Did Democrats Learn Anything From Their Attack on the Filibuster?

The filibuster was always a useful speed bump, not just now that Donald Trump is about to be president.

|

I won't lie. After reading the CNN piece titled "Senate Dems, powerless to stop Trump nominees, regret 'nuclear option' power play," I experienced some deeply satisfying schadenfreude. Feel free to keep President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and those who implored Senate Democrats to blow up the filibuster a few years ago in your thoughts as President-elect Donald Trump names his Cabinet and judges. But be sure to remember how recklessness begets recklessness in Washington, D.C.

"I do regret that," Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted to weaken the filibuster three years ago, tells CNN. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

It always was a terrific speed bump, senator. One of the reasons we value tradition, norms and process is that we don't know what the future holds. But, you'll note, these Democrats don't regret their vote for majoritarianism or power grabs. They regret that Trump (and it would be the same for Mitt Romney or any moderate Republican, for that matter) will now be able to operate under the rules they set for themselves.

It's worth remembering that Democrats didn't used a parliamentary procedure to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can move to confirmation votes with a simple majority for some grand ideological purpose. They did it for short-term political gains that no one will remember. Does any Democrat believe helping Obama name some left-wing populists to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which didn't even exist until 2011) and the National Labor Relations Board was worth it?

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), another leading proponent of destroying checks and balances, charged at the time that without the nuclear option Republicans were "going to disable" the executive branch. "It's come into a realm where it's just unacceptable because if the executive branch can't function, then the nation can't respond to the big challenges it faces," he explained. He seemed to be under the impression that presidents make laws—or maybe just liberal presidents.

The liberal punditry hammered the filibuster back then the same way it's hammering the Electoral College today. In 2010, Paul Krugman wrote a column in The New York Times claiming that the filibuster would destroy America.

I do not exaggerate. He wrote: "We've always known that America's reign as the world's greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic. What we're getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce."

The idea that Democrats hadn't been able to function was a myth. Obama, supposedly powerless to face America's "big challenges," had already passed a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus, a restructuring of the entire health care system and a tangled overhaul of financial regulation. The president also appointed two wholly liberal Supreme Court justices with no meaningful opposition.

The American people then said, "That's enough." For Merkley, Krugman, Coons, Reid and others, that wouldn't do.

When Reid's party was in the minority, he warned that weakening the Senate filibuster would "destroy the very checks and balances our Founding Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government." He was right. With his party's attainment of a Senate majority, Reid's reverence for the Founding Fathers rapidly faded, so much so that he used the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster from some Senate debates.

As a practical matter, these changes will likely never be reversed. What kind of majority is going to restore the filibuster to its opponents? What kind of majority wouldn't use the same process to roll back the previous Senate's abuses? (And the latter makes complete sense.) After all, the Chris Coons of the world will never be courageous enough to stand for process and stability over partisanship gain. In a Republican environment where winning itself is the ideology, it becomes even less likely.

Although each party detests the filibuster when it is in power, progressives hold an enduring contempt for it because they hold an enduring contempt for federalism in general. Even today, some liberals are trying to figure out ways to work Senate procedure to put Chief Judge Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court. As if Republicans wouldn't then simply turn around and load the court themselves. This kind of arms race sets dangerous precedents. It'd be nice if the nation realized it.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Reactions to Trump FDA Chief Rumor: Unmitigated, and Unsupported, Fear of a Libertarian Planet

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. But, you’ll note, these Democrats don’t regret their vote for majoritarianism or power grabs. They regret that Trump (and it would be the same for Mitt Romney or any moderate Republican, for that matter) will now be able to operate under the rules they set for themselves.

    The Left doesn’t believe in anything but their own power.

    But, I think as you have noted, getting rid of the filibuster is a win for their vision of government, as they don’t want checks and balances, and would rather render Congress impotent.

    1. It was the Hillary partisans controlling the DNC who decided to stop Rand Paul in the primaries so they could get their preferred, supposedly easily beatable opponent, Trump.

      They probably wish they could roll back that choice.

      1. I don’t know. There is a whole generation of younger voters that have never known what’s it’s like to have a president that didn’t have a perpetual war-boner.

      2. I doubt that. Unless on retrospect they think Rand Paul would’ve been easier to beat. And even if they think Rand Paul would’ve been a more responsible wielder of Presidential power they still wouldn’t take back that decision. Particularly if Paul’s “potential” of reaching minority and young voters was real.

        1. Rand Paul would have been MUCH easier to beat. Even though it’s ridiculous, Trump has a kind of growing cult of personality. There are swaths of people out there who love him and see him as their savior or some shit. I guess he took a cue from Obama on that. Rand would never have pulled that sort of thing off.

          1. Agreed. Shrill-Bot was prepared for a traditional opposition campaign, which Rand was running, albeit on slightly different core issues.

            Troomp weathered just about every single thing that would sink any other candidate’s campaign, AND, Troomp punches back, Hard. Even when he shouldn’t, yet he still manages to land on his feet.

            I stand by my statement that the only candidate capable of beating Shrill-Bot was Troomp: Herself’s campaign was simply not prepared either for him, nor literally prepared, as they made numerous mistakes, such as writing off MI and taking it for granted. And the, “I should be 50 points ahead!,” and insulting the very voters she needed didn’t help either. The ones Troomp actively marketed to and courted.

            1. Hillary ran a classic Dem campaign that, I believe, would have beat just any of the other front-runners. Negative personal attacks by proxies, accusations of bigotry, handouts for everyone, etc. With a craven media pushing her “historic” narrative as the First Woman President, it would have won against a traditional Repub campaign of not challenging the media narrative, not responding to accusations of bigotry, and not reaching out in any serious way to blue collar/Rust Belt voters.

              Trump blew up every traditional attack against him, and worked hard for what turned out to be the critical demographic for his victory.

              The political apparatchiks and commentators still haven’t figured out that Trump isn’t a political operator, he’s a business man. He ran a campaign like a businessman would, and he’s running his transition the same way. They can’t process it, so to them it looks like luck, cheating, or blithering incompetence, and nothing more.

              1. And Bill as ‘First Lady?”

                The Sunday magazine sections would’ve swooned over his gowns and the many designers waiting in line for Bill to choose which one.

  2. “Elections have consequences”

  3. “I won” – President Obama

    1. “And then I won, motherfucker!” – Donald J. Trump.

      Yeah, elections have consequences. Sometimes unforeseen ones.

      1. Payback is a bitch

        1. People keep saying that, but I know Payback. She’s a very kind person, and only wrathful to assholes.

          1. I only believe in karma about half the time.

        2. The Universal Law of Retribution

        3. Great song though.

  4. “It’s only okay when our side does it!”

    1. We’re not responsible if you elect the wrong people.
      It’s not the power that’s bad, it’s who wields it.
      Principals over principles.

  5. I left my cd of sad violin music at home this morning, so i got nothing for the poor dears.

    1. You could try rubbing your fingers together.

      1. Masturbation euphemisms? Dammit, man, there’s no time!

        1. Not really, a common colloquial sign language.

        2. “This is the world’s smallest violin and it’s playing just for you.”

          – Margaret Houlihan, RN, MAJ, US Army Nurse Corps

    2. CD?! Pfffft
      *tip toes around X’s lawn*

    3. No problem, just play your CD of sad trombone music.

    4. The world’s smallest violin playing “My nose bleeds for you”?

      I believe I have that disc…..

    1. This week’s South Park was once again amazingly insightful. Why is it that a cartoon is the only thing on TV with anything to say?

      They talked about how Trump got elected by trolling the far left to get them to massively overreact, which got the rest of the country to reject their over-reach. It was a pretty good take, certainly better than the left’s idea that all white people are flaming racists who identify with white nationalism (which defies reality in every way possible).

      1. Because Trey and Matt are about the only people in entertainment that don’t have political affiliations, so they are able to goad both sides.

  6. “I do regret that,” Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted to weaken the filibuster three years ago, tells CNN. “I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down nominees.”

    Of all the glorious post election schadenfreude, Coons’ statement might be my favorite. I sure he does regret it.

    That being said, there is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. Here is an interesting and pretty derisive history of filibusters written by the Brookings Institute back when Liberals didn’t like the filibuster and thought they would be in the majority forever. I bet the author of this piece wants badly to put it down the memory hole.

    http://www.brookings.edu/testi…..ilibuster/

    So I don’t think losing it is going to end the Republic.

  7. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), another leading proponent of destroying checks and balances, charged at the time that without the nuclear option Republicans were “going to disable” the executive branch.

    The greatest deliberative body can’t possibly foresee that the weapons they give the White House will eventually fall into the hands of opposition. But then, for a time, everyone was so certain that the changing voter demographics meant that never again would anything but a Democrat find his ass planted at 1600 PA Ave.

    1. When the ACA passed, I wondered what the hell the Democrats were thinking putting so much power into the HHS hands. Someday there will be a Republican president who can appoint someone to that post. And they will have the reins of the horse cart. And can start to do a whole bunch of things that Dems won’t like.

      Again – another argument for small government.

      1. Someone should invent some sort of metallic law to explain this phenomenon.

        1. I propose something made with ferrous. Perhaps a ferrous wheel.

        2. Baldrick: Yes, it’s like goldy and bronzy only it’s made out of iron.

          1. It was only believed to be iron. In fact, it’s a titanium alloy.

          2. Wait, are you saying that Trump sits on a throne forged from the swords of his slain enemies?

        3. Fascinating. Maybe I’ll give it a try.

      2. another argument for small government

        and for Congress to actually, um, “do something” rather than enable an unelected bureaucrat to do WTF xi wants.

    2. Merkley is a retarded idiot.

      1. agreed – if Oregon has to elect Democrats 100% of the time, could we at least clone Ron Wyden? at least he has respect for a *few* civil liberties….

  8. Does anyone have insight into the veracity of the rumors surrounding Reid’s career-ending injury? I’ve heard that it was the result of a Mafia beating, and possibly with involvement by his brother. But there’s so much bullshit being flung, it’s hard to assign that any credibility, though it’s sure plausible.

    1. Sounds like fake news to me.

    2. There has never been any resolution of that At the end of 2015, a guy who is in Reid’s deadbeat brother’s AA group claimed that Reid’s brother had told him that he bad beaten up Reid at a family gathering over Thanksgiving. That guy later recanted and said he made the whole thing up. Whether he really was lying or decided he was lying after some of Reid’s allies talked to him is anyone’s guess. That was the only rumor that ever had any verifiable evidence. All of the stuff about the mafia beating him up were always “a friend has a cousin in the Las Vegas PD mafia section who said…” kind of stuff.

      So who the fuck knows? What is remarkable about it is that Reid is such a known dirt bag that claims that he was beaten up by the mafia are on their face believable, even if untrue. There isn’t another member of Congress on either side that you could say “the mafia beat him up to send a message” and have anyone think it possible. That is pretty remarkable when you think about it.

      1. I dunno, it seems to me the only reason the Mob never roughed up Henry Waxman is because they looked at him and figured he’d already been beaten into disfigurement.

        1. The mafia knows better than to fuck with molemen.

          1. Molemen haunted my nightmares as a kid in the 60’s.

  9. Fuck you, Sen. Coons. Dingey Harry already stated that he left groundwork in place for simple majority votes for the eventual SCOTUS picks. Simple. Majority. Votes. SCOTUS.

    The bullet dodged (for now), folks….

    1. I think this is what they planned. I think they figured they’d get a SCOTUS pick and were setting up the framework to get rid of the filibuster. Frog in boiling water, or what have you.

      1. I’m sure the Repubs will do something stupid about it … they are, after all, forever Charlie Brown

        1. How easy would it be to bring the filibuster back?

          Are there enough Repubs who hate Trump enough to do it?

          1. You could bring it back by getting a majority of Senators to support doing it. The problem is that the only thing that kept it alive was the unspoken assurance of both sides using it if it ever ended. Once the Democrats ended it, that assurance was over. And there is no recreating it. Yeah, you could put it back but it would only last until the majority decided they really needed to pass something and just voted to change the rules again. It was all based on trust and the Democrats killed that.

            1. The Republicans will allow the Democrats to filibuster Trump nominations, count on it. They are not called The Stupid Party for nothing.

              1. No they won’t. They would have to change the rules and doing that would require a vote and going on record. The Republicans are more than anything cowards. They wouldn’t ever change the rules period because doing so would require being held responsible for something.

                1. The filibuster is still in effect for SCOTUS nominees. Wanna bet the Republicans allow it to stay?

                  1. Yes. But they won’t change the rule on cabinet appointees.

            2. You also have to get PR to bring it to the floor, even if you did have the votes

              1. * McConnell

            3. Uther Pendragon: To kill and be king, is that all?

              Merlin: Perhaps not even that.

              Uther Pendragon: You strike me with words hard as steel!

              Merlin: You betrayed the Duke. You stole his wife. You took his castle. Now no one trusts you. You’re not the one. Give me the child. I will protect him.

            4. The filibuster is dead without a Constitutional amendment.

    2. “Coons.” RAAAAAAAACIST

  10. I don’t see why the filibuster is such a big deal – it’s not like the minority party has any mandate to act purely as opposition to the President’s and the majority party’s agenda no matter what it is, the press and the American people would never stand for such behavior. If the Democrats had no other agenda than to say “no” to everything the GOP proposed you’d never hear the end of the howls of outrage about those damn dirty obstructionists. Right?

    1. There is some truth to that. The existence of the filibuster has allowed both parties to avoid taking any responsibility for changing anything once they were in control. One of the bigger ironies of the Democrats killing the filibuster on judicial nominations is that it ended up hurting them politically because Democratic Senators could no longer pretend to be on both sides of a controversial nomination. With the filibuster, Democratic Senators could come out in support of a nominee and vote for cloture knowing the nomination wasn’t going anywhere. This allowed them to tell their leftist backers “I wanted so and so on the bench but those damned Republicans stopped it” while also not worrying about it becoming an issue with non leftists since the guy was never put on the bench. After the filibuster ended, they had to actually case votes that mattered. And that didn’t turn out to be a good role for them.

  11. You would think that people that make laws would bother to learn the iron ones first. Or maybe not.

    Fuck the slimy rats. I have no sympathy. Rub their faces in this shit mercilessly.

    Now watch them try to pretend to be honorable and principled, wrap themselves in the constitution they denigrated for 8 years. They are completely, shamelessly unprincipled and dishonorable hypocrites.

    Prediction: Friday news dump will contain some giant turd Obama laid on us.

    1. Progressives have no intellectual history. They will do the same type things again when they have the power to do so, and they will regret them when they lose the authority because the needs of their power in the moment is all that matters to them.

      1. The Democrats will continue to do so because thus far the Republicans have been too stupid to use their tactics against them. I assume this will continue to be the case.

    2. Fuck the slimy rats. I have no sympathy. Rub their faces in this shit mercilessly.

      ^This. So much this.

    3. The iron ones are not created by legislatures, so they don’t really exist.

  12. This is what happens when progressives start mucking with that which they do not intellectually undetstand for utilitarian purposes. It applies to legal procedures and socisl norms.

  13. My favorite Krugman meme.

    I really hate that guy.

    1. That’s a good one.

      Krugman is horrible, but he has become a useful idiot. His hyperpartisan lunacy on Twitter and in the NYT provides a window to the conscience of a liberal. Clear thinking readers learning what progressives really think and can easily see that progressives are in fact insane.

      1. Krugman is horrible when the proggies are in charge. Now he is delicious

  14. Crying about a weakened filibuster now is crap. Even if some Democrats regret doing it, this is something they should keep to themselves ’cause it looks hella-bad.

    However, I’m still glad the Democrats weakened it the way they did. I do think the executive branch should have a decent amount of latitude to nominate who they want to various positions. Grinding it out with the legislative branch over laws and policy, that’s good: a slower government is generally a better government in the long term. But blocking nominees…? I don’t really see the wisdom in that. It really does enable a minority to throw sand in the whole engine, and that doesn’t help anyone.

    1. Right, what we need is 51 people to push through a judge from the 9th circuit into SCOTUS.

      1. Does 60 really make it that much better??

    2. Checks and balances, Morty, checks and balances. The constitutional requirement that certain actions of the executive require the advice and consent of the legislature is one of the protections against the executive growing too powerful.

      1. Especially for judges and justices who will be there long after the president is gone.

      2. I read that in Rick’s voice, with some belching interspersed throughout.

          1. Tonio? Don’t worry Los Doyers smokes too much weed.

        1. That’s rickdiculous.

    3. Why?

      A manager has limited control over who his subordinates are – he can certainly nominate candidates, but its up to the people running the business as to whether or not to agree.

      Same thing here – the President does not ‘run the country’, if anyone does its Congress. Nothing the President does should be done except to implement the overarching plan created by Congress. To give the President unilateral authority *in any area* (and yes, this means even in military matters pertaining to responding to ‘imminent’ attacks short of pre-agreed upon courses of *limited* action – as responding to a nuke strike) is to give him too much authority and renders Congress moot.

      The Legislative Branch initiates action
      The Executive follows orders
      The Judicial points out the limits of action for the other two.

      1. You left out the part where each branch has the power to nullify the actions of the others, if unconstitutional.
        .
        The legislative branch can impeach the president and remove them from office. IIRC, they can do the same to members of the judiciary not following their oath of office.

        The judiciary can slap down anything done by the other two branches.

        The president can disband unconstitutional federal agencies and quit paying the employees therein, and refuse to carry out unlawful acts of Congress.

        The only reason very little of this occurs is because the electorate is statist, and elects the same.

        1. Congress can impeach SCOTUS judges, although they have only done so once. Samuel Chase was impeached by the house, but acquitted by the senate. 15 federal judges have been impeached, with 8 of them being convicted by the senate and removed from office.

    4. The senate has traditionally given the President wide latitude on his nominees to the cabinet, saying that he should have the right to pick his team. They bark a lot and try to make a little partisan hay, but in the end they pretty much approve cabinet appointments.

      It is the SCOTUS that has become controversial – particularly since the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings. That got really nasty and really personal – and for reasons that were mostly irrational.

      Although I do find it funny that the Republicans keep getting vilified on this point, since they are the ones who are mostly deferential. When Elena Kagan opined that a federal law forcing people to buy veggies would be constitutional, every member of the Senate should have immediately seen that she was not appropriate for the nation’s last bulwark against the federal government overreaching its constitutional mandate. But partisans are going to be partisan, and Republicans are going to try to have some sense of decorum…. so in she goes.

      1. That sort of gets at the basis of my opinion. A whole lot of our system is propped up by tradition, and for most of the country’s history, the Senate largely stood out of the way of nominees for exactly the reason you describe: let the president pick their team. I think there’s a lot to be said for this.

        In recent years though, tradition has been undercut by partisanship. Particularly when it comes to judges, Obama’s nominees being held up for months and months has created an enormous backlog of cases. I don’t think anyone can argue this improves justice.

        By making it easier to confirm nominees, it takes the codified rules a step closer to what general practices were already before partisan hackery become so popular.

        I would even be supportive of a rule that allowed “lessor” nominees be confirmed by a simple up or down vote, while more ranking figures (SCOTUS, heads of major dept.) would need the full 60 votes.

  15. Good morning. There will be no stopping the new E.P.A. chief. Thank you Coons and Reid. Oh,and the Hardee’s guy is exploding heads too. I remember many here saying this exact thing would happen, Seems the commenters here are smarter than most congress persons .

    1. And the woman from the WWE. Don’t forget her. My Prog friends on Facebook were losing their minds over her last night. I don’t know what she did, but they hate her.

      1. She successfully ran a business appreciated by the working class.

      2. Linda McMahon.

        They hate her because if they hate anything more than professional football it is professional wrestling.

      3. She’s a successful women with a R by here name. There’s also the lady picked for education. Same deal.

        1. It’s so ironic that the women and minorities picked by Trump are the ones universally denounced by the left as being unqualified, while they give begrudging hat tips to some of the old white males being offered up.

          1. Did you see the Harry Reid portrait unveiling picks? It was whiter than a HuffPo editorial board meeting alt-right rally.

      4. Yes. My friend who is bemoaning fake news put up an opinion piece on how Trump’s cabinet was “anti-woman”. So I guess Elaine Chao as an actual Secretary nominee and then Nikki Haley and Linda McMahon as I guess next-tier that still get advice and consent aren’t women. Just like Sarah Palin.

        1. The left always treats the people that don’t fit their narrative the most poorly. This is because none of them want to accept how cognitively dissonant their beliefs really are.

      5. Is there something fundamentally wrong with opposing her? In the context of this article about some Dems regretting weakening the filibuster, many comments seem to be suggesting that liberals opposing a particular nominee is somehow wrong or hypocritical just because they weakened the filibuster.

        I don’t see the connection.

        1. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with opposing any presidents nominee for any position.

          It’s just fucking hilarious to see the left tie itself in knots over Trump’s nominees after just finishing an election blasting him for being anti-woman and anti-minority. The total and utter hypocrisy is something to behold.

        2. It’s hypocritical of them to have claimed that the minority had no standing to oppose nominees to the cabinet, as they did in Obama’s days, and then used that as justification to destroy the filibuster, and then pretend like their opposition to a nominee is completely noble. Their opposition is just as self-serving as any Republican opposition.

    2. The average rock is smarter than most congress persons.
      Vacuum is smarter than most congress persons.

  16. Did Reason learn anything about when to post the AM Links?

    1. 9:03? 9:03?!!

    2. We’re being filibustered by them, right up the wrong ‘un

      1. Sans Vaseline, even!

      2. [golf clap] for IFH

    3. 9:30. Sometimes they feel sorry for all the needy folks and post at 9.

    4. Pledge drive is over. We now return to our regular shitty programming.

  17. ML8, ML8 ….

  18. Did Democrats Learn Anything From Their Attack on the Filibuster?

    No. Neither did the Republicans though, so there’s that.

    Its funny though – back in the days when the Democrats were the *openly* racist party, they used the filibuster to help push their policies and block stuff they didn’t like.

    1. Wedding photo drone. Who wouldn’t want some nice wedding pictures of the tops of everybody’s heads?

      1. Cleavage cam?

        1. 😎

          “Watch *this* maneuver!”

          1. You forgot “Hold my beer”.

    2. Kneena Ellis, of Seabrook,

      Kneena?

      Still, broken bones in the face don’t sound fun.

      oh, and *slap!*

          1. “SLAP!”

      1. I wonder if the K is silent in that.

        1. “See-brew”? No, I don’t thin so.

            1. Actually I think it’s pronounced ‘She Brew’

              1. French – so its actually pronounced ‘throat-warbler mangrove’.

                1. That’s Gaelic, actually. For example the name, “Coaghlin,” is actually pronounced, “Jill.”

                2. Coffee on Keyboard, thanks

  19. To whomever is ruining, I mean, running the lynx: *slap!*

    1. I’ve gotten in trouble for making assumptions before, but *cough* ENB *cough*.

      1. Probably busy putting the final touches on her analysis of this

        1. Yep. “You can’t spell ‘analysis’ without ‘sis’.”

        2. That is truly sad. I cant help but snicker a bit, but consider how hopeless her life must be and now she is splashed all over the news for everyone to laugh at.

          As my grandfather would have said “She took a bad road”

        3. You mean for once the zombie is the one who gets eaten out?

          1. ^^This is why we can’t have nice things (like Mourning Lynx)

  20. Harry is a greasy, corrupt little scumbag, and we are well rid of him.

    -jcr

    1. And Boxer went with him.

      1. How appropriate. Dingey Harry was actually a boxer (of the pugilist variety) in his alleged youth.

  21. Sounds like Democrats will play THE starring role in history books of any “fall” of the American empire.

    1. You know who else played a starring role in the fall of an empire…

        1. Marco Polo?

      1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

      2. Han Solo?

      3. Anthony LaPaglia and a young Renee Zellweger?

        1. How very grunge of you.

      4. Leto II

      5. Darth Vader?

        1. Damn your Kristin

      6. Ian McDiarmid?

        1. Saladin’s Vigil

  22. The filibuster is not a part of the Constitution. The Senate was designed as a check on the popular will. “We put legislation in the Senate to cool it,” as George (Washington) famously said, back in the days when unlimited debate was not a part of the Senate rules. The filibuster was very rarely used until divided government became the norm. I’m a Democrat, more or less, but, regardless of who is president, there’s no reason to demand a 60-vote majority to pass legislation, not to mention to approve routine presidential appointments.

    1. something something anal

      1. You can’t spell “Alan Vanneman” without “An Anal Maven.”

        1. Any way you spell it, herpes is less permanent than Anal Vanneman.

    2. there’s no reason to demand a 60-vote majority to pass legislation, not to mention to approve routine presidential appointments.

      Oh, there are plenty of reasons.

      1. Sure there are. There just are any listed in the Constitution.

      2. Beyond that, 70 years ago the filibuster was a good thing in that it made it harder to expand government. Now that government is all pervasive, it is bad thing in that it prevents ever undoing anything. Without the filibuster can government expand easier? Sure. But it can contract easier too and it has a lot more to contract than it does to expand.

        1. The only thing standing in the way of the government contracting is a president willing to disband huge swathes of the federal government, basically anything not in Article I, Section 8, plus a House that won’t vote to impeach him or her for actually following their oath of office.

          The best way to constrain the growth of the federal government would be to amend the constitution so that it took about 90% in both chambers to pass a law, and only 10% to repeal an existing one, so that only laws that pretty much everyone agrees are a good idea get enacted. Barring that, a strong filibuster is a great idea.

          1. The only thing standing in the way of the government contracting is a president willing to disband huge swathes of the federal government, basically anything not in Article I, Section 8, plus a House that won’t vote to impeach him or her for actually following their oath of office.

            Not true. He would have to ignore the courts and basically declare himself a dictator. The Budget Act of 1974, ended the practice of impoundments. If the money is budgeted, it must be spent. So the president can’t unilaterally cut spending and shrink the government. And courts would intervene and order him to stop if he ever tried.

            1. Except the bully pulpit would help curb that. Let’s watch Congress squirm after Potus goes on national television and explains his justification for massive cuts. It would be like Teddy Roosevelt in reverse.

              1. No it wouldn’t. The Congress gets elected too. And a lot of people don’t want to cut government. If they didn’t, Congress would be more willing to cut it. More importantly, people still value the courts and don’t want a president being dictator.

                And even if what you are saying is true, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Once a President could ignore the budget act, he could also ignore the Anti-Deficiency Act and start spending money without Congress’ permission. And that would not work out very well.

        2. … it has a lot more to contract than it does to expand.

          That’s a matter of perspective and, evidently, not one shared by many of those in a position to do anything about the size of government.

          1. They would like to expand it and sometimes do but the increase is not the same as it once was because there just are not many big things left to do. They want to be FDR but never are because they just don’t have the same room to expand or new ideas to try.

            1. Medicaid prescription benefit, NSA, federal bailouts, cash-for clunkers, Obamacare. Now Trump proposes massive increases on infrastructure spending and sweeping changes in immigration and trade policy. I don’t see any of these proposals shrinking government. Trump does seem to be working on the edges where business regulation is concerned, but it’s not a principled stand to smaller government, just that he doesn’t like particular regulations and will happily replace them with ones more to his liking.

              While I disagree with half of your arguments, John, at least they are almost always based on a solid footing of fact.

              They want to be FDR but never are because they just don’t have the same room to expand or new ideas to try.

              This is a delusion. As always, the next ‘national crisis’ will be the next new idea in the expansion of the federal government.

              1. Medicaid prescription benefit, NSA, federal bailouts, cash-for clunkers, Obamacare.

                And all of those things are small compared to what Johnson and FDR did. You just made my case. And again, unless you end the filibuster there is no chance of ever undoing anything. And the filibuster didn’t stop any of that. So where is the downside in ending it?

                1. I am not making any argument on the pros/cons of filibuster issue, just your ‘easier to contract that expand’ stance on the growth of the federal gov’t.

                  Social Security and welfare programs were a major shift in the direction of government spending. But they started off small, too. The nose of the federalized healthcare camel is under the tent and I have little faith the Republicans are going to do mush to prevent its further expansion. They are just going to argue that they will be better managers of the system and spending continues to climb. I will gladly admit I was wrong when I am proven to be.

                  unless you end the filibuster there is no chance of ever undoing anything

                  Making something more difficult does not make it impossible. Nor does making it easier make it better in all situations. Considering the volume of posts you make on almost any subject, how hard would it be for me to find you arguing against the past Democratic efforts to eliminate the filibuster? I have a feeling that you are using the same utilitarian logic in support of eliminating the filibuster as they did – your guy is in charge and wouldn’t it be great to eliminate the minority party obstruction that is preventing the easy implementation of our agenda.

        3. The odds of votes for further expansion are far greater than the odds of votes for contraction.

          1. Then we are screwed anyway. One this is for sure, with the filibuster, it will never be contracted and nothing will ever be undone. So you take a chance and get rid of the filibuster or face certain expansion with no hope of ever contracting it.

            We have had the filibuster for how long? And it has done one hell of a bang up job controlling the size of government right?

    3. . . . there’s no reason to demand a 60-vote majority to pass . . .

      Absolutely right – for the Senate it should be 100-votes. 75% at least.

      . . . until divided government became the norm.

      Oh dear, someone doesn’t know their American history. ‘Divided’ government has *always* been the norm. Bipartisanship is a relatively new concept that has paved the way for every greater power grabs by the Federal government.

    4. Sure there are. The main reason is to avoid extreme legislation, to get buy-in from more people and a more bipartisan agreement. This makes the subsequent situation more stable. See “Obamacare” for an example.

  23. I’m not going to waste my prime derp on a non-links entry. Somebody whip the interns and get things going.

    1. “Somebody whip the interns and get things going.”

      And after you’re done with that, post the Links!

    2. Me too. I have like the best links evar today. They will make you laugh, they will make you cry… but maybe, just maybe, we can all learn a little bit about ourselves.

      1. More links about mishaps involving penises, huh?

        1. well one or two…

        2. *cringe*

      2. Dispel some myths?

      3. Thank God, cos mine are just the usual trip to the dark weird side where you learn nothing except the value of being polite, professional, and having a plan to kill everybody you meet.

        1. I can skip the last part since I became a servant of Nurgle – I already carry enough pathogens to kill everybody I meet.

          1. [adds “bathing” to List Of Things UnCivilServant Doesn’t Like]

              1. I thought “Nurgle” was a pet name for Cuomo or something.

                1. I would never insult Grandfather Nurgle by comparing him to Cuomo.

                  Anyway, if you count the heretical and non-canonical “Age of Sigmar” lore, there was a Great Unclean One who spent centuries doing nothing but taking a bath in the sacred spring of the Sylvaneth. The Nurglites were the only people in that whole setting who appeared to be having fun. Everyone else was a muserable twat.

          2. Bullshit. Nurgle followers are cheery and enjoy themselves, just like the Plaguefather. You just hate everything, like a Khornite.

            1. He would offer blood for the blood god, but he doesn’t like blood either.

              1. Grandfather forgives you both.

                *sends pack of scampering Nurglings to hug Citizen X and John Titor*

    3. It’s friday. They have probably started drinking already.

  24. When the ACA passed, I wondered what the hell the Democrats were thinking putting so much power into the HHS hands. Someday there will be a Republican president who can appoint someone to that post. And they will have the reins of the horse cart. And can start to do a whole bunch of things that Dems won’t like.

    Again – another argument for small government.

    I was driving a car full of my GF’s family, and they were bitching about Trump and the Ohio heartbeat abortion bill, and I pointed out that maybe, just maybe, it would be a great idea to have a much smaller and constitutionally constrained federal government — so that bad ideas would mostly be confined to a single state where you could easily go to a neighboring state, such as pregnant women being able to go to Vermont or IL for an abortion if this bill in OH passed.

    Silence, then a change of topic ensued.

    1. Anything short of there being a government funded free abortion clinic within walking distance is a deprivation of a woman’s rights. Anything short of that and the terrorists have won. Didn’t you know that?

      1. Walking distance? You ableist scum!

    2. There is one thing the Progs never learned from the Stanford Prison Experiment.

    3. Well-done, prolefeed. Anytime they run away from the convo, you know you’ve won. Not as gratifying as “I wuz rong,” but still gratifying.

  25. While the Reason staff may have failed you, your old pal Tonio is here with a linky. Let’s post your own and show them that we don’ need no stinkin’ staff.

    Geert Wilders guilty of incitement, but no fines or jail time. Do note that incitement is a lesser “crime” than hatred under Dutch law.

    1. The entire hate speech thing is idiotic. It’s bordering on thought crime, which is the end goal.

      1. It is thought crime. I don’t see the functional difference.

        1. Hate speech is a step on the way. The difference is that with hate speech, you actually have to say something publicly that they can interpret as hate speech. With thought crime, you don’t really need to do anything except have the ‘wrong’ opinion, like being a climate ‘denier’. The left really do not try to hide that this is what they want, but like with everything, they just keep moving the goalpost an inch at a time.

          1. Isn’t hate speech nothing more than having an illegal opinion about others?

            1. “Illegal opinions” – I love it. Any time some moron starts talking about the need for hate speech laws and such, just throw this phrase in their face.

              I hope it becomes a thing.

              1. I thought they’d banned the word ‘illegal’ wouldn’t those be “Undocumented Opinions”?

                1. +1 Mexican orphan building a wall and paying for it

          2. But how would they know you had the “wrong” opinion unless you had articulated it at some point? You’re getting into Dick territory there, Hyper. Dick as in Phillip K…

            1. Yes, but now you have to say something that’s actually racist or xenophobic or something that can be construed as ‘hateful’, or actually physically attack someone. You can’t be charged with a hate crime, yet, for saying human caused climate change is a hoax. But that’s the end goal.

          3. But you have to say something for anyone to know what opinions you have. I say criminalized “hate speech” is thoughtcrime.

      2. Bordering on? It isnt even thought, it outlaws feelings.

    2. I read that as Gene Wilder. “You LOSE!”

  26. Are the Cosmo parties that good? Or are they just a bunch of lightweights?

    1. The new sex trick you just have to try in bed TONIGHT!

      1. CLICKBAIT!

  27. I’m not sure that the left are self aware enough to regret things. They just really do not like it when it’s the other guys who have the power, the shoe’s on the other foot.

    More freakout

    “Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now it’s arch-conservatives who will be controlling the EPA, with exactly the same level of authority as the environmentalists who preceded them.

    Delicious irony is delicious.

    1. I love how they claim Pruitt is “unqualified”. They wish. Pruitt is highly qualified and knows exactly how broad EPA’s authority is under those laws. Sucks to be them for once.

    2. Yes,the foot is on the other shoe, Good,Good. [ Rubs hands together ]

    3. 2. Climate Change. Pruitt can decide not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at all, derailing most climate change-prevention efforts in one quick stroke. Adopt junk science that defies the 100 percent scientific consensus (that is not an exaggeration; over a five-year period, 928 peer-reviewed articles endorsed climate change, zero opposed it) about climate change, putting EPA on record that it simply doesn’t exist. Concurrently, he can stop the EPA from collecting any data on climate change, ending the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program immediately. Pull out of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Eliminate the “Social Cost of Carbon” metric. Hire frauds like Willie Soon to government positions. Prohibit the EPA itself from saying the words “climate change” or taking it into account at any time. (That has already happened in Florida.)

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      1. Eliminate the “Social Cost of Carbon” metric.

        What is this, I don’t even?

        1. “What is this”

          Bullshit lefty speak

        2. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not harmful in any way. To get around that and pretend that it is and that they can regulate it under the CAA, they create this fairy tale that it causes global warming and any more put in the atmosphere causes “social costs”.

          1. It’s what plants crave.

          2. To get around that and pretend that it is and that they can regulate it under the CAA, they create this fairy tale that it causes global warming and any more put in the atmosphere causes “social costs”.

            We have a winner. Like the CDC declaring things like an “obesity epidemic” and other such nonsense, because we’ve done such a damn good job at stomping out infectious diseases. They start to get nervous about their funding stream when the problem they were created to solve goes away.

            1. I’d like to see them actually document cases of this social cost. They cannot, of course. Blaming every hurricane (which we’re currently seeing a long time low of), wildfires, floods, etc on global warming is not scientific in any way and totally unsubstantiated. It cannot be proven by science. Therefore, these regulations are based on nothing and there is no social cost associated. The new head of the EPA should shit can this fake science right away.

        3. It is like the “environmental justice” aspect lacking (per the EPA) in the DAPL EIS.

      2. Wow, they’ve went from 97% to 100%, nice! Make them lies bigger, lefties, you can do it!

        “928 peer-reviewed articles endorsed climate change”

        So what’s the problem here? If they endorsed climate change, why are they worried that it will happen? Sloppy writing by an unhinged semi-literate lefty?

        1. Yeah, try getting an article published in a “reputable” journal which does not tow the climate change lion. Articles from “non-reputable” journals are not counted, of course.

        2. Notice how “endorsed climate change” becomes “EPA must regulating every aspect of life” God these people are dishonest pieces of shit.

        3. wasn’t there a thing recently about scientific studies not being able to be replicated or that nobody bothers trying to replicate them because there’s no money in that? Science is settled when the new study fits within your world view. no need to verify results

  28. “It’s come into a realm where it’s just unacceptable because if the executive branch can’t function, then the nation can’t respond to the big challenges it faces,” many of which were caused by the executive branch.

    Piss off, Merkley.

  29. Biden hails Zoolander and Merkel as only two lefty heroes left standing

    Can it get any better than this? I think Merkel is on her way out. That will leave Zoolander as last of the lefties. Sorry, Cananda.

    1. So what is the most embarrasing thing that can happen to a PM? Vote of no confidence?

      1. Mean comment on Facebook, for which the writer immediately apologizes.

        1. “Sore-y!”

      2. Embarrassing and fatal

      3. Governor General calls an election without the PM’s say-so (not going to happen), followed by an election that puts the Liberals back in third party status.

    2. Along those lines:

      Among the major nations, Germany stands alone as the bulwark of the liberal order established after World War II in order to prevent German-style fascism from destroying Europe’s peace once again,” James Traub wrote in Foreign Policy magazine.

      1. The irony never stops

      2. Other european-style forms of fascism still in-play, though?

      3. National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Huh, that sounds remarkably similar to modern day leftist political parties. That is all.

    3. What, Biden doesn’t have a commie-chubby for Maduro?

      1. Maduro’s regime has reached the ‘run out of other people’s money’ stage. That’s the point where other aspiring leftists pretend you no longer exist. ‘Oh, those guys? They aren’t real socialists! Look over there, those are the real socialists’ *points to socialist country that has not yet ran out of other people’s money*

        Remember when all the American lefties were gushing over how great Venezuela is? Before they ran out of other people’s money?

        Things like this is how I finally convinced my wife that socialism does not work. She was mad as hell at me for pointing this stuff out, but she finally came around and realized I’m right.

  30. Van Jones pretends he learned something from the election, proceeds to demonstrate he didn’t.

    “At our best we (Democrats) are the champions of America’s downtrodden working folks. But it’s also true that some very obnoxious elitism has found a home in our party. Democrats have gotten so used to saying stuff like ‘red state voters are stupid’ that we don’t even get how stuck up and terrible that sounds to anybody with good sense. That elitist attitude may have cost us the Rust Belt. And this election.” Jones said, pointing to the states that Hillary Clinton lost in Donald Trump’s upset win.

    He also gave his take on “The Messy Truth” about the Republican Party. “(Republicans) are the party of colorblind individual merit. That sounds great. But as much as Republicans hate to admit it, some nasty strains of some bigotry and some bias, including some actually scary white supremacists, have found a home in their party. And they don’t seem to want to acknowledge that or even confront it in a serious way.”

    See, the problem with Democrats is they got all haughty after helping out the poor people, and those dumb red state rubes don’t like it when we try to explain what condescension means. And the problem with Republicans is they’re a bunch of racists.

    1. Progressives are good at coming really close to the truth and then, at the last second, going the complete opposite direction.

      1. Excellent at recognizing the problem, piss-poor at solving it. I think that was originally said about Marx/Marxists but it applies to their fellow-traveller wannabes as well.

        1. Progs identify the problem but then there’s a bunch of hand-waving and feelgood solutions that only appeal to people’s baser instincts of envy and self-pity.

        2. Excellent at recognizing the problem

          Like the self-evident evil of income equality and the electoral scourge of “fake news” that makes lefties look bad? Excellent at recognizing problems? Methinks not. Broken clock theory applies here.

          1. I would say that there is a problem where money is accumulating at the highest levels of Wall Street and the banks. But that is a direct outcome of the Treasury and Fed’s policies as opposed to “naked” capitalism, which would result in some creative destruction.

            1. ANY accumulation of capital at any level looks like a problem to a leftist because they don’t understand the valid functions of those institutions. I don’t know that you could even credit them with seeing the problem. They can only see a false problem on top of a legitimate one.

              Imagine you’re seeing two dermatologists for a cancer screening. Both are pointing towards the disgusting malignant growth on your neck and calling it a problem. The right leaning doctor says it’s a problem because it could kill you and should be removed. The leftist doctor says it’s a problem because the tumor is an ugly blemish. The right leaning doctor wants to remove it in it’s entirety and the leftist wants to scrape it off the surface to make it look nice. One of those doctors’ are completely unprepared to save your life because they don’t understand the problem even slightly.

        3. It’s because their ideas are flawed, not only flawed but a complete failure. The can’t deal with that reality so they go through mental contortions to try to find a way to convince themselves that they’ve been right all along and that the reason they fail is not because of their failed ideas but because of some outside force, like rethuglicans, wrong people in charge, uneducated rednecks, climate change, scary clowns, Russia hacking the election, racism, sexism, etc, etc.

          1. In other words, it’s always the fault of kulaks and wreckers.

        4. Excellent at recognizing the problem,

          Well, when literally everything is problematic…

      2. See Simon, David and his obnoxious political beliefs despite his body of work demonstrating convincingly that his ideas don’t actually work.

    2. That elitist attitude may have cost us the Rust Belt.

      Hahahahahaha… Delicious.

    3. Projection is actually a thing…. who knew?

    4. “”But it’s also true that some very obnoxious elitism has found a home in our party. ”

      The Clintons?

    5. I honestly didn’t know van jones had a job in TV until election night.

      He could have been in Obama’s administration. And the job title was a thin cover for “hand out money to proggy cronies”

      I look forward to forgetting he exists within a few months.

  31. Did Democrats Learn Anything From Their Attack on the Filibuster?

    I highly doubt it. I can’t wait for the salty ham tears when they start bitching and moaning about not being to use the filibuster to stop any of Trumphitler’s nominees. You fucked yourselves over dumbasses. *pops popcorn, settles in to enjoy the show*

  32. Look, KM-W, December is a tight time for me. If you held the donation drive Mar-Jun I’d be much more likely to contribute. Is it really fair to withold the links from everyone just because of me?

    1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not harmful in any way.

      Check the, “Murdering Rats” Brickbat, John. I wouldn’t say, “…not harmful…”

      1. ^response to John.

        Sorry Tonio.

        And it’s me they blame, since I am withholding a *very* sizeable donation this year from my stash of filthy, licencend, ill-gotten, doctor lucre.

        1. No need to apologize for an obviously misplaced post, Doc.

          Cheers.

        2. No one cares that you’re a doctor, as many of us are too.

          So stop assuming anyone cares.

          1. “Oh good, you’re back.” – no one

          2. HI TULPA! Green is still a terrible colour on you, by the by.

    2. I feel responsible as well. I spent the 100 clams I had set aside for donation on Tequila, Grand Marnier, Contreau, and sweet and sour mix.

  33. Military-Trained Police May Be Less Hasty To Shoot, But That Got This Vet Fired

    Nearest to the address was Stephen Mader, a 25-year-old Marine Corps veteran and rookie cop who was alone in his squad car. He got to the house and saw Ronald D. Williams, a 23-year-old black man, standing outside with his hands behind his back.

    “And I say, ‘Show me your hands,’ and he’s like, ‘Naw, I can’t do that,’ ” Mader told NPR. “I said, ‘Show me your f’ing hands.’ And then he brings his hands from behind his back and puts them down to his side. And that’s when I noticed he had a silver pistol in his right hand.”

    On the 911 tape you hear Officer Mader on the radio saying, “We have a gun here.” All the dispatcher said to the cops is this: “Watch out for a weapon.”

    Mader drew his weapon and told Williams to drop the pistol.

    “Aim in on him, and I say, ‘Drop your gun. Drop your gun,’ ” Mader told NPR. “And he said, ‘I can’t do that. Just shoot me.’ And I told him, I said, ‘I’m not gonna shoot you, brother ? just put down the gun.’ ”

    So even though Mader didn’t know what Williams’ girlfriend told 911 ? that the gun was empty and the man was trying to commit “suicide by cop” ? Mader didn’t shoot.

    1. “For me, it wasn’t enough to kind of take someone’s life because they’re holding a gun that’s not pointed at me,” Mader said.

      But then ? and this all happened in seconds ? Mader’s backup arrived. All they knew is that the dispatcher said there was a weapon. Mader remembers that Williams walked toward them as they drove up and got out of their cars.

      “Their weapons are drawn, and they’re screaming at him to drop the gun,” Mader said. “At that point he starts waving the gun, back and forth between us

      One of the officers fired four shots, and a bullet hit Williams in the side of the head, leaving him on the pavement. The dispatcher called an ambulance, but the officers saw there was no hope in giving first aid. Mader went inside to check on the girlfriend and baby.

      What Mader thinks was not justified happened a few days later: Police Chief Rob Alexander told Mader that he was being fired for putting his fellow officers’ lives in danger.

      “When the officers arrived on the scene, they seen these two in a standoff pointing guns at each other, and that officer froze,” Alexander said at a press conference in September.

      1. Police Chief Rob Alexander told Mader that he was being fired for putting his fellow officers’ lives in danger.

        That cowardly limp-dicked pants-wetting bastard. You want to know what’s wrong with police in America? Exhibit A, right here.

        Sarcasmic was right, it’s “Protect and Serve” – protect themselves and serve each other.

    2. They can’t let him slide because that would be an admission that the cop that did shoot, did so unnecessarily. Fat blue line and all that.

      1. ^This^ First rule of Cop Club is You never admit a mistake. The second rule of Cop Club is YOU NEVER ADMIT A MISTAKE.

  34. Give me links! You’re destroying my morning routine. I swear to god if Robby is responsible for this I’m going to grumble about it and hold a grudge from Monday until next Friday.

    1. Well you can start posting your links here now cause you know once you do that then AM links will post.

    2. Maybe their waiting on Fist to provide his comment?

      1. All of the links they chose are stupid and boring.

    3. And yet you’ll still yearn to run your fingers through his glossy locks. You can’t stay mad for long.

      1. Joke’s on him; I put, “Nair,” in Robby Horse’s mousse. Those locks’ days are numbered….

        1. [stands and applauds]

        2. You monster. What next? Tempting Nick with a pleather vest?

        3. Robby’s suicide would explain the lack of links.

    4. Robby’s the PM lynx. If the morning lynx are missing it’s either ENB or Shackford’s fault.

      1. Don’t underestimate, Robby. He’s a links troll. Similar to a bridge troll. It’s well within his power to fuck up AM links.

        1. you’re not Robby. Forget that comma, it never happened. Don’t tell anyone.

  35. *pours a 40 on the curb for the missing links*

    I hope the links are in a better place now, free from pain and the boundless snark they must endure.

    1. Robby queued them up and then methodically executed each one with a single bullet to the back of the head.

      1. I hope they each got a cigarette…

    2. Wha, what do you mean? I thought Robby took the Lynx to a nice fruit sushi farm out in the country? Nearby, perhaps, to the wrestling farm they took Lucy.

  36. Ah fuck it.

    Rural amerikkuh deserves the blame for the coming apocalypse
    Every potus appointee from energy to ecology to education to banking was hired to render the scorched-earth results they’re already known for.

    When we’re at the bottom of the well, if the internet still survives, we must remember that it was rural america who got us here, and left us to die.

    I’m not being sarcastic.

    1. *hearty, prolonged, sides-aching laughter*

    2. Every potus appointee from energy to ecology to education to banking was hired to render the scorched-earth results they’re already known for.

      We should be so lucky.

    3. Eliminate the “Social Cost of Carbon” metric.

      There will be no apocalypse but for heart attacks that happen to these hyperventilating morons.

    4. They can’t appease both the white working class AND the DU types. While it will be very hard to win the WWC back at this point, it might still be possible but would require a quick and decisive purge of the DU types. What’s everyone’s prediction on outcome – DU purge or writing-off the WWC?

      1. My prediction is more using DU icons like Lena Dunham to try and win over the WWC.

        In other words, do the stupid thing again but harder.

      2. With all of the ranting about racists and being ruled by Nazi Klansmen, I’m guessing that the WWC isn’t going to be rejoining the Democrats in the near term.

    5. The hate in the replies is kind of disturbing. This guy wants to reach out to the Libertarians though.

      “hatrack (40,227 posts)
      50. They can start reaching out to the rest of us . . .

      . . . or they can go fuck themselves and wash down a handful of Oxy with a bottle of Jack. I pretty much don’t give a damn either way anymore.”

      1. wash down a handful of Oxy with a bottle of Jack

        This is a bad night?

    6. Every potus appointee from energy to ecology…

      There’s a Secretary of Ecology now?

  37. DU is on fire today.

    There is only one reason why corporations have moved overseas
    The greedy owners and shareholders want more profits at the expense of their workers – they do not want to provide health care, insurance or vacation. They want to pay less and less so they can grab more and more. They do not believe they should pay taxes anywhere. Groper Don the Con has practiced this for decades.

    Fuck them all.

    1. Groper Don the Con.

      LOL. That was funny.

      1. Almost worthy of DD

        1. Wonder what they would call Bill Clinton for his groping activities.

          1. Mr. President

            1. The regular, dispassionate, “Mr. President,” or the breathy, erotic, Marilyn Monroe-esque, “Mr. President?”

              1. The latter. And then they fall back on the bed and hug an unconsenting pillow.

                1. And then they fall back on the bed and hug an unconsenting pillow.

                  OMG! THEY’RE JAPANESE?!?!?!?

      2. Mike M. has a DU counterpart? I’m not sure how i feel about that.

        1. I’d worry more about your DU Bizzaro World doppelganger, Brother X….

    2. greedy shareholders = those who put up their own money in hopes of getting a return.
      Want to use my shareholding to fund your wish list of non-productive activities?
      FO and start your own investment slaver

    3. Progressives really are people who never got passed being 11 and not understanding it when your parents tell you they don’t own the electric company so turn off the lights. The entire thing is based on the cry against there being no free lunches.

    4. It’s almost like they think businesses exist just to give them stuff for free. And when those businesses are driven out of business by exactly the type of regulations they want imposed, they’ll be the first and loudest to whine and cry over it. ‘Why can’t I afford any of this stuff anymore? I can’t even find the newest zoomdangle in the stores! It’s not fair! Government, help us, the greedy capitalists are at it again!’.

  38. Whoever is encouraging Trump to make some of these cabinet appointments is doing a pretty good job so far.

    1. Except AG.

      1. ^this^

        It might be Thiel, a guy who the left describes as a ‘rabid libertarian’. And I think he has an ornery steak like most libertarians, and I’m sure he wants to troll the left just as much as the rest of us.

    2. Not only is it epic trolling providing endless hours of amusement for the rest of us, but it’s a veritable blitzkrieg against prog values. They are going to be so disheartened and panicked that they will be unable to mount an effective defense.

  39. http://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2…..s-attacks/

    EU reports 1500 ISIS jihadists have infiltrated Europe. Come on America, Muslim immigration, get ya some of that.

    1. ….is there another source for this?

      1. Sure. But I know you hate the Sun and choose it for that reason.

        1. [Arsenio Hall crowd response]

    2. You really missed the point, John. There’s nothing more important for the cause of liberty that importing as many Muslims as possible at tax payer expense. Can you even point to one country where a growing Muslim population wasn’t a total win for the host country? What are you? Some kind of xenophobic nativist hate monger?

      1. Yeah, it’s been great for Germany. Most of them are on welfare and many have hostile attitudes about the culture of the country who is being so gracious to them. And yes, I know people living there, and they have different attitudes about it, but I don’t think any of them would disagree with the facts I just stated. Merkel is fucking insane, the Germans better vote her fat ass out before she does irreparable harm.

        1. Almost all of them are on welfare albeit some may be on pure charity, but I doubt it. Less than a 500 of Sweden’s 163k share of the 2015 migrant wave have jobs of any kind. In Germany the figures are even worse but I can’t find the exact figures at the moment.

          And yes, I know people living there, and they have different attitudes about it, but I don’t think any of them would disagree with the facts I just stated.

          The daughter of an EU official that was recently raped and murdered by a migrant was one of those girls holding up signs that read “We love you refugees” and she volunteered at the refugee centers et cetera. Or the case of the male Swedish social worker that was raped by a migrant home invader. Or maybe he was the one that was raped by his own personal live-in migrant? I don’t remember, it’s happened so many times it’s hard to keep them all straight.

  40. Look at how the savings add up if you’re really bad at math.

    Spend $107,516 on a set of wind turbines to save $50 a month on your electric bill and the things will pay for themselves in a matter of months.

    1. In thousands of months, but still a matter of months yes.

    2. Pays for itself in a mere 180 years, assuming it requires no maintenance whatsoever.

      1. But think of the children! And as a bonus, when you get one of these things you can be even more smug than the smuggest Prius owner!

        1. But think of the children!

          Exactly, it’ll be the children that are put to work maintaining the thing. Let’s go child labor, let’s go!

          1. I wouldn’t waste my orphans on such.

            1. Certainly not all of them. Maybe some of the more industrious ones. Although they’re not getting any safety gear for when they’re climbing up there to work on the turbines. It’s not like I’m made of money.

      2. Don’t exaggerate, you’ve obviously been reading FAKE NEWS. It will pay off closer to 179 years.

  41. Unions are Totes Feminist and Intersectional (says someone who knows nothing about union history)

    But if you haven’t heard of this issue, don’t feel bad ? the decrease in union membership hasn’t exactly drawn splashy headlines.

    That’s because declining union membership just doesn’t seem like a big deal to most workers who aren’t unionized. White collar workers, for example, rarely need the protections that collective bargaining agreements offer them, and many service workers don’t realize that unionizing is even an option.

    However, research has found that a decline in union membership actually hurts all workers. And, like a lot of issues, it disproportionately hurts folks from marginalized communities ? like women, people of color, queer and trans people, disabled people, and so on.

    Despite big steps in intersectionality in our collective understanding and practice of feminism, labor rights and the strength and safety of unions haven’t been championed especially loudly by feminists. Which is a shame ? because the benefit and protection that unions offer workers intersect and overlap with many, many facets of social justice.

    1. I still don’t know what intersectional means, and don’t care to enough to learn about what that word means.

      If I were to take a guess I would have said it’s a sex position of some sort that feminists like.

      1. Short version: Intersectionality is an attempt to get around the utterly predictable outcomes of identity politics by adding importance to overlapping categories. That’s how you get the ever multiplying sub categories of oppressed minorities.

        Anything to avoid acknowledging the rights of the individual.

      2. What Lee said. It’s also a totally untenable strategy because intersectionality prevents prioritizing, or what proggies would call throwing people under the bus. It also tries to keep people on the reservation, as it were. White collar gays have no intrinsic use for unions; quite often the opposite. But with intersectionality you tell those white collar gays that they are invested in unions because…groupthink.

      3. Slight variance on what was defined, but the definition of intersectionality from people who use it sincerely is that it’s the attempt to make sure that marginalized groups understand that there is a common foe and source of marginalization and that a rising tide will raise all their boats as they resist the systems of oppressionand marginalization.Or something.

        No Links, and the fucking Flash based ads keep killing my browser at work.

        What is this Nazi Russia?

      4. I think most of the SJW twits who use the word don’t really know what it means either, they just think it makes them sound smart.

    2. I know all those Teamsters are just positively steamed over the Carl’s Jr. guy because his sexist commercials feature attractive young women in bikinis.

      1. Oh, they’re steamed all right. Heh.

    3. That’s because declining union membership just doesn’t seem like a big deal to most workers who aren’t unionized.

      Right. They could have stopped typing right there.

  42. “They did it for short-term political gains that no one will remember.”

    We shouldn’t expect anything better. That politicians squander long established principles for short term gains is one of the reasons why their power should be limited to as small a sphere of influence as possible.

    If these were principled people, they wouldn’t see power over others.

    1. “If these were principled people, they wouldn’t see [seek] power over others”.

  43. “As a practical matter, these changes will likely never be reversed. What kind of majority is going to restore the filibuster to its opponents?

    A minority party could win it as a concession in a horse trade. The majority party might make the concession for short term gains.

    Also, there might be minority interests in the party that has majority control. For example, Mitch McConnell only survived his primary against Tea Party opponents and kept his leadership position because of Rand Paul’s support both with the grass roots back in Kentucky and because of Rand Paul’s support in the Senate. In exchange, Mitch McConnell used his influence with establishment Republicans in the Kentucky state legislature to allow Paul to run for President without losing his Senate seat.

    One guy under the right circumstances can make a difference. If, for instance, control of the Senate weighed in the balance or an important committee chairmanship or confirmation vote hung in the balance, the majority party might easily bring the filibuster back.

    And we haven’t even started talking about a new President coming into power from the opposite party that controls the Senate. The filibuster will be back when it becomes important for key players to have it back–but they’ll bring it back for short term reasons, not out of principle.

  44. The Hallmark Channel is Too White

    “I like the Hallmark channel, but they never have any stories with African Americans. It would be nice to see us sometimes,” observed one post from someone identified as Bernie commenting on an EW.com article about Hallmark’s holiday slate. Another comment simply noted, “It’s obvious what type of audience they prefer.”

    If only there was something they could do about it….

    1. If only there was something they could do about it….

      Rally an Internet mob against them?

    2. I read this as a personal attack against Dean Cain.

      You’re fighting a battle you can’t win, Salon.com.

      1. How can this be? Mama Maximus told me in a SkypeChat that Linc from The Mod Squad appears with Kellie Martin’s breasts in Mystery Woman Hallmark Marathons.

    3. If only there were a channel for black people. We really need some kind of black entertainment channel. You know?

      1. BET needs more token whites. I feel discriminated against yet I just can’t stop watching.

    4. BET – it’s obvious what type of audience they prefer. It’s right there in the name!

      1. Imagine if there was a WET, freakout time!

        1. Every channel is White by default you racist.

    5. So, no more white Christmases? I blame global warming.

  45. OK, one hour late, they’ve broken me, so I shall post links here

    The thick blue line: ‘Drunk’ cop stripped of his gun and badge

    1. “Go be fat somewhere else.”

    2. The officer ? who earned nearly $126,800 during fiscal 2016, including nearly $50,000 in overtime ? was described by sources as a problem drinker.

      Evans, a Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association delegate, did not return a call. His union also did not return requests for comment.

      Last year, Evans criticized longtime PBA President Pat Lynch for spending $13,000 in union funds on pricey steak dinners.

      “I live paycheck to paycheck,” he griped

      1. Haha. Dunphy?

        1. Smooches!

      1. If he was on duty, it would have been ok.

        1. He was defending himself against a maniac with an assault vagina.

          Vaginas were raped… semen was ejaculated… good rape…

  46. This assumes the ball-less Republican Senators won’t just roll over for the Dems. I know which way I am betting, especially since the Repub plan for OCare “repeal” is built around winning a filibuster vote, instead of just saying “It was passed on a majority vote via “reconciliation”, so it can be repealed the same way.”

    1. The hope is that some of them will be emboldened by Trump and grow a pair. Then there will be a fight with Eddie Munster and the pussies for control and the pussies will lose and buh bye Eddie Munster.

      1. Ok, sorry, you were only talking about the Senate and my reply was about the entire Congress.

  47. Are headlines with question marks in them ever answered with anything other than “No”?

    1. Answer this headline:

      “Do men like sex?”

  48. Elections have consequences, Keillor edition

    And now we sit and watch in disbelief as the victor drops one piece of china after another, spits in the soup, sticks his fist through a painting, and gobbles up the chocolates. Not satisfied with the usual election-night victory speech, he stages a post-election victory tour and gloatfest, a series of rallies in arenas where he can waggle his thumbs and smirk and holler and point out the journalists in their pen for the mob to boo and shake their fists at. He puts the Secret Service through their paces, highways are closed, planes diverted, cities disrupted, just so the man can say how much fun it was to defeat Hillary Clinton and confound the experts.

    1. He’s talking about Obama in 2008?

      1. “He’s talking about Obama in 2008?”

        Speaking from the “Office of the President Elect”!
        Pompous ass…

    2. You can’t fix stupid. They’re blind to what their messiah did while in office.

      We who call for smaller government and criticize both Rs and Ds will be called anarchists.

      1. Harry Reid called congressional Republicans a bunch of anarchists a couple years ago for not wanting to increase spending quite as much as the Democrats did.

        As an actual anarchist, i’m pretty offended by the comparison.

    3. “And now we sit and watch in disbelief as the victor drops one piece of china after another, spits in the soup, sticks his fist through a painting, and gobbles up the chocolates.”

      Where’s the problem?

    4. He puts the Secret Service through their paces, highways are closed, planes diverted, cities disrupted…

      Just like every modern president, president-elect or former president. How many times did Gerald Ford fuck up traffic so he could play a round of golf with Flip Wilson? Etc.

      1. That line really got me.

    5. I can’t be the only one who likes Trump more after reading that paragraph.

    1. It’s like they don’t even get the subtext of trains.

    2. I guess i been meaning to ride more public transport lately.

      1. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

      2. Would light rail be soft-core though?

    3. days after ‘appalling’ sex video at another platform emerged online

      I’m guessing this other video was a heterosexual porn vid. Hence the adjective “appalling.”

      1. It’s because the people in Trainline Tramp don’t just have sex – they graffiti the station too.

        This is not a joke, BTW

        1. Is it a euphemism, though?

          1. Lol. “Painting the station”

            1. “I ate a lot of salmon last night. Unghhh!”

    1. Somehow this started 10 years after ITER and is at the same stage of development.

    2. Fusion is going to work, it’s just a question of when. And when it does, you can be 100% certain that the environazis will shit their pants and oppose it. ‘Oh noes! They’re making a miniature sun! The end is nigh!’

    3. Cheap, abundant energy allows humans to live prosperous and happy lives, which is all the watermelons need to justify opposing it.

      1. True, but they can’t just come out and admit that, for obvious reasons, so they’ll have to cloak their opposition in some other rhetoric. Probably something along the lines of “OMG they’re going to make a miniature sun here on Earth! WHAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG! Argle-bargle precautionary principle, etc.”

    4. It’s interesting, but wake me when they get more energy out than they put in.

      1. Don’t have a link right now, but they’ve already done that. Now it’s just a question of doing it on a much greater scale and keeping it going.

      1. That post overblows the risks from tritium. It’s not good, but it’s not as bad as heavy metal contamination.

      2. I anticipate that the moment we *do* get plentiful ‘free’ energy, the “we fucking LOVE SCIENCE” constituency will start bleating about how even abundant free energy is bad, because ENTROPY!!!

    1. Dollar drink night will kill you. I once spent over $100 on dollar drink night without tipping the waitress more than $1 a drink and buying less than 10 drinks for other people. I came to the next afternoon tried to figure out why the front door was locked and the back door was open, drank about a gallon of water, and slept until the following day. Pretty sure I survived alcohol poisoning. Later I found out that I either lost my keys or some kind person had taken them from me, and I had broken into my own apartment. After looking all over my apartment complex for my car and walking up to the bar expecting to see it wrecked on the side of the road somewhere. It was at the bar.

      1. My secret power is that I remember everything until the point that I pass completely out. It makes for some particularly embarrassing memories.

        1. If you post drunk, it’s best to avoid re-reading the thread the next day. There’s been a few times in my life that I drank way too much and the next day I’d be like … fuck, what the hell did I do last night? I hope it wasn’t anything embarrassing. Which is why I stopped drinking in excess. Well, I occasionally may still drink in excess, just not to the point of being really drunk.

  49. I’ve been addicted to watching Crash Videos on the N?rburgring track. Amateur and pro drivers taking their vehicles a little too far – lots of stock and modified German iron getting dented.

  50. Shit, they’re serious about no A.M links. I don’t have a contingency for this. Everybody panic!

    1. I’m writing this comment from my panic room. I already put down the dog, I don’t want her to live in a world without links.

    2. Safe Space! Crayons! Fluffy kittens!

    3. Way ahead of you, man. I’ve been hiding under my desk for like 45 minutes now.

      1. How is that different from any other day in Norfolk?

        1. I’m usually returning fire instead of weeping.

    4. *puts out Play-Doh, Colouring Books, boxes of Zwieback, Woobies, Juice Boxes, and Robby Horse’s personal Binky*

    5. Stay calm, man. This is when they see we don’t care, we’re just going our own thing, and then they give into all of our demands.

    6. *puts down skull*

      We weren’t already panicking?

      *resumes eating goo*

  51. The big company-wide “Services” department Christmas party is today. Which means dumb holiday-themed games, buffet food, and cash bar. At least I will get to (hopefully) sit next to the head of quality, who is a smokin’ 40yo who flirts like a teenage girl and drinks like a sailor.

      1. Dammit. Wrong thread.

        1. There’s another one?

          *wanders away*

  52. Prediction: Many evictions soon.

    “Oakland Artists Fear Crackdown After Ghost Ship Fire”
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS…..e-44081810

    The warehouses are not zoned for residency, the cost of converting them is great even if you can put residences in an industrial area, the owners are not going accept the liability, so it’s see ya, pal!
    Paper (paper) this morning has the O mayor trying to square the circle of ‘cheap housing for artists’ while everyone else pays what the market says it costs.

    1. If the owners do not want to accept the liability associated with people living in those warehouses, they have every right to kick out the occupants.

      1. I’m not disagreeing one bit, but you can bet that the gov’t will make things tough for the owners.

    2. NYC has “affordable housing” specifically for “artists”. It must be nice to be connected like that.

  53. I hope they don’t do this the week the new Warty Hugeman adventure is due to premiere.

    1. assuming you’re talking about LaLaLand, maybe the Warty adventure could be the film serial preceding it

    2. Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  54. It doesn’t matter. Anyone who trusts Republicans to hold fast to convention if it goes against their immediate interests is a fool.

    1. Yes Tony. I mean they are going to change the rules when their guy is in the White House. I mean Democrats would never do that. You angry powerless butt hurt is so entertaining.

      1. Pen and telephone, John. That’s all The Donald needs…

      2. I’ve long advocated for ending the filibuster, and I think parties are stupid not to take what they can get when they have power.

        That your party and its leader are historically incomparably terrible is a different matter.

        1. Tony’s understanding of history begins in 1980 and ends in 2008.

          1. And even then I’m probably giving him too much credit…

            1. Nobody this stupid has ever had this much power.

        2. I’ve long advocated for ending the filibuster, and I think parties are stupid not to take what they can get when they have power.

          So does this mean that putting your kind in camps is justified now that you’re not in power, since it would be in our best interests?

  55. The filibuster is undemocratic trash. Democrats should be glad they got rid of it even if it hurts them now.

    Maybe don’t run a shitty candidate under FBI investigation next time and this won’t be a problem.

    1. The filibuster is undemocratic trash

      Requiring a 60% majority instead of a 50% majority to pass a bill is not “undemocratic”. It might be “trash” but you’ve offered no reasons as to why.

  56. I sure hope I didn’t help pay for Dirty Harry’s portrait, the man was a cancer.

  57. I think they should change the rules to require everyone who wants to vote be present in person for the entire filibuster speech. Failure to be present invalidates your ability to vote.

  58. “Did Democrats learn anything–”

    You can stop right there. The answer is always no

  59. Schadenboner: Schadenfreude so epic it gives you an erection.

  60. It is a damn good thing the filibuster is gone. In fact, I hope Mitch takes it off.

    It is one thing to say “I want nothing done, because all these assholes do is spend.” In fact, if there was a party promising to do that (do nothing), it’d be worth voting for.

    But the way it is right now, is just creating an increasingly pressurized chamber, and when it bursts, there’ll be hell to pay. Starting with the next Congress.

    Minorities preventing the majority from doing anything only ensures that when the majority finally can do something, the excesses will be over the top.

  61. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  62. my friend’s ex-wife makes $79/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her payment was $13079 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ==================================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  63. “But Obama did that too / You supported Obama when he did this”

    That will be the GOP’s response to the dem’s accusations against Trump. And it’ll stick!

  64. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  65. Liam. I agree that Carl`s bl0g is cool… I just got a great new Honda since getting a cheque for $9458 thiss month and just a little over 10/k this past-munth. without a doubt its the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost immediately started earning at least $75, per hour. go now

    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.