He probably sent her pics of his junk.

          1. Reply All is a bitch.

      2. I’ve been posting here and other places on the intertoobz that the problem is the damn server and explaining why. I mean, for sure, that’s hardly the only problem with Hillary, but as far as the emails are concerned, the problem has always been the server. You don’t setup your own email server for official .gov business. In fact, you don’t do it in any organization. And where the fuck are the federally mandated backups? Doing such shady things like that, if somehow, amazingly, you are allowed to get away with it, will get you in a jail cell for breaking federal information retention laws. It’s sad how dumb the general public are.

        1. Too bad there isn’t a non echo chamber website that would be willing to pound this point home

          1. It’s been pounded. For months IT professionals posting on WaPo explained all of this, in great detail. You can’t educate people who don’t want to be educated. “Everyone uses 2 emails!” and other shit like that from brain dead cretins, it’s sickening. Most of them do not know the difference between an email server and an email address.

            1. I think you missed my stupid joke.

    1. Canned sammich. Yummy.

    1. Why the fuck did I click that? My gawd Weiner is one goofy mofo.

  29. OT, in other news that I’m sure everyone cares about, my pizza stone cracked into pieces this afternoon, and now the biggest piece is shaped like Texas. Weird. I use it on the grill, it’s the best thing since outdoor grills, or something like that. I’m looking at buying one that is granite. They also have one at Bed Bath and Beyond that is ceramic but really thick, made especially for using on gas grills. Best stuff I’ve ever cooked on the grill was on that pizza stone.

    1. Looks like Texas? Hmm. I guess that’s better than looking like Mary.

    2. (pours 40 on the ground)

      1. “WASHINGTON, DC?At a moving Rose Garden ceremony Monday, President Clinton poured a 40-ounce bottle of King Cobra malt liquor on the ground in honor of his dead homies. “Ron Brown, Vince Foster, James McDougal… y’all be my niggaz, and I will mourn you until I join you,” Clinton said. “And to all my other policy advisors, cabinet members and business partners who didn’t make it, I will see you at tha crossroads.” Clinton then kissed two of his fingertips and extended them outward in a peace gesture.”

    3. The only time I have enjoyed food cooked on a gas grill is when I put some charcoal on the burners and turn the fire as low as possible to give the food flavor.

      1. Just cook the food on a stone with olive oil. That’s the ticket.

    4. I think unglazed tile from Home Depot will work.

      1. Is this proven by experiment? What I’ve been hearing is that granite is the ultimate cooking stone.

  30. “Reason’s mission is to bring a principled, per…”

    Tits!

      1. That’s not nice.

      2. At least they’re clothed, unlike Weiner’s tits.

  31. Shit’s all fucked up. The Republican nominee is running around a stage with a gay pride flag, and the Democratic nominee is a neocon.
    And Harry Reid is threatening to jail Comey.

    This is a great time for those of us who want the whole thing blown up.

    1. Interesting about Reid.

      http://www.nytimes.com/interac……html?_r=0

      Okay then. Here’s my question. That he penned this are we to conclude Democrats actually believe in what they say and if so, is there any reason to believe it’s accurate on any level? I mean, why would he (contemptible a man he may be) waste his time?

      1. And does he actually have the power/authority to jail the head of the FBI?

        1. Jail him for what? Doing his job that he failed to do first go round?

        2. Theoretically they could find Comey in contempt of Congress, but Reid can’t do that alone, and I don’t think that’s an automatic jailing.

          1. When’t the last time a Senator, Congressman, or President went to prison?

              1. I forgot about that.

        1. That’s some seriously dangerous undermining of our faith in the integrity of our political institutions by the GOP, isn’t it? Not like the speaking-truth-to-power criticisms of the left.

        2. Does this Hatch act of which you speak apply to the IRS as well ?

      2. “Interesting about Reid.”

        Scooped AGAIN!

    2. A Clinton is running for president. We’re fighting in Mosul. And Republicans AND Democrats are warning us about Russia. WHAT YEAR IS THIS, ANYWAY?????????

      1. Which calendar are you using?

        1. One of the Mayan ones apparently. The one that ends with SMOD.

    3. The Republican nominee is running around a stage with a gay pride flag

      Wait- what?

      1. He was prancing around the stage with one of those big rainbow flags. There must be a pic somewhere

        1. I tried googling it but the only results were about some fag-hating pro-Trump bumper sticker.

      2. I missed that, but Peter Thiel got a standing ovation at the convention, which is astounding in itself.

    4. And Harry Reid is threatening to jail Comey.

      But, the media told me threatening to jail people is what third world dictators do.

      1. They aren’t wrong.

  32. How ’bout them pats?

    1. Well, they’re always good, until they need to pull out a tuck rule. /snark

      1. Ha. There were some good games today.

        1. Lots of last minute finishes.

          The NFL is saving the best for last though.

          It’s gonna be interesting and entertaining but another solid victory for the Cowboys in the end.

          Go Zeke ! ( cheering against my own FF team )

          1. Its also been a good year for fresh qbs. Except Kessler, i suppose. He’s doing well, but the Browns cant finish.

            1. Well, it is the Browns….

            2. Meanwhile the #1 pick can’t get on the field because he has trouble taking snaps from under center and can be knocked down by a weak breeze.

              1. With no evidence, it seems like top 5 picks are very hit or miss

          2. Yeah, Derek Carr 500+ yards passing. If the Raiders had a defense, they’d win the SB this year.

            1. It’ll take another year or 2 to recover from the senile al Davis years. I still laugh over the Darius Heyward Bay pick. (No I’m not looking up the real spelling)

              1. I think they’ve pretty much made up for it with Amari Cooper, Michael Crabtree, and Seth Roberts.

    2. Hey, the ‘9ers didn’t lose today.

      1. They’re doing great!1

      2. Did Kaepernick take a knee at home do you suppose?

        1. Arrow to the knee?

        2. He needs to eat a cheeseburger already and dump the sjw chick and probably get a haircut

          1. get a haircut

            racist

  33. “Reid says Comey ‘may have broken the law’ by disclosing new Clinton-related emails”
    […]
    “Reid, D-Nev., said in a letter sent to Comey that his disclosure to Congress, made 11 days before the election, might have violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan politicking by government employees.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics…..423744.php

    You can tell the guy holds advanced degrees in straw-grasping.

    1. Senator Reid. Proof that Nevada voters are drunk even on election day.

    2. advanced degrees in straw-grasping.

      I was actually thinking that what he’s doing is technically “Jawboning
      (*and which is something that may actually be offered as a masters degree somewhere, “Advanced Political Media-Relations”)

      Does anyone even use that term outside finance? Its always variously used between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ versions, where hard-jawboning is actually direct-threat of regulation, while soft-jawboning is more like “vee haff vays of mayking u do as vee say, herr schmidt

      1. “Does anyone even use that term outside finance?”

        It was used often during the Nixon terms; he ‘jawboned’ the NAM to fix prices on their own. After they laughed in his face, he did it by law.
        But I’m not seeing this as ‘jawboning’; I don’t think Reid has the slightest dream that this would convince anyone. He’s just grabbing at anything possible to keep the hag from being indicted.

        1. But I’m not seeing this as ‘jawboning’

          Anytime politicians feed the press a line of attack, saying “why not speculate that THIS might be the outcome”…

          …that’s classic media-jawboning.

          You know and i know that there’s not an icicles chance in hell of the Hatch Act ever being applied, but it doesn’t matter. He doesn’t need to convince anyone. He just needs to get the idea into circulation so that it becomes accepted-wisdom. the point of jawboning is not to wage war in the world of facts and reason, but in the world of perception and popular opinion.

          The shoot-the-messenger tactic with “blaming Russia” for DNC corruption has worked out great. Why not just say, “Comey is the bad-guy now” and claim he always had it in for her (actual facts be damned). Will it be effective? Hardly, i think. But they’ll do it anyway. Why not?

        2. But i think you make a decent point re: its political use.

          In both finance and politics, it basically means, “threatening political action to see if you can compel results without doing shit”

          In this case, there’s no real plausible threat at all, so it can’t be that. But in the softer version of the idea, its basically “any veiled threat” at all, saying, “We can do this the Hard Way, you know” even if there is no real likelihood of that at all.

    3. Remember when Reid produced iron-clad proof that Mitt Romney skipped on paying taxes? Good times, good times.

    4. But did he say “I know a guy who knows…” I mean without those magic words, Harry’s got no power.

  34. So Huma was covering her ass?

    1. I’ve always had a thing for huma. I recently watched Weiner just on the off chance that she’d be in a shower scene or something.
      But what does it say about her that the 2 people she’s chosen to spend her life with are Weiner and Hillary?

      1. Could Weiner or Hillary be successful in anything other than politics?

      2. That her judgment is so poor that you might actually have a chance?

  35. From the NYTimes:

    “The F.B.I. offered no comment, and Justice Department officials said they had no idea what Mr. Comey saw as his next move. Justice Department officials were particularly puzzled about why Mr. Comey had alerted Congress ? and by extension, the public ? before agents even began reading the newly discovered emails to determine whether they contained classified information or added new facts to the case.

    Law enforcement officials have begun the process to get court authority to read the emails, officials said. How soon they will get that is unclear, but there is no chance that the review will be completed before Election Day, several law enforcement officials said. Many of the emails are most likely copies of messages that the F.B.I. has already read, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.”

    So, not only does the FBI have no idea what’s in these emails, they haven’t even gotten a warrant to read them. Obama should show this guy the door pronto. He’s got a guaranteed job at Infowars.com where he can tell us about the very important implications of the Clinton emails and how Obama treated him bad.

    1. “The F.B.I. offered no comment, and Justice Department officials

      In other words, Obama lackeys.

      said they had no idea what Mr. Comey saw as his next move. Justice Department officials were particularly puzzled about why Mr. Comey had alerted Congress ? and by extension, the public ? before agents even began reading the newly discovered emails to determine whether they contained classified information or added new facts to the case.

      Hillary didn’t care whether the emails contained classified material.

      1. What kind of prosecutor describes evidence that he hasn’t seen as “pertinent?” He’s a hack. He has a great future ahead of him at Breitbart or doing Project Veritas videos.

        1. Yeah, sure, he’s a hack. When he let Hillary off the hook, he was a non-partisan guy, but now he’s a hack. Bloop Boink Blop Derp!

        2. “…He has a great future ahead of him at Breitbart or doing Project Veritas videos…”

          We have it in asswipe’s own words that he’s not shilling for the hag.

        3. Well Huma swore under oath that she had turned over all relevant computers possibly containing any work related emails. She apparently “forgot” about one of the ones she used at home. So there is a case to be made Huma committed perjury. Huma and her lawyers would have to tap dance pretty fast to get out of this one, not to say they can’t.

          But of course Democrats don’t care about other Democrats committing perjury.

          1. “She apparently “forgot” about one of the ones she used at home. So there is a case to be made Huma committed perjury. Huma and her lawyers would have to tap dance pretty fast to get out of this one, not to say they can’t.”

            Interesting how D women have such pathetic memories, don’t you think? I mean, what happens if a CinC sort of ‘forgets’ where the button is?

          2. This is how Martha Stewart wound up in prison.

        4. Weren’t you singing the praises of Comey not long ago when he made that lame attempt to give Cankles a pass?

          I don’t think you have much cred here AmSoc. By not much I mean none whatsoever. You are like that guy everyone has seen walking down the sidewalk waving his arms and spewing gibberish at some invisible person.

    2. “So, not only does the FBI have no idea what’s in these emails”

      Yes, because there’s no possible way that the FBI knows something that AmSoc doesn’t know. /derp

    3. I don’t really understand him alerting Congress that a closed investigation Congress was investigating the closing of might not be quite so closed after all. His official explanation had something to do with “transparency” but nobody in DC or at the NYT knows what the hell that word means or if it’s really even a word. Comey suggested that if he didn’t give Congress a head’s-up, there would be lots of speculation as to what the hell the FBI was up to when somebody inevitably found out about the warrant to examine Huma’s laptop – but all of that would have come out after the election and it would be Republicans bitching about the lack of transparency and who gives a shit what the GOP whines about? It’s not like they’re going to do anything about it. The Democrats, on the other hand, Do Things to you if you fuck with them.

      1. “…there would be lots of speculation as to what the hell the FBI was up to when somebody inevitably found out about the warrant to examine Huma’s laptop – but all of that would have come out after the election…”

        There is some speculation that he notified congress since someone else was going to leak it now.

        1. I can see your point. Trumpian yokels would have went bananas and probably burned his house down with him in it if it was revealed that the FBI had not read every single email composed by HRC FROM 1989-present. He was in a tough spot.

          1. Yep, given all possible responses, asswipe comes up with one which should embarrass an ape at a keyboard.

            1. And who the had email in 1989? Some academics used bulletin boards, but hell, even Al Gore didn’t have email, and he invented the internet.

              1. So a random ape would be embarrassed and asswipe is like ‘whatevs’.?

    4. “Obama should show this guy the door pronto.”

      Aw aren’t you cute ? Exposing your ignorance like that for all to see.

      Do you know what I’m referring to AmSoc ?

      Obviously not. I’ll let you stew in your own juice for now.

      Maybe some one else here will point out your ignorance but it won’t be me for now.

      Here is a hint though.

      Pull Obama’s dick out of your mouth you wanna be communist strong man dick sucker.

      1. “”Obama should show this guy the door pronto.”

        Aw aren’t you cute ? Exposing your ignorance like that for all to see.

        Do you know what I’m referring to AmSoc ?

        Obviously not. I’ll let you stew in your own juice for now.”

        I’m here to learn.

        1. “I’m here to learn.”

          Fucking liar…

          1. Oh come on, AmSoc really is here to learn, he’s just incapable.

        2. AMSOC you are not here to learn. You are here to be a smug prick.
          Honestly I think you are one of the commenters here regurgitating leftist talking points under a different handle.
          You are sort of good at it, but most of the leftists I talk to in person at least try to be civil, in public.
          Of course I stay off of Face Book, and talk to people who are more interested in living their lives, and taking care of there families.
          If you are who you say you are , then you are a stuck up, shit head.
          I have brought bums into an upscale bar, and bought them a few drinks.
          There lives are more real than yours is, and there stories more interesting than all the smug bullshit you post here.

        3. AmSoc after careful consideration I have to agree that you are right and I am wrong.

          Obama should most definitely fire Comey Monday morning.

          It is high time that American citizens should be reminded that the US Government will fire upon American citizens.

          1. Well, he fired the GM people and turned it into gold, right?

    5. Yes, because we should trust the NYT.

      1. We do trust them to the prime source of derp.

      2. The paper of record. The Grey Lady. Of course you can trust the NY Times! Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
        True fact: I once got a letter to the editor published in the NYT. Of course, that was when Booosh! was president.

        1. I think I read that letter. Did it say “get off my lawn”?

          1. The Times had an article or editorial or something about how the government was using psychologists to customize mental stress/torture to individuals under interrogation at places like Gitmo.
            I pointed out that this was both unethical, and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
            Like I said, I doubt a similar screed against the excesses of the executive branch under Obama would be printed.

  36. We Now Live In A Country Where Right Wing Terrorism is Legal
    In America, protesting while unarmed and liberal can get you arrested, beaten or killed. Protesting while armed and conservative gets you celebrity and a pass by the legal system.

    You don’t have to click on the link – it’s just the requisite verification for my entry into the 14th Annual Reason Magazine “Have We Hit Peak Derp Yet?” contest.

    1. “In America, protesting while unarmed and liberal can get you arrested, beaten or killed.”

      Not if you block a highway in a Good Cause, apparently.

      1. You’d think if the Right-Wing Conspiracy was trying to pick off “liberals,” they’d start with the easiest targets – loonies who block public roadways.

    1. The reason Gov. Dayton was able to radically transform Minnesota’s economy into one of the best in the nation is simple arithmetic. Raising taxes on those who can afford to pay more will turn a deficit into a surplus. Raising the minimum wage will increase the median income. And in a state where education is a budget priority and economic growth is one of the highest in the nation, it only makes sense that more businesses would stay.

    2. IOW, tax the shit out of the middle class. Got it.

      1. Yep.

        Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly

    3. Tax the rich
      There’s only one thing that they’re good for
      Tax the rich
      Their screams and whines can be safely ignored

  37. From AP
    “”I’m not stopping now, we’re just getting warmed up,” Clinton declared during a packed rally with gay and lesbian supporters in battleground Florida. “We’re not going to be distracted, no matter what our opponents throw at us.”
    Reported absent any comment regarding how the FBI is now an opponent.
    ————————
    “Meanwhile, Trump continued to spread baseless doubts about the integrity of the American voting system, this time taking aim at Colorado’s vote-by-mail system.”
    Not a word on how the SP has decided his doubts are baseless.
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..422999.php

    It so nice to have an ‘independent’ press to avoid any, uh, wait, we just got a note from our good friend Hillary and she says….

    1. …how the *A*P has…

    2. Describing a rally of gay and lesbian supporters as “packed” is homophobic.

  38. Elizabeth Williamson in the New York Times says it’s finally time to write off Gary Johnson.

    1. She had a ball writing that.

      1. to be fair, she assembled it from other people’s tweet-snark

    2. Well, if this person who I’ve never heard of says so, then it must be true.

      1. If she were unreliable, the NYT wouldn’t have published her, duh!

        /sarc

    3. GayJay is going to finish behind Jill Stein. 4th at best, McMullin-mentum may knock the Republican governor down to 5th place. Such a squandered opportunity by the LP. John McAfee, at the least, would’ve added a little cachet to the brand.

    1. In their cyanide death throes they saw the light and vomited up the poison while crawling frantically to the MAGA train.

      Welcome aboard.

  39. Do you like 1990s hiphop? Well, you should. Here’s what’s been in rotation =

    Freddy Fresh, circa 1998
    DJ Cam , early 2000s, but a guy i first heard remixing people in the mid-90s
    Lord Finesse – SP1200 Project – a legend producer recently re-visting his OG styles
    D.I.T.C. (Big L, Lord Finesse, Diamond D, O.C., Fat Joe, Buckwild, Showbiz and A.G..) Remix Project

      1. your dope new jack swing will not obstruct my occasional musical proselytizing

    1. My brother got married yesterday, and the groomsmen took a party bus to the venue. I’m not sure who was in charge of the playlist, but it was all 90s rap. Shit I haven’t heard or thought about since I was 12 or 13.

      Still remember all the words. Surprising.

      1. Mazel tov!

        any wedding DJ that plays DWYCK for a early-40s crowd is a guy i can probably commiserate with. and yes, EVERYONE lip syncs the whole “eeny meeny miney mo, i wreck the mic like a pimp pimps ho’s”

        1. Nah. More quik and too short

          1. West side (waves gang signs)

            [feels bad for you]

        1. Now all the poodles run to my house
          For the Funky Cold Medina

          I mean, what are you talking about?

      2. Hope you did something to embarrass him. Cheers.

      3. I like big butts and I can not lie?

    2. *footnote =

      Gah! don’t listen to DJ Cam’s original mid-1990s album. It involves french people rapping. which is a torture i do not wish upon my worst enemy. What i actually intended was one of his mixtapes which mostly avoids that sort of brain-rape.

    3. “Do you like 1990s hiphop?”

      No.

      1. I appreciate that you were probably a grumpy old man even in your youth, but i could as-easily point you towards some great Studio 1 Soul and make you … well, at least slightly mellower.

        If that doesn’t lighten you, up, I may need to resort to heavy weaponry

        1. “I appreciate that you were probably a grumpy old man even in your youth”

          There are other interpretations as you might imagine.
          But then I do have a soft spot for Van Morrison, Neil Simon, some Everly Bros (from whence I learned harmony, since I hadn’t learned it earlier from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX45pYvxDiA)
          And then a perennial fave, Mr. Steve Goodman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xBxZGQ1dJk
          But my grumpiness is always relieved by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLVytcPtWwM

          1. You and Robert Crumb probably make a great brunch-date

            1. I don’t have a cheap suit.

              1. [realizes that this is the best possible comeback to this comment, and slinks off back to snark college to re-study his snark-skills]

          2. i’m thinking our venn diagram probably crosses right about here

  40. The Trumputin is coming! Move to Canada now, while you still have the chance!

    1. The Canuck economy will boom with the pensions of the 25% of the federal workforce who promised to quit if he’s elected.

  41. The Times had an article or editorial or something about how the government was using psychologists to customize mental stress/torture to individuals under interrogation at places like Gitmo.
    I pointed out that this was both unethical, and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
    Like I said, I doubt a similar screed against the excesses of the executive branch under Obama would be printed.

    1. Was supposed to be a reply to Eddy upstream

  42. OK, did no one take one for the team, or – given the juicy possibilities – were there no revelations from the Sunday talking-heads TV shows?
    No one slipped up and said ‘well, the mails that ended up on…’?

  43. loveconstitution1789 & Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair

    Get your butts over to the Korean War movie review thread; replies to your comments.

  44. Scott Adams is at it again.

    In this movie, Comey did the hero thing. He alerted the public to the fact that the FBI found DISQUALIFYING information on the Weiner laptop. And he took a second bullet to his reputation.

    How do I know the new emails are that bad?

    I start by assuming Comey is the same man now as the one who was carefully vetted before being hired to protect the integrity of one of our most important institutions. And even Comey’s critics concede he’s smart.

    So?

    The way you know the new emails are disqualifying for Clinton is because otherwise our hero would have privately informed Congress and honored the tradition of not influencing elections. Comey is smart enough to know his options. And unless he suddenly turned rotten at his current age, he’s got the character to jump in front of a second bullet for the Republic.

    According to this movie, no matter who gets elected, we’ll eventually learn of something disqualifying in the Weiner emails.

    And we can’t say we weren’t warned. Comey took two bullets to do it.

    1. Not a bad view of the circumstances; incomplete since we don’t have enough data to do otherwise at this point.
      The ‘movie’ meme is less than convincing; two-bit psyche stuff.

      1. Right. So why the fuck bring it up? You two are amazing.

        1. JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THIS GUYS LEAVE HILLARY ALONE FAKE SCANDAL RIGGED OMG ITS JUST EMAILS WHO CARES TRUMP IS A RAPIST!!!

  45. WSJ:
    “The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons”
    […]
    “In February of this year, Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state.”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/la…..1477854957

    Old news, fake scandal, did you hear what Trump said today, look over there, rethuglicans…

  46. “Why FBI director James B. Comey was able to defy Justice bosses on Clinton email announcement”
    […]
    “”At the end of the day, if you have the FBI director telling Justice that he has an obligation to tell Congress, there is no way you can direct the FBI to do otherwise,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “That’s too fraught. You can’t direct someone to withhold information from Congress. That’s not a prudent way to do things.”
    (gonna have to search WaPo under that headline)

    At the very least, the political hacks in the DOJ were trying to keep the FBI from releasing the info, and I wonder if there’s a connection between that bit if skullduggery and Reid’d claim of Hatch Act violations.

    1. The only Hatch violation was when Comey declined to recommend charges. They had concrete evidence of several hundred felonies, and circumstantial evidence of hundreds more.

      The actual statutory penalty for what Hillary did carries a sentence longer than mankind has been using fire.

      My favorite part of that WSJ article (IIRC, it might be another one) is the phone call from DOJ to McCabe.

  47. You know who else didn’t have shit to do late one Sunday night?

    1. Me? Oh wait, it’s Monday morning. Never mind.

    2. Somebody who took a long, satsifying dump early Sunday night?

  48. From the WSJ:

    “Investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop that they believe was used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide…

    Officials had to await a court order to begin reviewing the emails[but not before Mr. FBI opened his big mouth to Congressional Republicans]?which they received over the weekend, according to a person familiar with the matter?because they were uncovered in an unrelated probe of Mr. Weiner.”

    Awesome! let’s see 35,000 KKKlinton emails demand 3 yrs of Trey Goudy’s crack Congressional committee. That’s roughly (3 yrs)/35,000 emails)= (8.57*10^-5 yr/email)(6.5*10^5 emails)=~8.6*6.5=~56 yrs. yay! Trey Goudy has a job until 2072! He has to do something useful I guess.

    1. Was that post in English? I thought Reason.com only allowed English and not gibberish.

      1. They make exceptions for the mentally retarded.

      2. Semaphore is also acceptable.

    2. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOOD DON’T NOTCIE THIS HUGE STORY CUZ ITS TOTALLY NOT HUGE ITS NO BIG DEAL THATS WHY WE ALL SOUND SO FUCKING DESPERATE I MEAN EVERYONE DELETES EMAILS AMIRIGHT TRUMP IS HITLER REMEMBER?!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.