Citizens United

Kamala Harris So Concerned About Trump Threat She Wants to Make It Harder to Criticize Him

Progressives should embrace Citizens United, which protects political speech that is often critical of power.

|

In Sappho We Trust/flickr

California's senator-elect, Kamala Harris, staked out the repeal of Citizens United as one of her priorities when she enters office, tweeting that it had to be repealed "because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Divided."

The rhetoric is worthy of President-elect Donald Trump, who has a habit of insisting criticism of him is unfair. Repealing Citizens United would make it more difficult for corporations and other organized groups to exercise their free speech in the political realm.

Liberal opponents of Citizens United should have had enough examples over the last year or so to rethink their reflexive position on the Supreme Court case. From the corporations organizing boycotts and speaking out against North Carolina's LGBT discrimination law to the candy companies that spoke out against Trump, it ought to be clear that corporate free speech doesn't track with the stereotypes peddled by the left. Citizens United also made films like Michael Moore's anti-Trump Trumpland possible to release just weeks before the election—as it should be in a country that says it values free speech.

Hillary Clinton, the subject of the film that was at the center of Citizens United, called the case "tragic," but Trump may not be much better. Some progressives believe he's on their side given his rhetoric about the influence of "big money" on politics. Forget that there's little evidence that campaign spending actually significantly influence electoral results, or that Clinton's failure to win despite a cash advantage provides a compelling anecdote against the idea that money drives electoral results—the presence of Donald Trump in the White House should give progressives who want to limit political speech cause to pause. Campaign spending restrictions are often used by the politicians in power to reinforce the incumbency advantage and squash dissent.

With a president-elect like Donald Trump who doesn't seem to understand freedom of the press, the protections offered by Citizens United, which covers not just large multinational corporations but newspapers and non-profit corporations as well ought to be reinforced, not attacked for perceived short-term political gain.

Advertisement

NEXT: President Trump + Military Drones = What, Exactly?

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. It started out as criticism of Kamala Harris then quickly shifted to “all Trump’s fault”.

    1. I thought the Trump Derangement Syndrome around here would diminish a bit after the election, but apparently not. Reason seems to ignore every possible good aspect of Trump. Has this been covered?

      Trump has a plan for government workers. They’re not going to like it.

      President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation.

      Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions ? these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January.

      Somebody tell me again how there was really no difference between Hillary and Trump, and how libertarians have no opportunities here.

      1. So because Trump is not as bad as Hillary, we should avoid criticizing him?

        1. No, it’s just that whining from the sidelines is much less useful than finding areas where libertarians could make common cause with Trump and actually advance liberty. Slimming down the federal government seems like one obvious place. Make lemonade from those lemons, people. That’s how socialists took over the Democratic Party.

          1. Don’t you think libertarians will be supportive of these proposals when he actually asks Congress to make them into laws? If Trump walks the talk on some of these “libertarian friendly” proposals, we will back him while remaining free to attack or be skeptical of other proposals.

            1. Sure, but why not be proactive? Strike while the iron is hot! Don’t just wait around and hope Trump does the right thing, come up with real proposals.

              1. Trump is too busy courting the neocons/socons and installing them in his administration to worry about such trifling concerns as liberty. If he actually develops an interest in liberty and the constitution there are plenty of libertarianish think tanks that can provide specific proposals.

              2. I’ll believe it when I see it. My cynicism about government and politicians has served me well. And I guess I’m less optimistic about our ability to influence anything. And now that he is actually starting to do things, I don’t see him giving a lot of attention to the more freedom oriented side of the Republican party. I hope he does and I hope Reason covers it appropriately, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

                1. Jeff Sessions? He already lost my support on anything.

      2. I hope the greater-DC housing market fucking crashes.

        1. Cool! I might be able to afford a house!

        2. I know a certain captain on one of our battle cruisers that could be persuaded into propping up that housing market through supply reduction….

          1. Captain Kangaroo?

            1. Working for the reptiles? He’s a (taxonomic) class traitor.

      3. Libertarians may or may not have some opportunities here. It’s too early to call. But the people who Trump is picking for important positions right now are pretty disturbing for libertarians, especially Sessions. Also, there was a lot of talk earlier about Peter Thiel being involved in the Trump admin, which should have been very good for libertarians, but it looks like that is out the door now that I’ve heard no further mention of it. About the best rumor I’ve heard so far is about Trump actually making NASA a space program again. Which is not really a libertarian thing, but still good. I don’t think Bannon is hostile towards libertarians, just sort of neutral. I don’t see him or Priebus either one even giving much of a 2nd thought about what libertarians think or want. So if anything happens good for libertarians in a Trump admin, it’s probably not intentional.

        1. Cutting down on anti-libertarian immigrants will be good for libertarians, whether they admit it or not. Also: killing Obamacare, nationwide concealed carry, fewer regulations, and a better tax system. Reason should be making proposals in all those areas, and pushing them here. Instead we get pearl-clutching.

          1. The Reason staff have been way too critical of Trump a lot of times. But libertarians should be very wary of Trump. Like I said, his appointment of Sessions as AG is about as anti-libertarian as you can get. He hasn’t actually done anything besides that yet.

            1. I’m not saying libertarians shouldn’t be wary, but as I keep saying, look at how socialist incrementalism took over the Democratic Party. This is the best opportunity for libertarian ideas in DC since 1980. At least try to take advantage of the disruption!

              1. This is the best opportunity for libertarian ideas in DC since 1980.

                Based on what? Electing an authoritarian for president?

                At least try to take advantage of the disruption!

                By criticizing bad acts, and praising any good acts that may materialize in the future? The former is what this article does, and the latter has yet to take place.

          2. I wonder what the Reason Foundation is doing? They are the more think-tankey part I think. I suppose I can find out.

            I’m hopeful about seeing some bad regulations removed and maybe some tax improvements. The rest, we’ll see.

            1. Reason Foundation? Besides paying Robert Poole and Shikha Dalmia?

          3. You can’t see anything good about Trump and still be invited to the cool kids’ cocktail parties. Even if Trump were 50% libertarian-compatible (vs Clinton’s -100%), the cosmotarians still would bash Trump at every opportunity. Perhaps they would deign to approve of measures to withdraw recent expansions of the state, but it would be done quietly and probably dismissed as inevitable with or without Trump (e.g., marijuana legalization, reduced support to Arab monarchies, less intervention in foreign conflicts, sane monetary policy, reduced regulation, etc.)

        2. Which is not really a libertarian thing, but still good

          lol

          1. I’m just saying that being in favor of a space program which actually pursues exploration of space is a good thing, although it’s not specifically a libertarian goal. But one I would think most libertarians support. Oh well, never mind.

      4. I’ll need more evidence than a panic piece by left-wing bootlickers to be convinced he’s serious about reforming government payrolls.

        1. Yeah, like actually seeing it happen.

      5. eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation.

        Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers,…

        Could they SOUND any more entitled?

      6. I thought the Trump boot-licking in the Reason commentariat would subside some after the election. Whoopsie!

    2. Your criticism started out as Reason bashing but quickly shifted to Trump fellating.

      1. No, it didn’t.

  2. “California’s senator-elect, Kamala Harris, staked out the repeal of Citizens United as one of her priorities when she enters office”

    It ain’t happening, sweetheart.

    1. “We’re going to build a wall against criticism and make conservatives pay for it!”

  3. Every time I tell a prog friend about how Citizens United is exactly what allows John Oliver to go on rants against Trump or allows Ben & Jerry’s to make Bernie Sanders ice cream I’m told those things are always allowable, and CU only allows huge faceless corporations to throw millions of dollars at anti-liberal candidates. It’s hopeless.

    1. When I explain about the book-banning issue, they say it’s too confusing and the important thing is to curb Big Business.

      1. They can start by not buying the products of those evil big businesses. Then once they’re out of business, they can just sit around and wait for the government to make that stuff.

      2. I once heard a professional author (very left-wing) dismiss the whole book-banning thing as not really important!

    2. I suspect your friend has a better feeling for the reality of current politics than you give them credit for.

      It doesn’t matter whether a rule is broken or not. It matters what regulator rules. And he’s confident in his side’s ability to capture the regulator posts.

    3. Who owns Ben & Jerry’s now? And HBO?

    4. To make sure deep pocketed multi-national corporations don’t have political influence, we should have a law that says it is basically illegal to criticize powerful politicians. That’ll do it!

      You can’t reason with an unreasonable person.

  4. “because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Divided.”

    The rhetoric is worthy of President-elect Donald Trump,

    I don’t know – seems kinda Obamaesque. And, as we know, he was a great orator.

    1. “because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Divided.”

      Maybe the dingbat forgets what party she’s a member of. Divided is all they know.

    2. Alternatives tried out:

      “because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Untied.”
      “because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Incited.”
      “because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Uninvited.”
      “because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Derided.”

      1. It’s actually “Citizens Delighted” (or “Citizens Abided” in the case of The Dude.)

    3. I don’t know – seems kinda Obamaesque. And, as we know, he was a great orator.

      Remind me again — what’s the difference between orator and fellator?

  5. “Liberal opponents of Citizens United should have had enough examples over the last year or so to rethink their reflexive position on the Supreme Court case”

    Ok, the rest of the Reason staff have not yet learned what Ron learned today.

    Anyway, the ‘liberals’ don’t ‘learn’ things. They sit around waiting for the next talking point from their masters and then they run with it. If their masters decide tomorrow that Citizens United no longer matters, it will be like it never happened.

  6. http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/d…..ing-squad/

    Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post.

    “It was like a f?ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

    “Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

    “The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

    1. “Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

      Sometimes it is really hard to not like this guy.

      1. I know. The media keeps reporting things that are supposed to make us dislike him, but they often have the opposite effect. Like the big NY Times list of people, places, and things Trump has insulted. “Gosh, he insulted Bill Kristol, CNN, Fox News, ISIS, Hillary, Iran, China, and Obamacare? This is supposed to make me dislike him?”

      2. Yeah it’s hard not to like a guy who can so succinctly and eloquently convey his comprehensive grasp of a complex issue.

        1. I think that you and I define “eloquently” quite differently. Succinct works. The situation isn’t that complicated, the news media is and has been run for a long time by leftist hacks and he told them so in no uncertain terms.

          1. I guess liking someone for one reason, totally negates not liking them for other reasons. I mean, is it possible for me to like a football player for his on field performance and at the same time, think he’s a total asshole? I guess for some people, that’s not a thing.

            I didn’t bother replying, because it’s useless.

            1. I don’t respond to he and his cadre as a general rule. Sometimes though, it’s necessary to point out the hacks and closet leftists for any of the uninitiated that may be following.

            2. I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Was this meant to be a response to me?

              I think it’s hilarious that Trump did this. It’s not exactly a productive use of his or anyone else’s time, but fucked if it weren’t funny. He got to say something to those bastards that resonates with a lot of us, whether we supported him or not, and he has the huevos to actually say it.

              There are plenty of people I respect for something they do that they are good at but don’t care for their opinions about a variety of other things. I can compartmentalize what I like and dislike about friends and family, so why not strangers?

              1. It was a response to Hyperion about responding to posters like Hugh.

        2. You might be the most tiresome person posting at Reason, Hugh. I’m not sure if you’ve ever managed to post something that didn’t reek of sanctimony. At least when Tony is getting his smug on there’s some potential for entertainment.

          1. The entertainment lately mostly comes from how livid he is about Her Highness’s loss. He’s a little quivering jelly of rage and it only takes the slightest jostle to set him off.

            1. Quivering jelly is a good way to think of his ilk.

      3. He booted Jim Acosta in the norms, too. I’m liking him more and more.

    2. I hope someone made and releases a recording.

    3. That sounds like a YFG speech with health dose of gangster

  7. Kamala Harris is an authoritarian who only understands control and couldn’t care less about freedom. The election we just went through proved that you can have all the money you want behind you and still lose (and before some idiot chimes in that “Hillary won the popular vote!” keep in mind that JEB! also tanked it with a huge monetary advantage).

    1. What’s the over/under on both Jeb and Hillary running in 2020 again? I’m thinking at least 90%. It’s still one of their turns, you know.

      1. I expect Mrs. Clinton to run as long as someone can drag her carcass (alive or dead) out of bed and put it behind a dais.

        We never realized that “Weekend at Bernie’s” was a subtle political satire.

        1. It’s a “How To” Tutorial, actually.

      2. No way. I’m surprised Hillary hasn’t gone into a hospital or rehab or gone for a long, secluded vacation yet. Her health is terrible, and there’s no possibility she’ll be in shape for another run at office.

        1. Maybe it will just be her head in a jar next time.

        2. They’ll pump her full of Adderall, Neurontin, and Sinemet. She’ll be good to go.

        3. Wait I see the bumper stickers now. “Crawl, Hillary, Crawl”.

        4. Zombie Hillary 2088

          …because FINALLY it’s Her Turn.

          #I’mWithIt.

    2. And she slept her way to the top!

      Allegedly.

      1. Now she has to sleep with Moobz to get to the next level. Hahahhaaa, joke’s on her!

  8. Bwhahahahahaah! Give Progressive “Pause”, you’ve got to fucking be kidding me. Do you actually believe what you type?

    If anything they are doubling down on stupid. We just need the RIGHT TOP MEN.

    But Of Fatal Conceitists

  9. These right-wing plaintiffs fail to realize that the government must never accommodate the religious scruples of icky right-wing Christians. (AUTOPLAY)

    But…the government *should* force private companies to grant religious accomodations for charming multicultural religions

    1. If the Christians wanted to be treated fairly by government, they’d just threaten to chop off people’s heads. Didn’t they get the memo?

      1. Worked for Henry VIII.

        1. Since when did Sikhs threaten to chop off people’s heads?

    1. Just when you think CA can produce no worse…

    2. She just incumbent-to-be now.

  10. I suspect that the progs figure they are going to control the bureaucracy tasked with enforcing this no matter who is in the White House so it doesn’t bother them that much.

  11. I’m sadly ignorant about Citizens United. Really have no fucking clue what it’s about.

    1. People think it will help their side win.

    2. It’s about Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech and the press.

      1. Which apparently was OK if the right sort of people did it, but once you make a movie critical of HRC, BAM!

        1. So does is curtail freedom of speech and press or protect it?

          1. I think it protects the right of corporations to be able to donate to political campaigns.

          2. The Supreme Court case protected free speech and a free press.

            http://tinyurl.com/op5rowt

            The progressives want to stack the Supreme Court to overturn it.

            1. “The progressives want to stack the Supreme Court to overturn it.”

              Their prospects look grim at the moment.

              One of my highest hopes for Trump is that he manages to put in place 2 good people on SCOTUS. And by good, I mean who actually follow the Constitution as the guide to deciding cases. There is a great deal of shit that needs challenged and overturned.

              1. There is a great deal of shit that needs challenged and overturned.

                Challenged, yes. Overturned? Nope. Stare Decisis is the Prime Directive of SCOTUS and the best chance of anything being overturned died with Scalia, and with the eventual retirment of Alito and Thomas, grows dimmer.

                It’s one thing to nominate a potentially great justice (JRB, yes?). It’s quite another getting them confirmed.

            2. As a practical manner, how could they amend the First Amendment to ban corporate free speech? If they ban all business speed, they also ban the New York Times, MSNBC, Vox, Slate, Salon, etc.

              Then there’s the matter of defining political speech. If, instead of the Citizens United movie being about Hillary Clinton, it was about Heather Clumpit, how could they prove it was political? What if it was about HRC but fawning to the point of being satirical? I mean, make it so obsequious that everyone laughed and sneered at it (and HRC), but so serious that lawyers could make the case for it being for HRC?

              I don’t see any way to word it that wouldn’t hurt themselves worse.

              1. If, instead of the Citizens United movie being about Hillary Clinton, it was about Heather Clumpit, how could they prove it was political?

                How Astrid Lindgren brought down the Swedish government

          3. It struck down some of the most onerous aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

          4. There was a law that restricted certain forms of political expression, if financed through the general funds of a corporate entity, within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

            The supreme court ruled 5-4 that this was unconstitutional.

            One of the hypotheticals that came up during oral arguments was whether the law gave government the authority to ban book publication. The Gov lawyer said yes.

            1. If they really wanted to get down to it, probably about 90% of everything that’s been done in this country legal or regulatory wise for the last 50 years is likely unconstitutional.

              1. With the Commerce Clause interpreted the way that it is, EVERYTHING (aside from some procedural matters) is theoretically constitutional.

      2. That sounds awfully like something Congress isn’t supposed to be able to do. I’m sure the ACLU is on this, let me check….

        For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

        Phew. No need to read on then…

        Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

        What in the actual fuck?

        1. I would suggest the following. The American people actually fucking learn to research and vet candidates so that money is no longer a factor. Ok, so that’s not happening.

          1. Waste of time. The systemic defect is that voters have one vote every four years for a single person. They don’t vote for a la carte policies. They can hope that one of the two encapsulates more of the policies they want than the other, but they can’t hold a candidate to his promises, so its a vote for whomever might possibly uphold more of the vague promises they like.

            It’s batter than kings and dictators, but only barely.

            1. “They don’t vote for a la carte policies”

              Well, that’s actually not entirely true. What are ballot issues? 8 states have now legalized cannabis via this route.

              1. That’s such a trivial exception. Even when they get voted in, the legislature distorts it beyond reason. Remember all those which said “treat pot like alcohol” — that sure didn’t happen. California voters approved a high speed rail between SF and LA which had to run in (I think) 2 hours and 40 minutes. Even after admitting it now won’t be better than 3 or 4 hours, and won’t actually hit either end point, judges stll said the implementing decisions were A-OK.

          2. What annoys me the most about this whole voting nonsense is that the counter to the myth of the irrational voter is to say that voters don’t vote rationally because they know there is little chance of their one vote being the decisive vote. No no no. The rational voter knows his vote is meaningless precisely because that one vote has to stand for everything in one single candidate, and it can’t. It;s as if grocery stores only had two choices for all the food you’d buy for the next four years: you might want steak and potatoes and mint chocolate chip ice cream, but steak and potatoes are in different packages, and th eone with mint chocolate chip ice cream also includes brussels sprouts.

            And you have to eat everything in your package. For four years.

          3. Most people are just going to vote straight-ticket unless they have a particular reason to hate someone on the ballot. I was reading what someone had written about running in a local election and how they really didn’t spend much money on their campaign. They made some yard signs. They barely met with anyone. The only reason they ran was so the other guy wouldn’t run unopposed. Ended up with over 40% of the vote, and it made the guy wonder how well he’d have done had he actually tried.

            One of my wife’s proggy coworkers admitted that she didn’t know who any of the people on the ticket were except the Presidential candidate. She told her that she knew she probably shouldn’t do that, but did anyway. I think that’s a pretty good representation of the average voter – they just trust that anyone running with their pennant is on their side.

        2. The minute I’m forced to take public money to run for office, I’m running a hardcore porn-themed campaign.

          1. “Congress? Fuck those assholes!”

            1. So that’s why California had a vote for condones in porn. I get it now.

              1. Condoms. Stupid phone.

      3. To add to this, it was about Congress abridging freedom of the press in the name of campaign finance reform. They claimed they could proscribe books, films, etc. with political themes within a certain time frame of the election under the theory that these constituted campaign contributions. That the Citizens United decision was not 9-0 is a travesty.

        1. Wow ok, I’m learning here. So a guy makes a political movie — the statists (who dislike it because it was made by the opposite team) argue that this is like a campaign donation that found a loophole. But the courts say it’s some guy (or rich corporation) making a movie, you can’t stop this because of first amendment…?

          So I should be for Citizens United because as a Libertarian I abhor all crackdowns of freedom of speech.

          Correct in my analysis?

          1. Because you’re a libertarian, you just have to believe that people should be free to make choices for themselves or you should be someone who wants more freedom.

            What you think beyond that is your business. There is very little besides that which you must believe because you are a libertarian.

            A lot of libertairans tend to land on the same side of various issues–for all sorts of reasons. ‘

            In this case, yeah, an awful lot of us believe that people should be free to advocate their positions in the media during election campaigns–even if what they say is unpopular and even if they’re rich.

            And a lot of us believe that the First Amendment protects our legals rights to do that.

            But you could disagree with that and still be a libertarian–although I think that would be a rough road.

          2. Hard to say what exactly you should believe as a libertarian. It’s like herding cats. We probably disagree more than any other people of any other political ideology. I guess that’s sort of what individuality is all about, right? I mean there are the core principles that I think we all agree on. Outside of that, just witness the daily infighting around here. That’s what makes us better. We actually debate the issues among ourselves, there is no directive coming down telling us what we have to believe, like there are with teams red and blue. The teams are like your cable company. You have to buy into 300 ideas you don’t like to get the 3 things you do like.

            1. I mean there are the core principles that I think we all agree on. Outside of that, just witness the daily infighting around here.

              A good deal of that infighting is on some ostensibly core principles. One that comes to mind is the supposed unalienable right to “freedom of movement” which pays no mind to property rights and the distinction between private and public property, and that natural rights cannot possibly reside in or owe their existence to public property. That’s a pretty big core issue to disagree about as far as they go.

            2. The core principles : Mexicans, pot, butt sex, The Jacket, and Dalmia’s mental illness.
              Major disagreements: Mexicans, Robby’s Hair, abortion, the definition of “cuck”, and the true extent of Dalmia’s mental illnesses.

              1. For all that consensus on Dalmia’s mental illness, which I grant you is absolutely true, she sure does have a lot of white knights racing to her defense. Even on her stupidest days.

            3. Outside of that, just witness the daily infighting around here. That’s what makes us better. We actually debate the issues among ourselves, there is no directive coming down telling us what we have to believe, like there are with teams red and blue.

              One thing I’ve noticed in the years I’ve been hanging around Hit and Run, is that in most cases I can now dance circles around my friends and colleagues in any political debate. No, I haven’t gotten any smarter, or even better at debating per se — it’s just that on this site you get to know almost every angle on both sides of an issue, so when a friend brings up a talking point, I already know how to smash it.

              Love ya, Hit and Run fellow commenters!

              (Sorry for the Pollyanna, but I’m in an exceptionally good mood today, just had my annual review with the company COO this afternoon, and it went far better than I could have ever expected. Looks like I’m good for another year!)

  12. “Forget . . . that Clinton’s failure to win despite a cash advantage provides a compelling anecdote against the idea that money drives electoral results”.

    I doubt the irony of railing against Citizens United even after Trump won with very little in the way of fundraising or advertising seems escaped Kamala Harris.

    I doubt the irony that the next progressive may need a ton of cash to dislodge Trump from the White House escaped Kamala Harris, either. (Trump voters don’t need advertising or a get out the vote campaign. They already know what to do on election day).

    Kamala Harris was instrumental in introducing hate prosecution to public schools.

    “Harris created a special Hate Crimes Unit as San Francisco District Attorney. She focused on hate crimes against LGBT children and teens in schools.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

    So, Kamala Harris’ hatred for free speech isn’t really ironic. If she favors prosecuting children for calling someone “fag” before they get in a fist fight on the playground, I’d say her hatred of free speech a la Citizens United should be entirely expected.

    1. She has the potential to make me wistful for Hillary.

      1. But only because Hillary might fall over dead any minute now.

    2. “I doubt the irony of railing against Citizens United even after Trump won with very little in the way of fundraising or advertising seems escaped Kamala Harris.”

      What, you don’t really think she thought this out, do you? She just got her list of ‘things that are bad’ from the Democrat masters.

      1. White people

      2. Deniers

      3. White people

      4. guns

      4. Citizens United

      “…Wait, what’s this citizens united thingy? Oh well, no matter, it’s bad! Let’s see, it really means divided something something… ok, I’m going with this, I’ll sound brilliant! Does this dress make me look fat? Well, my tits still look fabulous though, right? I saw Schumer staring at them, I still got it… his don’t look better than mine, do they? Ok, they’re bigger, but… surely I can kill this united citizens thing with these tits!”.

      1. Wow, thse people hate white people the same way Nazis hate Jews.

        1. In the sense of old timey Nazis that hated Jews to varying degrees, but always with casual openness and unchallenged social acceptance.

    3. It’s a two part strategy: narrow the Overton Window as much as possible (specifically narrowing it left-ward) while making speech outside the Overton Window illegal. Then sell the bait and switch to the public by saying you’re only banishing crazy speech like neo-Nazi rallies, and before they know it they’re getting fined or worse for accidentally calling a genderqueer person ‘she’ instead of ‘they.’

  13. She wants to overturn CU because she knows it won’t be enforced evenhandedly.

    Lucky us, we’re stuck with her forever.

    1. Not after CA secedes. Oh wait, you will still be stuck with her, just not the rest of us.

  14. The Real Kamala has a crescent moon painted on his belly. I don’t know who this imposter is.

    1. I see a new SF novel coming. Either that or Harris makes an appearance in the Hillary/Huma saga.

      1. Nope. It’ll be Harris giving Babs Boxer the Bagel Broad a proper Sentorial Sendoff…. in only the way Saccharin Man can.

  15. OT: So all those Cal-Exit people… how about you ask them about creating the state of Jefferson. Or breaking up California into multiple states, using the same arguments they make for Cal-Exit.

    Watch their heads explode. These useless little fucks really have no grasp of anything outside what their talking point masters tell them.

    1. This. And watch what happens the next time one of their candidates wins the electoral vote and loses the popular vote. All of the sudden, the electoral college will be the greatest thing ever! They really do not think, they just emote.

  16. With the Democratic Party being completely wrecked on a national and state level I am very much expecting Harris to make a run for the nomination in 2020. She’s a woman of color so she checks off the right boxes to be Obama 2.0.

    1. Not while Michelle lives! It’s totally her turn.

    2. I thought the only way Democrats could win was by perpetually nominating the First X, First Black, First Woman, maybe next time we’d get a Gay Person or a Hispanic (whatever that term means). It has to be a Democrat though. because Democrats will vote lockstep for someone like that. But if a Gay Republican ran, you think any gay democrat would switch parties and vote for them?

      But since Hillary lost, what is their formula now???

      1. I’ve said before, but the only qualification a Democratic woman needs to run for president is to have had an influential penis in her. Both Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama qualify.

        1. You think Barack has really had sex with Michelle? Poor guy.

          1. Maybe Bill Clinton has.

            1. Well done mammal, well done

      2. Peter Thiel / Milo Yiannopoulos 2020!

        Democrats will surely vote for the first all gay ticket, right?

        If not, they must be bigots because those guys are definitely getting my vote.

    3. “of color” is a racist term that progs use because they think it will make them not racist. Don’t give in by stooping down to their level

      1. White’s not a color. And you know, both white people and brown people sort of come in various shades that blur the lines a little. It’s also amazing to me that some progs actually believe everyone in Latin American is a brown person when about half of them are just as white as the whitest Americans. The left are just complete idiots, there’s no way around that fact.

        1. that and it’s hard to tell just on looks alone anymore. My cousin is a quarter Samoan but he looks like the whitest kid you’d ever see.

          1. First time I was in South America, I was at the airport in Brasilia. They kept changing my flight out and I was getting confused, so I started looking around me for someone who might speak English. I spotted 3 paper white blonde haired blue eyed teens who I thought must be American or European, so maybe I’ll get lucky. Heh, they were Brazilain and couldn’t speak any English. But I guess they’re brown people by default to the left. I think the left also do not realize the extent of mixed marriage today in the USA. The entire identity politics thing is falling apart on them and it’s wonderful.

        2. I’m a person of color in the summer.

  17. “because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Divided.”

    Ha! Clever, I get it!

    But she just scored an own-goal. Lot of those going around.

  18. “because we know Citizens United really means Citizens Divided.”

    Governance by sloganeering: proggy-perfect!

    1. So what’s her campaign slogan for 2020? I know it’s going to be the worst ever.

      1. “Kamala’s America: it’s going to be the worst ever!”

  19. 2 things that may cheer you up:

    Really cool song from Russian monks
    https://youtu.be/C7vvPXz-Qes?t=1m16s

    Trump Nyan Cat
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dgGbPEzkHo

  20. The UVA rape hoax has inspired a TV show.

    In the cold opening to “Sweet/Vicious,” MTV’s new series about two young women meting out vigilante justice to predators… set at the fictional Darlington University, premiered a week after the 2016 election, and comes along at a great time…

    1. Since they won’t mete out vigilante justice to Jackie Coakley, will they do it to Martha Coakley?

    2. How about a show where frat boys and male faculty members lynch false rape/hate crime perpetrators after torturing them until they admit guilt? I think that’d go over well.

    3. Andi Zeisler is a co-founder and creative/editorial director of Bitch Media…

      Pass.

      Would Not.

    4. Because when reality won’t cooperate, there’s always TV!

      We’re going to need a Madame President show here.

    5. If they have any sense of fair play and drama at all, a plot twist will be when they assault or kill a guy based on a false accusation. Oops!

  21. So when are Soave/Balko/Walker/Welch going to ally with her?

    1. Whining like an under-oiled carnival ride.

  22. What if we just tax bored billionaires at 94% of their income so that they’ll have less money to throw around to Chelsea Clinton when she runs for Congress in 2018?

    1. What is it with you and your creepy, Asperger’s-like fascination love affair with government theft?

      Get a new, non-authority hobby, for Pete’s sake.

      1. ?

        I want to pay less in taxes.

        1. You could deduct the interest from your mortgage payment.

          1. Oh I do. That’s part of the reason I know rich assholes are lying when they say they’re paying 50 and 60 percent of their income in taxes. I do my own taxes.

            1. “Oh I do.”

              Fuck off, asswipe.

          2. “You could deduct the interest from your mortgage payment.”

            Or insist that the government do less because you have the right to decide how to spend your money more than Donald Trump does.

        2. I want to pay less in taxes.

          So long as others pay more. Your facetiousness isn’t much of a mask, you know.

          1. Absolument! There’s something wrong with that? Class consciousness shouldn’t only be for billionaires.

            1. Folks,
              Feed vermin and they return.
              Asswipe is here only to get the attention denied it most everywhere, and does so with troll-bait; never has asswipe offered anything like an honest argument.
              Fuck off, asswipe.

            2. There’s something wrong with that?

              That you have to ask demonstrates just how black your soul is.

              Since you don’t seem to understand, let me try to dumb it down for you: The resources of others do not belong to you, and you have no authority to dictate how they are used. That also applies to your farming out your desires to people with badges and guns.

              Stop trying to spend other peoples’ monies! You have no right to them.

              Holy shit, how is that so difficult to understand?

              1. “Holy shit, how is that so difficult to understand?”

                It is not here to learn anything; it is here to get attention by ‘outrageous’ statements.
                Feed vermin and it returns.

                1. Well, we tried the starving approach with Shreeky, but it didn’t last.

                  “Dammit, Sevo! Low-hanging fruit!!”

                  1. Actually, it has pretty well. Turd shows up at most once a week now and runs off tail-between-legs pretty quickly.
                    And it worked very well on WI, (like asswipe, never intended actual engagement).
                    But I know the low hanging fruit is tempting; after the Allies bypassed Rabual, they used it for bombing and straffing practice; asswipe is an apt analogy.

                    1. WI? I’m drawing a blank on the initials…

                      Point taken about turd.

                    2. WI? I’m drawing a blank on the initials…

                      White Indian, a former scourge of this site.

                      The name’s been said once, please do not say twice more or there might be a very unhappy resurrection.

                    3. Total blank for me. Happy to forget I’ve heard read it, though.

                2. billionaires are conscious of how low their taxes are. Why shouldn’t we be?

                  1. Fuck off, asswipe.

                    1. Fuck you, Nazi symp. How many VC did you kill today?

                    2. Fuck off, asswipe.

                    3. Can you give me a ballpark figure of the total amount of the paychecks you’ve cashed from the military and Social Security? And how many of those checks did you cash while being an anti-government crank?

                    4. Fuck off, asswipe.

                    5. VC don’t scream as loud as american hippies, thankfully. #MOARKentStates

  23. So for all the “the Left is our allies because a Republican is in the White House” folks did we remember anything from the last 16 years? All the anti-Bush sentiment didn’t turn the Dems into libertarians and they kowtowed Obama and the only opposition to Hillary was Bernie Sanders. Their immediate response was to complain about “fake news” which doesn’t strike me as a sign of a libertarianish slide.

    Also libertarians have zero clout with the left. Will libertarians arrange a compromise with them in a more libertarianish direction on any issue?

    Also Welch is a fan of Vaclav Havel but isn’t he aware that one reason the Communists took power was because the liberals allied with the Communists?

    1. The left is totally antithetical to everything libertarian. Which explains why the only libertarians, yes I know they ran as Republicans, in congress are in the GOP. Libertarians can actually fit into and eventually have a large influence in the GOP. Democrats are leftists and are our mortal enemies.

    2. The left is totally antithetical to everything libertarian. Which explains why the only libertarians, yes I know they ran as Republicans, in congress are in the GOP. Libertarians can actually fit into and eventually have a large influence in the GOP. Democrats are leftists and are our mortal enemies.

      1. Well, shit.

        1. It was worth repeating

  24. Trump grabs media’s pussies. This made me laugh.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ump-tower/

  25. Liberal opponents of Citizens United should have had enough examples over the last year or so to rethink their reflexive position on the Supreme Court case.

    *points and laughs at Shackford*

  26. Can someone explain to me the difference between “colored person” and “person of color”? Also both terms imply that whites have no “color”.

    1. “Colored person”is a phrase used by old racists. “Person of color” is a phrase used by young racists.

      1. What Dark Lord said, plus the fact that we’re all shades of beige.

        “Person of color” is a way of trying to create racist solidarity among people who are of different ethnicities.

    2. It is supposed to sound more “sophisticated”.

  27. As opposed to the current president, who respects the hell outta freedom of the press.

  28. Great Moments at DLI

    A few weeks ago, we were translating a newspaper article. One of the sentences was “the militants demanded concessions from the govt.” One student pipes up: “concessions? you mean like hot dogs?”

    I laughed so hard I almost fell out of my chair.

    1. We want hotdogs and beer or else!

      /the militants

  29. Kamala Harris is a hardcore SJW. And she’s had Willie Brown’s dingdong in her vagina. So it goes.

    I want to see the next US Attorney General arrest her for 4th amendment civil rights violations.

    1. “hardcore SJW”

      It’s easier to say that in one word. Just sayin.

  30. So Speaking of race is any else disturbed by the return of the old zero-sum attitude toward race relations? Does anyone remember that the Rwandan Genocide was because the Hutus felt the Tutsis had oppressed them in the past? Or the attitudes that many blacks have toward Asian immigrants? Or that Hitler claimed that the Jews ruled the world and claimed that the Holocaust was self defense?

    1. The progs aren’t worried. When the race wars start, they know they’ll be easy to tell from the bad whitey, cuz feelz.

      1. So they are like Charles Manson then?

    2. Or the attitudes that many blacks have toward Asian immigrants?

      I’m reminded of a joke Redd Foxx would tell during his standup comedy act. Commenting on how he first got “Yellow Fever” during his time in the Korean War*, he stated:

      “The Army told us ‘Fuck the Koreans!’ So I did.”

      *Which was fiction, as he never served in the military.

      1. But it WAS a good story.
        Pretty sure it predates your gestalt, but there was a recording of a Cajun who explained how he learned to swim:
        ‘It wasn’t bad after I got out of the bag Dad tied me in…’

  31. So when will the Hamilton guys cancel the play when they realize that Trump is closer to Hamilton than they would like to admit? Protectionist, anti-immigrant, etc… And didn’t he create the Electoral College?

  32. Where’s the Derpman article on how Trump’s election will allow the libertarians and the left to reunite and become SJWs since according to him Libertarians are the original progressive radical socialist SJWs?

    1. Well, I guess I don’t have to ask why he’s known as Derpman.

      1. I find it pretty hilarious that a supposed Left-Libertarian has a quite reactionary ideal of a non-existent Victorian past when libertarians, anarchists, progressives, liberals, socialists and communists where all as one since they all opposed absolute monarchy and Benjamin Tucker called himself a socialist.

  33. I’ve resolved against using sarcasm in the future. I mean how bad can it get when you can’t use, “oh, yeah, you’d probably like some guy on reality tv to run the country”, as an epithet?

    In that spirit I say the following:

    ALL THESE RIGHT-WING KOOKS, RACISTS, IDIOTS, AUTHORITARIANS, WHITE NATIONALISTS AND WARMONGERS WOULDN’T GET CLOSE TO THE WH IF WE ELECTED BERNIE SANDERS.

    Is this ok?

    1. Fuck off, asswipe.

      1. Fuck you, you Nazi sympathizer.

        1. Fuck off, asswipe.

        2. You’re the socialist. How does it feel to be so similar to the Nazis in your political philosophy?

          1. Since you asked, socialists– not national socialists like some Trump supporters– were the first to go to Hitler’s gas chambers and to Stalin’s gulags. Not to mention their own difficulties in this country where they were beaten by Apartheid supporters in the American South and hounded by McCarthy’s goon squads. Pretty heroic if you ask me. More than I can say for libertarians who didn’t start showing up for anti war rallies until 2009. I was there from the beginning, buddy.

            1. Cool story, bro. You get a gold red star.

            2. More than I can say for libertarians who didn’t start showing up for anti war rallies until 2009.

              mm hmm okay

            3. “Since you asked”

              Fuck off, asswipe.

            4. Among the ranks you heroes can count Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Tito, Mao, etc. Has there ever been a good socialist leader? It’s like no matter what country, no matter what culture, your ideology fails miserably and catastrophically.

              In a sane world a person calking himself a socialist would be reviled very bit as much as one calling himself a Nazi.

              And your bitching about McCarthyism is ever rich. The worst capitalist treatment of socialists is better than the best treatment of capitalists by socialists. For half a century socialists have been fleeing socialist countries for capitalist ones. But that doesn’t teach you the lesson you need to learn, nothing will.

  34. Garrison Keillor: boring whines for lefties.

    “Garrison Keillor: E pluribus duo”
    […]
    “So we have split up. Democrats and Republicans.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/…..627879.php

    Somebody get this infantile twit a bankie!

    1. Oh, Buddha, he’s as trite and tiresome in print* as he is live.

      *yeah, I know he writes

    2. Hillarians look at strangers in the airport and think, “You did, didn’t you. Yes, you did.”

      This says a lot about his mentality.

    3. E pluribus duo

      Duo because there are a total of two political parties and any person and his ideas are in one or the other.

      1. Yeah, that pretty much defines his views; anyone who didn’t vote for the felon MUST be an R!
        But I’m sure he’ll claim to be all about nuance…

        1. After being asked about who I voted for by an acquaintance, I said that I didn’t vote. He said that for me not to vote meant I had no empathy for other people. I asked wtf are you talking about, and he meant that I had no empathy because I didn’t vote against Trump. So because I didn’t vote for Hillary I have no empathy, I asked. Maybe I didn’t like either candidate, I said. He ended by calling me intolerant.

          1. “…He ended by calling me intolerant….”

            You know commie-kid?

          2. So because I didn’t vote for Hillary I have no empathy

            And the Trump supporters are supposed to be the crazy ones…

            He ended by calling me intolerant.

            Social tolerance!

          3. I would’ve just asked him how much money he had in his wallet, then declared that, since he had not donated it to UNICEF, several children had died for want of vaccines or something. Then I would’ve walked away shaking my head in self-righteous indignation while muttering about those 7 children the guy basically murdered by not donating that $42 to UNICEF.

    4. You know what’s funny about this “US versus THEM” shit?

      I don’t think the people Keillor thinks of as “Them”…

      (the Red-state, flyover country, middle-american non-urban-leftists that they are constantly trying to describe in their hillbilly elegy essays, and Whitelash editorials , etc.?)

      I don’t think any of “them” think of themselves as ‘one thing’ at all. I don’t think a Trump voter in urban Michigan thinks of Trump voters in rural Louisiana as their ideological breathren, so much as just ”some other people who happened to vote the same way”

      Sure, there’s plenty of tribalism on the right – but many flavors of it. Its just seems like its not necessary that there be some unified identity that everyone can say is “us”.

      I don’t think Keillor gets that. Yes, I think he gets that the “them” probably fall into two camps = the ones that know who he is, and hate him? and ones that don’t know who he is.

      but I think the left’s constant frothing about the “other” lately is really just – as usual – a product of their own psychological problems which they need to endlessly project.

      So… conclusion =

      all this “US vs Them” stuff? I don’t really think is about Team Blue vs Team Red, but rather more a concern that Team Blue – particularly the baby-boomer-version of Team Blue – is falling apart. So they’re constantly trying to rally themselves.

      Because if they’re actually NOT the inevitable majority? If they’re NOT the inevitable future? ….then what is?

      1. Yeah, I guess rednecks in Oklahoma make crude “Us vs. Them” assumptions about people who live in big cities and the majority of people that voted for Clinton. They’re a pretty homogeneous and pitiable lot.

        1. Fuck off, asswipe.

      2. “…and ones that don’t know who he is…”

        And would hate him if they did…

      3. btw – i think a lot of this same sort stuff was going on in the GOP around mid spring

        during the whole #nevertrump thing…. national review declaring that they just ‘couldn’t even’ and would not abide by the defiling of their precious conservatism… editorials from people like George Will saying they don’t even recognize their party anymore, etc.

        Same deal. The difference is partly that they were anticipating defeat, rather than reacting to it in shock, so it had a different tenor.

        I think both are actually less a product of some ‘populist’ thing, or anything unique about trump… and its just a generational-transition.

        This election is/was the last gasp of Baby Boomer politics. These editorials which bemoan american politics aren’t really about the actual reality of the status quo = they’re more about the fact that these old-fart pundits don’t know what to do in a world that no longer gives a shit about their opinion.

        1. “I think both are actually less a product of some ‘populist’ thing, or anything unique about trump… and its just a generational-transition.”

          As a non-representative of that age group, I’d like to hope so; such navel-gazing as we’ve gotten from those who are representative is enough to gag a maggot.
          But we ended up with Trump, so I’m not sure.

          1. Looking at post-election stats, the age divide was just as stark as the country mouse/city mouse narrative. However, the latter seems to be more sexy to the media, so that’s the oversimplification they’ve been going with. Nevertheless, it is just as valid to claim that this election was the Baby Boomers and the first cohort of Gen X screaming “GET YOUR MEXICAN MUSLIM HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!”

            1. Yeah, idiots in their 40s don’t seem to understand that for Medicare to work there actually has to be workers around to pay the taxes. BUILD DUH WALL!

              1. Fuck off, asswipe.

              2. And by ‘workers’ you mean ‘welfare recipients.’

    5. At least he isn’t a hateful, insufferable twit:

      “…If they were drowning, I’d toss them an anvil….

      “…Trumpists will explain, as one woman did, “Voting for him was the only way I could say that I exist.” (People who shoot up theaters may feel the same way.)

      “…let’s bind up our wounds and have an amicable divorce….

      “…We get to go to wildlife refuges, Gettysburg, and the birthplaces of authors….

      “…Hitler led Germany out of the confusion of democracy…When he staged Kristallnacht in November 1938, and went after the Jews, it was a huge success, on time and under budget….”

      1. Yeah, he definitely sounds a lot like AmSock.

  35. So did the LP win any counties this year?

    And what are the chances the LP vote will collapse in 2020? Quite high I say.

    1. Eight-Tracks will be the hipsters’ choice by then, I expect.

    2. I think they picked up Rowley, Massachusetts.

  36. So once again I see that the LP does a shit job at being “pragmatic”. After all what exactly is the difference between a “pragmatic” libertarian and a Republican?

    Also I’m not sure the mealy-mouthed centrism is going to work still. Things are very divisive right now and the whole “the status quo is really good and we need to just stop bickering and get things done” attitude is rather strange coming from a supposedly Libertarian Party.

    1. Yeah this was one election to shine a lot on some radical policy proposals. Meanwhile half the Johnson campaign was too busy defending Hilary while the other half was too busy making himself out to be a conciliatory doofus every time he stepped in front of a camera for an interview. I swear to Jeebus, Robby Soave was the secret architect of Johnson’s argumentation.

      1. Well he did advocate getting of the IRS, NSA, Ed, HUD and Commerce which are pretty radical proposals. that said they didn’t get much attention. And I’m sure all the folks getting into a hissy fit over Trump’s win just love the idea of getting rid of those things…

        1. I agree, he did have good positions. His argumentation squandered the potential of that election.

  37. Also for a supposed socially tolerant society we still seem very judgmental of people who go against social norms. It just that the social norms have changed…

  38. Speaking of complaints about a corrupt two party system I recall Portugal had one before the Republic and Venezuela had one before Chavez. Look how that turned out!

  39. Dalmia is on Kennedy right now – even more boorish and absurd than her Reason columns.

    1. My personal favorite is her “America will survive Trump but the World won’t” article. Like What? Or her attacks on Jindal for apostasy or how the US needs immigrants to provide cannon fodder for the military. Or basing an article on a Trump spoof account before sending it down the memory hole.

      Even her Modi obsession is pretty shitty. Complaining the Obama and Zuckerberg are being nice to him while Reason is calling for closer relations with Cuba is incredibly hypocritical. Or complaining that Trump will embolden him? Or how some commie kid is creating a “liberty movement” since we all know Commies do that even when opposing terrible regimes…

  40. And I missed it! Oh I’m sad.

  41. My favorite thing about this election was PsychoMike going from calling Johnson detractors goober bullies to complaining about how much Johnson sucked.

  42. You Know Which Other Democrat Stage Actor didn’t like a Republican President?

  43. You Know Which Other Democrats wanted to secede due to the Republicans winning an election thanks to an electoral college biased towards him.

  44. The End of the World, ’cause Trump!

    “Trump has a plan for government workers. They’re not going to like it.”
    […]
    “Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions ? these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January.”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/

    Guy’s sounding better; maybe this could apply to congress-critters?

  45. Trump trauma: A sign of doomsday or mass derangement?
    Some compare Donald Trump’s election to 9/11 or the rise of Hitler; others say ‘grow up’

    “Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and author of the weblog Instapundit, said the “culture of hysteria” against Trump and the comparisons to Hitler will only backfire against his opponents.

    “”So, if I’m Trump, I’d actually love that,” he said. “Because first of all, it makes my opponents look stupid and flighty. And second of all, it means that all I have to do to succeed is not be Hitler. You’re setting the bar really low, and how smart is that?””

    1. You know who else’s opponents were stupid and flighty?

      1. Cats?

      2. Les Nesman?

  46. “…For abortion-rights advocates who now see their most important victories under threat, this election should be a wake-up call. It is clear that reproductive-rights advocates need to do a better job of getting outside of their political silos and talking to the citizens in the suburban and rural areas whom they want to win over.

    Advocates of reproductive rights are well positioned to make a strong case to American women across income, education, and geographical divides. Their winning message: There is a direct correlation between safe, accessible reproductive health services and women’s economic prosperity. In this election, too many women failed to connect the dots between their reproductive rights and economic security. It’s up to abortion-rights advocates to do a better job speaking to all women about why both their constitutional rights and their economic futures are now at stake.”

    1. So they are learning from the NRA.

  47. “Those who have publicly embraced the [Confederate] flag are a small minority of the more than 60 million Americans who voted for Mr. Trump in the Nov. 8 election.

    But [etc]

  48. Just caught a portion of “Tiny House”
    Do these folks understand they’re buying into artisanal double-wides?

    1. artisanal double-wides

      Brilliant! We call them “ecru-trash”.

      1. “We call them “ecru-trash”.”

        VERY nice!

    2. Double wides are WAY bigger. These are more like artisanal travel trailers, except you can’t take them anywhere very often because they have really shitty aerodynamics.

      1. I’ll bet you thought I didn’t know that, right?

  49. This is from the SF Chron, and if the editorial staff understood the facts, they’d never print this:

    “2020 presidential candidates, ranked by Vegas odds”
    http://www.sfgate.com/entertai…..621900.php

    “Vegas odds” are nothing if not a pure market transaction; no one ‘sets’ the odds; the betting houses offset pro/con buys to balance their books.
    I didn’t bother reading the odds, since they’re irrelevant at this time; people merely reacting to this election (and I’m sure a ton of lefty whining and hoping; maybe a ton of lefty tears again when they lose the election AND their money).

    1. I bet $200 on a Trump victory. Got 4-1 odds on it. I was betting on white people w/o a college degree to come through for me. And boy did they! Thank you.

      1. Fuck off, asswipe.

      2. Nice, that oughtta help you cover some of the principal on that mortgage of yours.

    2. Casinos are market makers. They take both sides of the bet and profit on the spread.

      “Odds” is a bit misleading.

      1. It’s the Chron; the editorial staff would be horrified if they understood that.
        An acquaintance writes for the rag; his description of a ‘push’ earlier this year comes close to this:
        “It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.”
        http://deadline.com/2016/11/sh…..201852490/
        The discussion addressed the Chron’s self-appointed role as “Beyond Homelessness”, as if writing some stories would make the bums disappear.
        The writer leans left (not enough to capsize), but admitted his pieces were driven by what the publisher to editor wanted to see; make sure it backs ‘the narrative’.

        1. You certainly are oppressed by the Chron. Someone should give you a cookie.

          1. Fuck off, asswipe.

          2. I’m not oppressed by Pravda, just amused by it. It only starts oppressing me when it’s devotees end up running the country. Which is why I lament the fact that you can vote.

  50. If Citizens United is overturned, will George Sonos have to stop funding his mouthpiece organizations?

  51. The dumber you are the more you went Trump… there’s just something about him.

    From Pew Research: “the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%.”

    1. Fuck off, asswipe.

    2. What’s the gap between gender studies degree holders and engineering degrees? What about people with degrees in Queer Theory vs. Econ?

      *crickets*

    3. The dumber you are the more you conflate ‘intelligence’ with ‘college degree’. Its especially notable when you cite numbers that lump STEM and other income enhancing degrees (or even degrees that require a goodly degree of intelligence even if they aren’t going to make you extra money) in with stuff like *studies degrees – which rely on you being able to parrot jargon and ignore reality..

  52. Raaiiiiderrrzzzz! Just sayin.

    1. When I was six years old Jim Plunkett was my favorite player. When I was eleven my uncle gave me Ken Stabler’s autobiography. Pretty inappropriate but I enjoyed it thoroughly.

  53. Rowdy college kids tear down and burn US flag. College admin responds by banning US flag on campus. Idiot from college appears on TV to defend decision.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cKBq1aIpA

    I don’t use the word “idiot” here lightly. He’s a real asshat.

  54. “Trump auditions Cabinet prospects high above Manhattan’
    […]
    ” Donald Trump held court from his perch high above Manhattan on Monday, receiving a line of former rivals, longtime allies and TV executives while overseeing a presidential transition that at times resembles a reality show like the one he once hosted.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..627269.php

    Lefties HORRIFIED! Obo promised interviews at the Flatbush Ave subway station! (and the blew it off).
    Man, this is tiresome!
    Fucking lefties, YOU LOST! Go grab your bankie and suck your thumb.

    1. When you went to fight the Vietcong was it the bullshit lies of LBJ or the bullshit lies of Nixon that you were taken in by?

  55. You’re assuming that liberals want free speech for everyone. The goal is ALWAYS “approved speech only”. Everything they do follows from that. Stop proceeding from the notion that they are speaking in good faith.

  56. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————— http://www.Nypost55.com

  57. I thought the Spice Girls were the most annoying spice-themed organization out there. I reckoned without Bill Penzey’s spices, whose owner sent this letter to those of his customers who voted for Trump:

    “…you just voted for an openly racist candidate for the presidency of the United States of America….Whether any of us like it or not, for the next four years the 80% of this country who did not just vote for an openly racist candidate are going to treat you like you are the kind of person who would vote for an openly racist candidate.

    “You can get angry at everyone else for treating you like you just did the thing you just did, or you can take responsibility for your actions and begin to make amends. If you are lucky and younger family members are still coming over for Thanksgiving, before it’s too late, take a moment and honestly think about how your actions must look through their eyes. Simply saying “I never thought he’d win” might be enough. But if you have the means, leaving a receipt from a sizable donation to the ACLU or the SPLC accidentally laying around where you carve the turkey, might go over even better.

    “Or, just do what you do best and volunteer. Through our customers’ support, we’ve given away a lot of our Penzeys Pepper, the Pepper with heart.”

  58. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  59. Corporations are not natural persons. They don’t talk, pray, etc. First Amendment expression should be limited (but not barred) because corporations first and foremost owe fiduciary responsibility to stockholders.

    Closely held (S corp) corporations are bit different, because the veil between corporation and stockholders is more gossamer. If individuals are limited in what they give, at a minimum, so should corporations.

  60. Corporations are not natural persons. They don’t talk, pray, etc. First Amendment expression should be limited (but not barred) because corporations first and foremost owe fiduciary responsibility to stockholders.

    Closely held (S corp) corporations are bit different, because the veil between corporation and stockholders is more gossamer. If individuals are limited in what they give, at a minimum, so should corporations.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.