Donald Trump

Forget Keith Olbermann (Who?): Rand Paul and Justin Amash Push Back on Trump's Worst Instincts

"Libertarians emerging as Trump resistance," says Politico. Sounds about right.

|

Chris Buck, GQ.com

Donald Trump is going to become president next January (sorry, Hamilton Electors), and he'll be working with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress (Congreff?).

From a libertarian perspective, there are some grounds for cautious optimism, but there are more reasons to be deeply worried by all this. Trump sounded distinctly authoritarian notes during the campaign and he's no fan of free speech, free trade, and anything remotely resembling open borders. On foreign policy, he's bounced back and forth from straightforward denunciations of 21st century interventions into the Middle East and North Africa as terrible and bragging that he'd "bomb the shit" out of ISIS. Which Trump will show up on January 20? Who knows? His tax plan would make national debt massively bigger and he's hardly a fiscal hawk, either. His daughter is already making calls to push a taxpayer-funded maternity-leave program and his infrastructure plans, vague as they are, have boondoggle written all over them.

So who is going to stand up to him? The Dems are a sorry lot as a group, whether they backed Bernie or were with Hillary. They put up no serious resistance to foreign-policy disasters under George W. Bush and Barack Obama and few of them gave a shit about civil liberties. Too busy pushing for higher national minimum wages during a crap economy and lobbying for student-loan relief for the relatively small number of in-debt brats of a middle-class too dumb or insecure to send their kids to relatively inexpensive state schools, I guess. And the Republicans? Come on! Beta-dogs such as Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are already cowed by The Donald and puckered lower lip. How many sad sacks in Congress were like Utah's Jason Chaffetz who cried "Never Trump!" for like 15 minutes before tweeting on October 26, "I will not defend or endorse @realDonaldTrump, but I am voting for him." Most Republicans, bless their pointed little heads, just want to roll with a winner. They like being good little boys and, less often, girls. They'll go along with much of what Trump wants, especially if when it comes to Muslim bashing (and bombing), baiting immigrants, and taking it to those rapist Mexicans who stopped coming here around 2007 because their own country is a better place for them given what America has become. Lord knows that the last time the Party of Lincoln ran the White House and Congress, things went off the rails like a crazy train, at least when it comes to the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. Each of those things grew exponentially and here we are, with nothing to show for that binge other than a debt hangover the size of Mt. Rushmore.

With that as a backdrop, here's some good news, via Politico: "Libertarians emerging as Trump resistance." Katie Glueck points specifically to Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Justin Amash in her piece, among other elected officials, but gives props to the larger "liberty movement" as well. That's groups such as Reason, Cato, the Campaign for Liberty (which grew out of Ron Paul's presidential aspirations), and more. One of the reasons why such groups are in a good place is because they (we!) put principles before politics. The GOP doesn't exist to do anything particular as much as it exists to fill seats in Congress and elsewhere. Libertarians, who disagree even on who should be considered libertarian, agree that politics and policy is too important to be left to the folks elected to Congress and the White House.

Consider Amash first. He never endorsed Trump and he's not about to put up with demagoguery[*]:

When Trump started bleating about slapping 35 percent tariffs on goods produced by companies who outsourced jobs, Amash responded, "This would be a 35% tax on all Americans—a tax that especially hurts low-income families. Maybe the slogan should be #MakeAmericaVenezuela."

Here's a blast from Rand Paul about Trump's flirtation with naming former U.N. Amb. John Bolton to a big job at the State Department:

"My efforts to insert myself into the public debate are not to oppose Donald Trump, they're to support what Donald Trump said in the campaign," Paul said, speaking at a time when Bolton was under more serious consideration to lead the State Department (though Paul has reiterated his opposition to Bolton in any role since then). "Regime change made us less safe, and the Iraq War allowed for chaos. … I agree on those things Trump said. I would just hate for, at the very beginning, that those things he professed on the campaign trail to be diminished or besmirched by having someone in charge of the State Department who doesn't agree with Donald Trump."

Paul endorsed Trump and voted for him. But like Amash, Paul is drawing lines in the sand about what he will or won't support. In an interview earlier this week, Paul told me that he could never support diplomats or appointees who had failed to learn the lessons of the Iraq War, the Libyan intervention, and what's unfolding in Syria now. The key insight, he said, was that regime change almost always leads to "something worse than what we had." He also stressed that he will refuse to vote for any budget plan that never achieves balance—which the current Republican budget "blueprint" fails to do pretty specatacularly.

This is what real resistance looks like: Fighting members of your own "team" when they stray from the principles they claim to support and on which they were elected. I don't agree with Amash and Paul on everything (maybe not even most things), but I know that I'm happy as hell to see these guys brawling not with a bunch of loser Democrats over phony issues but with their own kind over Very. Important. Issues. And especially basic principles about the role and limits of government.

That will take us a whole lot closer to limited government than the sort of "resistance" that Keith Olbermann is putting up in short video clips at GQ.com, arguably the last step before the gutter for a guy who bounced from ESPN to MSNBC to Current to…what next?

[*]: *Edited to remove misstatement that Amash had endorsed Trump.*

Here's Reason's podcast with Rand Paul. Listen by clicking below. Subscribe to the Reason Podcast at iTunes and never miss an episode.

Don't miss a single Reason podcast or video! Subscribe, rate, and review!

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Reason Podcast RSS Feed.

NEXT: Thank Snowden? U.S. to Reveal Numbers of Americans Affected by Surveillance

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. Donald Trump is going to become next January (sorry, Hamilton Electors)

    Sorry, Calendars.

    1. Who edits the Editor in Chief?

      1. The ones that are watching the ones that are watched.

          1. Well, at least Crusty would have probably used ‘who’ instead of ‘that’ in that sentence, so I’m remaining silent in my grammatical shame.

            1. YOU SHUT UP OR I HACK YOU LIKE DNC SERVER!

              1. STEVE SMITH SAY HACKING FOR EVERYONE. AND BY HACKING STEVE SMITH MEAN RAPE.

        1. Somewhere Bertrand Russel is crying over this article, but G?del is smiling.

    2. I currently gain in the span of 6000-8000 bucks on monthly basis with my internet task. Everyone eager to work easy online tasks for some h every day from your house and gain solid income for doing it… Then this work is for you… http://www.ezycash5.com

  2. Well, I sure as hell hope that Paul and Amash are on Trump watch. The first thing I’d like to see them do is block Sessions.

    1. What, you want Christie or Giuliani as USAG?

      Every president’s AG sucks but at least Sessions is strong on 10A.

      1. I’m willing to bet that any bi-partisan coalition empowered and able to reject Sessions for consideration would apply the same standard to those two as well.

        Just a hunch.

      2. No, I want Paul or Amash, you sill ninny, not a drug warrior dinosaur.

      3. And for the record, I think Sessions will be confirmed. In fact, I think nearly all of Trump’s appointments will breeze through. I think he decided to troll the left as hard as possible but would be forced to comprise on his nominees in most instances. But I think he underestimated the right’s willingness to say fuck all and push through anybody he wants. Which hopefully creates a lot of libertarian leaning policy changes, intentionally set forth or not.

  3. “Lord knows that the last time the Party of Lincoln ran the White House and Congress, things went off the rails like a crazy train, at least when it comes to the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. Each of those things grew exponentially and here we are, with nothing to show for that binge other than a debt hangover the size of Mt. Rushmore.”

    1. The squirrels keep saving my quotes and eating my responses. It’s weird.

      Anyway, blah, blah, blah, don’t ignore the Tea Party. They only now vanquished the establishment Republicans from the Speaker’s chair.

      They arose in response to all that.

      1. You’re probably neglecting to close a tag.

        Tips to avoid squirrel attack:

        Always preview first. If your name vanishes from the preview, the system lost your session. Copy your comment, reload and log in again.

        If your name is there and everything looks fine, you can submit (copy your comment anyway, just in case).

        If you get a number at the end of the URL at the very top, then your comment succeeded even if it has not appeared yet. Don’t repost, otherwise squirrels laugh at you and take your nuts.

        1. And by “neglecting to close a tag” I mean:

          < blockquote >You quoted something here. < /blockquote

          Leaving an > off at the end there eats everything else you type.

          1. *by “neglecting to close a tag” I mean “using a malformed tag”

            1. The euphemisms around here keep getting more obscure.

  4. I’m actually sort of ok with Trump at this point, besides his retarded Sessions pick and making Bolton anything above Whitehouse basement janitor.

    1. Meh, I kind of like Bolton at the UN, just because it is such a pointless position and he would spend all his time there reminding everybody of that. Really, all he would really have to do is occasionally veto Israel is Worse than Satan Resolution #3,269,976 and his job is 99% done.

      1. You nailed it sir. I am so glad Guliani and Bolton didn’t get the pick and like you said, Bolton wouldn’t be able to do any damage at the UN and might actually help stick a wrench in their already unproductive gears.

    2. DoE will implode with Rick Perry at the helm – maybe that’s a good thing.

      1. “DoE will implode with Rick Perry at the helm – maybe that’s a good thing.”

        Good. For once, the DOE will produce some energy.

    3. Why inflict Bolton on the janitorial staff?

      1. OMG. That’s too good for words. Keep up the sarcasm …. it’s right on the money!

    4. He recently appointed a pro-trade libertarian to head the CEA, which is great, and a millenarian Jew who makes Netanyahu look like a pacifist to be ambassador (or something) to Israel, which isn’t good.

      He’s all over the place. At this point, best bet is he is drawing his appointees out of a hat.

      We have a roulette wheel for a president.

        1. President 45! Always loved that movie!

        2. I’ll place all my money on red, as in our budget will go further into the red.

  5. Big Gov GOP is coming back (see the massive expansion of 2002-2007) and Obama’s record low (since Eisenhower) spending increases will be completely forgotten by the “libertarian” Trumptards commentors here.

    1. “Obama’s record low (since Eisenhower) spending increases”

      BLOOP BOINK BLOP DERP!

      1. The Republicans promise less intrusive, less expensive government. But will they deliver? In the past, they have said they would shrink the state, but then they came into power and spent more.
        Consider George W. Bush’s eight horrendous years: The budget grew 89 percent?from $1.86 trillion to $3.52 trillion.

        John Stossel

        https://reason.com/archives/201…..-cut-gover

        We will come in just under $4 trillion this FY.

        So, I know you’re a math dumbass – but try this time. Just once.

        1. So, I know you’re a math dumbass – but try this time. Just once.

          A mathematician could count out enough coins to pay bets that they lost.

        2. What I love is that nearly a trillion fucking dollars was added to the last fiscal year of Bush’s term by Obama.

          Double benefit, massive crony spending, which the asshole Dems baked into the budget with continuing resolutoins, and Obama could blame Bush for blowing the budget.

          And shitheads like you just lap this shit up.

          1. Bullshit. The CBO put spending at $3.52 trillion before Bush left office.

            1. Turd: The slimebag who never posted a stat which wasn’t cherry-picked for starting or ending date.

          2. Is Stossel a shithead Democrat?

            The problem is you Bush defenders are so tied in with the GOP you reflexively defend them.

            1. GOP’S GONNA NOMINATE JEB AND HE’S GONNA LOSE TO HIL-DOG!! PARTY OF STOOOOPID!!

              Fuck you, betty….

    2. Now that made me laugh.

      1. It would make me laugh if it were the first time I’d heard that stupid cherry picked statistic

    3. If Obama was such a frugal spending prez, then how did our national debt go from single digit trillions to 19 trillion and change in 8 years? Could it be that he only lowered spending when compared to a 1 time binge of TARP in ’08 which was paid back anyways (but I still don’t support it because it introduced more moral hazard into an already corrupt banking system). Fact is, that Obama will have added a lot more to the national debt than even Bush did in his 8 years.

      explain that to me please.

  6. Rand Paul and Justin Amash are changing Gillespie’s shit-in pants. Maybe they could even toilet train him.

  7. There is far too little rational criticism of Trump. It is good to see some. These are just the guys to do it.

  8. Gillespie giving ’em both barrels. I respect him for giving it hard to both parties, he is the face of Reason in so many ways, and clearly the guy who has to take the shit from both parties and their pundits when they turn to recognize Reason and then subsequently attack it.

    If we keep calling it a Libertarian Moment — someday we will be right!

  9. Olbermann in that picture looks like he just got pulled out of someone’s basement sex dungeon by the police and is waiting to be taken to the hospital.

    1. HA! I was thinking something along those lines! I don’t get the look he has going.

      1. It looks something along the lines of, “a Trump presidency means all people of good will need to cower in fear.”

        1. Now is the time for Olbermann to come to the aid of his party.

    2. I’ve never wanted to burn a flag until seeing that picture

    3. Thanks for commenting on the picture. I didn’t know who that was, and thought it was a stock photo out of the creepy patriotic moron selections.

  10. Ugh, this is almost entirely wrong-headed. It matters not who “leads the resistance to Trump.” The Democrats, the left, the MSM, and academia have that covered. The real issue and opportunity is whether libertarians can stop being purists, learn from how the Fabians advanced socialism, and lead Trump in a libertarian direction where they can.

    He’s a businessman and not an ideologue. He wants to do things that work, ideally cheaply. Work with that! Libertarians have lots to offer there. Advance a libertarian-flavored “replacement” for Obamacare that unleashes market forces. Push for cutting corporate tax rates, and regulations. Cut bureaucracy.

    There’s lots in Trump’s position papers that libertarians should like. Concentrate on getting in front of those and making them happen, and less on whining and “resistance.”

    1. Trump didn’t run on anything remotely libertarian. He stood for:

      1- Building that wall
      2- rounding up and deporting the “wets”
      3- banning Muslims

      He never mentioned one single regulation he would cut (he supports government run health care).

      How is that SF weed? Must be good.

      1. Is someone speaking Welch?

      2. Your Google skills are astounding. There’s nothing here that’s “remotely libertarian”?

        Regulations
        Taxes
        Second Amendment
        Health care

      3. He never mentioned one single regulation he would cut

        Cutting one single regulation wouldn’t be very libertarian either.

    2. It’s hard to imagine getting agency heads under any other Republican who actively advocated abolishing said agencies. Now, maybe they go full retard when in office after they get drunk on the power or something, but that’s a pretty positive sign to me. They haven’t all been positives, but there are definite trends indicating we can get smaller government here.

      Mindlessly touting how you are going to resist Trump is stupid. Pick spots to resist, and do so intelligently. Paul and Amash do have a lot of power now on that front if they stick together. But you aren’t going to get shit if you just try and take some hardline anti-Trump position.

    3. This is very much overly optimistic. Trump isn’t a pragmatist; he’s a people pleaser. He’s not making realistic compromises, he’s trying to go in six different directions at once because he’s made so many opposing promises during his campaign to try to win voters on both sides of every argument.

      Sooner or later everyone’s going to have to accept that he may well pursue a virulently anti-trade, big deficit spending, foreign policy interventionist agenda. At best hes a coin flip or a dice roll.

      In short, he may actually turn out to be a giant douche.

      1. He might. But being a “people pleaser” is, to a great degree, being a pragmatist. He wants to do well for the country and make citizens happy. That’s not a bad thing. It’s far superior to the Hillary/Obama attitude of “taking things away from us for our own good,” and of dragging the deplorables into the wonderful progressive future.

        And since I think libertarian solutions can work, I think he’d be amenable to some. So I think it would do Reason well to think positive, and try to make lemonade from these lemons.

        1. I think that’s basically the attitude Reason took often with Obama and most of us didn’t like it.

          I’d rather they take the skeptical position. I think politicians are less dangerous when they know their every move is being scrutinized by journalists (doubt he reads Reason though) as opposed to minimizing or rationalizing that ‘the other guy would’ve been worse.’

          Histrionically declaring him the end of the world and rallying to his side because he’s not the other guy (or girl) aren’t the only options. One can also choose to be calmly but rationally critical/skeptical of him. That in fact seems like the logical position for a libertarian.

    4. “He’s a businessman and not an ideologue. He wants to do things that work, ideally cheaply …”

      Trump is a rich kid who wants to put his name on yuge expensive projects built with other people’s money.

      There is nothing libertarian about Trump. If libertarians hitch their wagons to Trump, they will go over the cliff with him.

      Trump is a baby boomber continuation of the Obama era; bigger government, bigger debts, loss of freedoms and opportunities, the last stages of the bankrupt welfare state.

      The system will inevitably collapse. Trump, Republicans, conservatives and libertarians will be blamed for the mess caused by big government central planning.

      Trump’s successor will be a millennial socialist, unless the “liberty movement” develops a viable alternative – not likely to happen if most libertarians waste their time and credibility on Trump.

    5. I won’t believe Trump will do any of the things he talked about until he does them.

  11. They put up no serious resistance to foreign-policy disasters under George W. Bush and Barack Obama

    Iraq = Libya.

    EXACTLY ALIKE!!

    Well, except for $2 trillion and 4500 dead US soldiers in Iraq.

    But other than that detail – EXACTLY ALIKE!!!

    1. We are two Obumbles terms out from Bush. Are we going to have to listen to you whine about Bush until the end of time? I have even slacked off on giving shit to the jug-eared moron in the white house. Surely you can finally let go of blaming the weather on Bush.

      1. Bush made him welsh on the bet, man! Fucking Bush everywhere! It’s like 70s porn!

      2. Look, let me explain something to you. When you group items together there has to be some equivalence.

        If I am talking about NFL QBs and I want to name some great ones I don’t use Tom Brady and Brock Osweiler. It’s stupid. I think even you can understand this analogy.

        Putting Iraq and Libya together as foreign relations debacles by a US president is likewise stupid. Libya cost us a few rounds of munitions – nothing else.

        1. Of course you wouldn’t use Brady as a great QB, because you’re stupider than boiled eggplant.

          1. 21 June: An unmanned US Navy MQ-8 Fire Scout went down over Libya, possibly due to enemy fire.[9] NATO confirmed that they lost radar contact with the unmanned helicopter as it was performing an intelligence and reconnaissance mission near Zliten.[9] NATO began investigating the crash shortly after it occurred.[9] On 5 August, it was announced that the investigation had concluded that the cause of the crash was probably enemy fire; with operator or mechanical failure ruled out and the inability of investigators to access the crash site the “logical conclusion” was that the aircraft had been shot down.[209]

            Just counting unit costs, the F-15E was 31 million dollars and the MQ-8 was 14 and a half million dollars.

            1. $35 million?

              I have read that Libya cost the US about $300 million.

              But Iraq cost over $2 trillion. Again, false equivalence.

              Obama’s foreign policy of Don’t Do Stupid Shit is about as libertarian as any POTUS since Coolidge.

              1. You’re shucking and jiving around the point. You made the unqualified claim that

                Libya cost us a few rounds of munitions – nothing else

                I proved your claim false with indisputable empirical data.

                You were rhetorically sodomized, boy.

                Just accept what happened.

                1. You’d have better luck getting him to pay a bet, HM.

                  1. The reason that deadbeat junkie snorts so much coke is that it makes the pain of what happened to him go away.

              2. I believe his point was that your claim that it only cost “a few rounds of munitions” was hyperbolic bullshit.

                1. More eloquently, but perhaps less entertainingly, put.

                2. $35 million is nothing. A low low cost.

                  Pity the pedant you are.

                  1. $35 million is nothing. A low low cost.

                    Pity the pedant you are.

                    And yet the relative value of 35 million dollars wasn’t the point here.

                    You made a claim that was false. I showed that it was false. You now look like an enormous ass.

                    Speaking of asses, this is a depiction of what is happening to you in this argument.

                  2. $35 million is nothing. A low low cost.

                    Pity the pedant you are.

                    And yet the relative value of 35 million dollars wasn’t the point here.

                    You made a claim that was false. I showed that it was false. You now look like an enormous ass.

                    Speaking of asses, this is a depiction of what is happening to you in this argument.

                    Now snort some more coke to ease the pain, you junkie piece of shit.

                    1. Damn. The squirrels wanted to make it some gang bang shit.

                      You’re fucked, bro.

                    2. You now look like an enormous ass.

                      So, no difference?

                      -jcr

        2. Palin’s Buttplug|12.16.16 @ 6:48PM|#
          “Look, let me explain something to you…”

          Lying, misdirection, obfuscation: A primer by turd!

          1. we also would have accepted “Oh, this should be good….”

    2. Shreekie’s freaking out man, he’s freaking out! Shit those pants, shreek!

      1. Maybe it’s a good sign. If he got over Trump winning and is back to his own self, maybe the bulk of the proggie herd will follow soon?

        1. maybe the bulk of the proggie herd will follow soon?

          : (

    3. Yes, I see exactly where he said Iraq and Libya were exactly alike. Tell me, what’s it like being this dishonest?

      I fail to see why you think that turning a region into a hotbed of terrorist activity is any sort of thing to be celebrated as an achievement. Yes, we managed to get a failed state without deploying troops and for less money, but you’re acting as though the costs of Libya have finished being counted. What happens when the terrorist groups that are now competing to run that country manage to pull off a major attack against the West? You don’t think there will be money and lives spent then?

      1. It is a clear example of false equivalence. See my other example:

        If I am talking about NFL QBs and I want to name some great ones I don’t use Tom Brady and Brock Osweiler.

        1. Both Brady and Osweiler are NFL quarterbacks, but both are not great NFL quarterbacks. The two things are not the same. Both Iraq and Libya are foreign policy disasters. The fact that one is greater (for now) in monetary and manpower costs than the other does not change that both are disasters. It is not at all a false equivalence.

          Maybe you should look up the definitions of the terms that you are using.

          1. Libya was not a “foreign policy disaster”. It was a NATO success story – a low cost support effort for the people of Libya against a tyrant.

            Too bad Iraq could not have cost so little and had NATO behind it.

            1. Libya was not a “foreign policy disaster”.

              Ranking contender for Unintentional Understatement Of The Year.

            2. Libya is now a failed state and a hotbed of terrorist activity that has produced a horde of migrants fleeing the country, in addition to countless numbers of civilian casualties. The region is now totally destabilized and ISIS/al Qaeda elements are flourishing. They tyrant has now been replaced by a cadre of warlords, many of whom are actively hostile to the United States and its allies, which Ghaddafi was not. Even Obama has admitted that it was a terrible idea, calling it the “worst mistake” of his presidency, and for Obama to admit something was a bad idea is saying something. The only ones still cheerleading it are you and Hillary Clinton. At least she has the excuse that she was running for president and couldn’t admit failure.

            3. It was a NATO success story

              Because it was the policy of NATO to overthrow Qaddaffi? Especially after he voluntarily gave up his nuke program?! You really do push the limits of peak derp on a regular basis. You probably have Hillary pin-ups on the wall. **begins barfing uncontrollably**

            4. Libya was as much of a NATO success story as Iraq was a successful case of nation building.

    4. You’re such an asshole. A man of so lacking in imagination where facts are concerned it’s mind boggling.

      The unintended consequences in Libya, Egypt and Syria have been no less catastrophic with hundreds of thousands dead; never mind the displacement of millions who ended up flooding Southern Italy and Greece. Most of the time, when people talk of the failures and stupidity of intervention, they do so with the lives of both American soldiers and civilians injured or killed.

      Yet, here you are considering but one side of the equation and claim one (Iraq) is worse than the other (Libya). That makes you a partisan buffoon incapable of realizing the fact where the last 16 years are concerned it’s not red or blue but rather purple

      Obama/Hillary just packaged their lust for war differently and people like you eat it up.

      Some ‘classical liberal’ you are.

      http://fpif.org/adding-costs-h…..tons-wars/

      1. The unintended consequences in Libya, Egypt and Syria have been no less catastrophic with hundreds of thousands dead; never mind the displacement of millions who ended up flooding Southern Italy and Greece.

        One of the people I work with is from Italy. She despises the progtard freakout. She said she would never have voted for Trump but is seething at Hillary over Libya because she sees it as a straight line to the growing political instability there.

      2. It’s none of our business. We should let the Middle East implode like it wants to. Why you are on a libertarian board is beyond explanation.

        1. You can’t legitimately call it “let the Middle East implode” when we’re the ones doing the plurality of Middle-East-exploding.

          “Letting it implode” is a good principle, “help overthrow Gaddafi” is not a good implementation of that principle.

        2. The West is playing its part in that implosion.

          Yes, the Middle-East has been a basket case and mired in a dark age for decades if not centuries where the Arabs are concerned, but never discount our role in that however small in the bigger scheme of things.

          You’re the LAST person to speak of libertarian ‘street cred’. The absolute last.

  12. As more than a few people were saying throughout this election cycle, the Left has nothing to offer libertarians. Glad you’re coming around to that. Libertarian GOP vs. conservative GOP is the only area seeing any action.

    1. There is nothing remotely libertarian about conservatism. I know you conservatives deny that fact though.

      1. Then why, when polled on most issues, do self-described conservatives on avg. give answers that are much more libertarian than the avg. person’s answers?

        1. It depends on how the answers are weighted. I am a supporter of the ACLU and its constant defense of the Bill of Rights and others oppressed by the government and police state.

          Conservatives tend to despise the ACLU and polls show how unpopular the ACLU is with the authoritarian loving GOP.

          Explain that.

          1. The ACLU selectively supports the Bill of Rights. Tough luck trying to getting them to defend the 2nd Amendment and half the clauses in the 1st

            1. More bullshit. The ACLU has defended the 2A many times but since the largest lobbyist in the country exclusively defends it the ACLU directs its money to the rest of the BoR.

              1. What the hell are you talking about? They say clearly on their website that they believe that gun rights does not pertain to individuals, they oppose the Citizens United ruling, and they’re against RFRA (after they supported it of course).

                I have no patience for sellout ‘libertarians’ like you

                1. Reason has covered a number of cases. Here is one:

                  https://reason.com/blog/2007/04…..gun-rights

                  1. That’s the ACLU of Texas, not the national group. The national group is quite clear that they believe gun-ownership is not a personal right.

              2. The ACLU’s official position is that the second amendment guarantees a collective, not individual, right to own guns.

                Also, the NRA is far from the largest lobbyist in the country. It has far fewer members (5 million) than the AARP (well over 35 million). In terms of expenditures, it lags behind the Chamber of Commerce by orders of magnitude. The NRA in 2015 spent a little over three million dollars on lobbying activities. The CoC in the same year spent 85 million dollars. The second place finisher was the National Association of Realtors at 38 million.

                You really should try harder, or at least stick to claims that aren’t so easily revealed as total bullshit.

                1. Buttplug comes from the collectivist end of the libertarian spectrum, so his take on the ACLU defending the 2A is actually ok for him.

                  But even then, he only comes alone, and sitting in front of his computer.

  13. Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together. 🙂

    1. One can only imagine, after I’ve destroyed and humiliated shreek over the years, that he only returns here because he’s some sort of masochist. Would you like some more, shreek?

      1. I’m sorry you’re so delusional. Oh well, keep battling them demons. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to fly the libertarian colors. 🙂

        1. Maybe you should try finding out what colors those are before attempting to fly them.

            1. Who are these Nazis with which I’m collaborating? And what do the voices in your head think of them?

          1. You think colors are the obstacle here? There’s pulleys and all sorts of physics involved…..beyond hopeless.

            1. You’re right, he’ll probably end up hanging himself trying to hoist the thing.

  14. If you can’t agree with Amash on most things how can you really be a libertarian?

    1. We all know Bill Weld is the gold standard

    2. I think some Reason writers are desperately trying to rebrand libertarians as ‘progs who like guns’ rather than ‘republicans who like pot.’

      Toward that end, any good thing said of a Republucan must be done in the manner of basically treating said Republican like a ‘good German.’

  15. There will be plenty of time, and I imagine plenty of reasons to oppose trump, but it seems that Nick is falling for the same act the mainstream media is. Take what Trump says literally, and then let him make you look like a fool when what he does is something different altogether.

    1. You might be right. It is a sad statement on us as a nation when we elect a Reality TV star who is knowingly either full of shit or deliberately lying.

      He might do anything next year. But he is off to a sorry-ass fucking start based on his cabinet choices.

      1. It was also a sad statement when we elected a one term Senator with essentially no other experience or qualifications other than a degree from Harvard, demographic appeal, and sounding good reading off a teleprompter, who also was either full of shit or deliberately lying.

        Hey, here’s a hint. Politicians, pretty much all of them, are full of shit or deliberately lying. Clinton was too, but I guess it makes you feel better that she rose to prominence on the coattails of her husband and was a lousy senator and secretary of state, rather than a success as a television personality.

      2. What? His education and energy picks are ‘yuge’. And he consulted with Judge Napolitano on his Supreme Court pick yesterday at Trump Tower. So far, only Sessions seems problematic.

        1. Rick W. Perry is an idiot. Ben Carson admitted he is unqualified for any dept head. His Sec of State is a Russia Firster and enabler so that Exxon will maintain access to oil reserves – for starters. The Trump team is inept and it is not just Sessions.

          1. Should you be commenting on Vox?

            1. He probably lost a bet there too.

          2. Um, if you’re a libertarian who wants smaller government, why would you want ‘smart’ people running agencies that likely shouldn’t exist who can more effectively use them to bludgeon you? It’s like complaining that the guy shooting at you has such bad aim.

  16. ‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ is the political (and religious) parable we need right now

    Granted, it helps that this band of mavericks are portrayed by an enormously talented troupe of actors, who, as mentioned, are indeed super diverse (as one of my theater companions excitedly whispered early on in the film, “there’s not a single white American man on screen right now!”). Rogue One centers on the story of Jyn Erso, a rebel-without-a-cause (who eventually finds one) aptly performed by Felicity Jones.

    Well, I still want to see Darth Vader slice and dice. Probably will see it.

    1. Was there a white European man? Because that seems like a very specific denial.

    2. After the last four disappointments, I’ll probably wait for it to hit cable, unless there’s some overwhelmingly positive reactions from the non-SJW crowd.

      1. Keep hearing mixed things. It’s probably okay because of the production quality but at the same time whenever a studio forces a production into reshoots that’s always a bad sign.

        Disney is just going to milk the franchise for all the money they possibly can by playing it safe and never taking any risks whatsoever with the Star Wars property. That just rubs me the wrong way and turns me off to it all.

    3. “there’s not a single white American man on screen right now!”

      To be fair, that’s what I like to see in my pornography as well.

      Jus’ sayin’

    4. white American man

      I assume they’re referring to the actors? Because you know, galaxy far far away and stuff. Immersing yourself in the narrative and all that. Or you could just spend the whole movie making mental notes based on your narrow-minded racial and socioeconomic worldview and patting yourself on the back for it.

      1. Also, literally every Death Star scene in the first movie, till Millennium Falcon lands on it, passes that test.

        Now, white English men…

      2. It’s probably just me, but it seem the definition of “white” is getting more restrictive. To my eyes I thought there were plenty of “white” people in Rogue One. Is there a color chart for reference? Do you have to have blue/green/gray eye color? If you have a Hispanic name, you can’t be “white”? How does this work? It’s all very confusing.

    5. (as one of my theater companions excitedly whispered early on in the film, “there’s not a single white American man on screen right now!”)

      It is hard to fathom how these people can be such naked racists and be unaware of it.

      1. i like to point it out.
        just replace it with irish.

    6. Did the companion realize the same during Mad Max? Or Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy?

      1. Also, if the robot character was in that scene, it’s only half correct. Alan Tudyk would have been there as they were shooting, but his White Americanness was ERASED by the multicultural hegemon!

  17. (as one of my theater companions excitedly whispered early on in the film, “there’s not a single white American man on screen right now!”)

    Plot? Who needs that shit? Just so long as the cast is appropriately “diverse”. Those people are insane.

  18. I didn’t vote for Trump for some of the reasons Nick brings up. His personality looks like it may lend itself to abusing executive power, what he was saying about trade could bring about the greatest depression, and last time the repubs controlled everything the budget exploded and they passed the anti free speech campaign finance reform.

    What Trump does could be the opposite. At this point who knows? From what I’ve observed that’s exactly the way Trump likes it.

  19. here’s some good news, via Politico: “Libertarians emerging as Trump resistance.”

    noted last night =

    that piece mentions one specific gripe (*Rand Paul’s opposition to the appointment of Bolton to State) and also that libertarians would generally oppose any tariffs, tho there’s nothing specific to oppose quite yet….

    … and then lists about a dozen things libertarians are thrilled about.

    several libertarian leaders noted, there’s been much for libertarians to cheer about as well, from high hopes for scaled-back regulations, to strong selections, in their view, for appointments to lead departments like the Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Human Services.

    “People have some concerns, but for the most part I think are pretty positive with the big-picture outlook, with regard to lower taxes, less regulation,” said Brian Darling, a former top Senate aide to Paul. “So I think you’ll see the liberty movement, moving forward, being critical at times, but being very supportive on big issues like repealing Obamacare, regulation reform, tax reform.”

    In short = the actual story doesn’t quite live up to the claims of the headline. If there’s opposition, its because libertarians are perpetually in that role. Its nothing new nor anything specific to trump.

    By contrast… the potential gains for liberty under trump seem many. It would seem the smart play would be to *encourage* the good.

    1. – also –

      “encourage the good” doesn’t mean “*don’t* fight the bad”.

      It means look for opportunities for real gains and push them. I think the mistake would be to celebrate opposition for its own sake – a posture libertarians have been in forever by default.

    2. They want to goad Paul to break with party as much as possible and resist Trump. They’ll cheer that on when they can get it, and then instantly turn on him when it’s convenient once again. Sort of like what they’ve done since he was first elected. These are the same people who ignored him on Hillary’s orders when the primaries were starting.

    3. True, and thankfully true. Mind you, Trump is an abysmal person and threarens to be an abysmal president, but he’s also a narcissistic, vindictive child.

      If Paul an Amash play the anti Trump resistance it’ll be a nice little symbolic protest, but they’ll just be on the outside looking in; and the rest of the GOP isn’t likely to follow them, so it’s akin to resigning in protest.

      Paul is doing the right thing. Play his friend. Flatter him, convince him that the time he agreed with you was his ‘real’ position, bend him in the right direction. He seems susceptible to it.

  20. The fact that elected Republicans with a libertarian bent are the primary check on Trump really highlights why the Johnson (and Reason) strategy of continually pandering to the Left makes zero sense. They’re all statists. Not a single one challenged President Obama’s drone wars, attacks on religious freedom, or expanded executive authority.

    You have to admit that the Democrat-lite strategy is an epic failure. I’m sorry, but Rothbard’s and Paul won this argument, not Koch and Johnson.

    1. Not a single one challenged President Obama’s drone wars

      OR the conventional kind. Find me a single editorial bemoaning the US refueling of Saudi Bombers over Yemen.

    2. Wyden doesn’t count? He’s not a reliable libertarian by any mean but he was involved if fighting the NSA bullshit (arguably earlier than Paul was).

      1. Wyden is a good point. He did join Rand for a little bit in his drone filibuster.

    1. Mmmm….T-34s, KV-1, PPSh, SU-100…

      1. Please rise for the new and improved Russian national anthem:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx-kJ2WWwqQ

        1. Serious talk, I have no idea why they kept the Soviet anthem instead of going back to the original.

          If it was a bit slow, Tchaikovsky gave them a perfect arrangement, and they could bring out the cannon for special occasions.

            1. My heart belongs to Russian military hardware designs. The T-55, T-72, Zis-3, AK and RPK, MiG-21 and -29, the Mi-24…

              Only German tank design I like esthetically is the Czech T-35/38, and the gloriously ugly Hetzer built on its chassis. Oh, and StuG-III.

                1. Oh god, don’t get me started on British tank designs of WW2 and their hatred for the concept of “aesthetics”.

                  The Matilda, the A Cruiser series (Crusader excepted), the Churchill… gaaaaah.

                  Their post-war stuff, starting with the Centurion, is rather fetching, though.

                  1. I agree. A tank should look like a tank, not a land battleship.

                    1. Or you fully commit to battleship design.

                      It was garbage, but makes an awesome model.

                    2. It’s possible to both go ‘full battleship’ and have a sense of aesthetics.

                      ELEVEN BARRELS OF HELL probably doesn’t work out so well in real life though.

                    3. I like tanks to look like the rolling fortresses for Jawas.

    2. It sounds like they’ve stolen the lyrical melody from this

      *tho i think their use of Lucky Strikes as a symbol of “Americana” is funny. The brand was sold to BAT (british american tobacco) in 1976, and hasn’t even been sold in the US in the last 10 years. Its a huge brand in Asia, and popular in parts of Europe, but i don’t think a single American has smoked them (or could if they tried) since the 1980s.

      1. it feels right though

      2. You can get Lucky Strikes in the States. You have to go to an actual tobacco shop.

        A little over a year ago I was buying some cigars in a specialty tobacco shop in Layton, Utah, and saw a few packs of Luckies in the cigarette rack. (I haven’t smoked cigarettes since about 1980.)

        When I mentioned to the clerk that I hadn’t seen them in years and years, he said, “yeah, it’s mostly stupid young hipsters that buy them here.”

    1. its the silliest nitpick, but she starts the sketch going, “I’m finally 18! – who to vote for?!”
      then the first question she asks is about *Student Debt*

      does not compute

    2. Also –

      then the republican goes, “…when i made it financially viable for a bank to lend you $300,000 for a poetry degree”

      Actually federal involvement in the college loan market goes back to the Higher Education Act of 1965, part of Johnson’s Great Society programs. Not that republicans have done much to fight the expansion of the Free Shit train over the years, but it seems odd to pretend that it was a brainchild of the GOP

      1. Meh, they lean pretty Democrat at SMBC, but they seem to be a little more self aware than most.

        1. Given that her #1 and #2 issues were student loan debt and gay rights, yeah, I’d say they’re very much in tune with flyover country.

          1. To be fair, in her age group, those often are what single issue voters care about. Because teenagers/early twenty-somethings have underdeveloped brains.

            Why yes, I’m in favour of raising the voting age to 25, why do you ask?

      2. They tend to be better when they’re just bitching about politics in general. Their WAR skit is pretty good.

    3. @1:00 was the actual correct response to her question.

  21. I forgot Olberman a long time ago.

  22. How was I to know Trump was with the Russians, too?

    1. Well, the shit has apparently hit the fan.

    2. Send lawyers, guns, and money
      Dad, get me out of this

      RIP Warren

  23. God dammit, Russia, stop trying to live up to your reputation.

    A Russian TV network has launched a real-life version of The Hunger Games.

    Contestants will have to survive on their own for nine months in Siberia.

    Producers say that anything goes, including rape and murder, although they warn people taking part that they’re still subject to the rule of law and can be arrested at any time.

    “You must understand that the police will come and take you away. We are on the territory of Russia, and obey the laws of the Russian Federation.”

    The 20 male and female participants taking part in Game2: Winter can carry knives but aren’t allowed guns.

    1. Fucking hell, sign me up! (Provided these are not STEVE SMITH-occupied woods)

      You’ll also have to pay 10 million roubles (?130,000) – or be voted in by viewers.

      Goddammit. Guess I’m going to have to have a gimmick. Maybe I can be the Canadian heel? The Lumberjack, I just wear flannel and instead of a knife I get an axe.

    2. “You must understand that the police will come and take you away. We are on the territory of Russia, and obey the laws of the Russian Federation.”

      “You have been convicted of rape, and so we banish you to…oh, fuck it.”

      1. A new prisoner arrives at the gulag. The guard asks him how long and what he did.
        “10 years…for nothing at all,” he says.
        “You liar,” says the guard. “You only get *5* years for doing nothing at all.”

    3. No guns in Siberia? Fuck that. They have grizzly bears.

        1. Cool. That is basically a Howdah pistol. I want a Howdah.

      1. Eh, the Eskimos deal with polar bears and they managed to get by without guns for a long time.

        1. The eskimos have guns now. In the days before they did a lot of bears had breath that smelled like eskimo.

          I used to wonder how amazonian indians get around in the amazon basin without getting snake bitten. I finally got to spend some time down there and found out how. They don’t.

        2. That’s because Eskimos eat a lot of seal, so their livers have deadly amounts of vitamin A. If a polar bear eats an Eskimo liver, it will die. The bears don’t know that it’s the liver, specifically, so they just avoid eating Eskimos.

  24. Catnip for Pan Zagloba:

    The unconventional church Ru?ica

    Church Ru?ica, in which the defenders of Belgrade received their last communion, is listed as one of the most unusual churches in the world. The main reason why, among many others, lies in its horos, made of firearm parts, gun and bayonet bullets used in the Great War as well as Serbian officers’ sabers of that time.

    chandelier made of swords and bullets

    1. Hell yeah! I remember in grade 4 reciting the speech of Major Gavrilovic at a school function.

      They, sadly, got shellacked when they attacked. Then General von Mackensen built them a monument, securing his place as Serbs’ favorite German. Or maybe second favorite, if we include a guy so badass he won both The Iron Cross and Legion of Honor.

      1. What about Catherine die Grosse?

  25. “FBI backs CIA conclusion on Russian hacking motive”
    […]
    “There has been no specific, persuasive evidence shared publicly about the extent of Putin’s role or knowledge of the hackings. That lack of proof undercuts Democrats’ strategy to portray Putin’s involvement as irrefutable evidence of a directed Russian government plot to undermine America’s democratic system.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/nation/a…..802061.php

    Ditto a lack of evidence for “hacking” at all.

    1. If the FBI and NSA agree, why aren’t Comey and Clapper saying so? Why is it coming through the head of the CIA? Seems a bit odd to me that they had to meet for a powwow of agency heads to determine there was this consensus just days after it was reported that FBI analysts disagreed.

      1. They’re likely afraid to lose their jobs come January.

    2. Like I can trust a guy who conspired with Putin to steal the election from Hillary, or a guy who perjured himself in front of Congress about the rogue agency he was running.

    3. Look, it is completely unfair that people found out the truth about Hillary. That wasn’t supposed to happen. No fair goddmmit!

    4. Sevo, I hope you have a commenting account there, and are loyally up voting all my comments.

  26. More importantly than Keith Olbermann (which is everything), what do you guys think about marrying a girl 4 years older than yourself.

    Please note that I’m not entering into such a thing while knowing I’m going to divorce her in a few years, like I’m sure Ashton Kutcher did.

    1. x/2 +7 is acceptable.
      or 18.
      whatever.

      1. That’s the equation for deciding if she’s too young.
        Unless you’re talking about waist size

        1. yeah…
          her age is x this time?

          1. In communist Russia, girl objectifies you

            1. true, comrade.
              Honestly, 4 years is nothing.

    2. Unless you’re 18~23, not necessarily a big deal.

      1. That’s a good point. And honestly, its a done deal in my head. I just wanna make sure I’m not missing something. None of my friends are old enough to have any realistic marriage advice.

        1. *shrugs*

          I don’t see what the big deal is.

          For what it’s worth, my wife is 7 years younger than I am.

          1. I’m nuts over my wife.
            She’s this tall. *Holds hand at waist level*

              1. Thanks, I’ll take it from here…

                *narrows gaze*

          2. That’s where I always assumed I would end up. Sometimes life throws you a big-breasted curveball.

            1. Sometimes life throws you a big-breasted curveball.

              Nice…

    3. Age has nothing to do with anything. I married a woman 13 years older than myself. I’m 22 years (I think) in and they have been the happiest 22 years of my life. She really is the love of my life.

      I know what I am talking about. Before I married her I went through at least a hundred of them. No exaggeration, a hundred at least. Crazy, mean, passive aggressive, chronic cheaters, dead fish, every personality disorder there is, one was a compulsive shoplifter ffs.

      When you find a good, sane faithful woman latch on tight. You will find that age has nothing to do with it.

      1. My brother is jealous of my extensive experience with the fairer sex. He married young and is still with the same woman. They seem happy to me. No matter how hard I try I cannot convince him that I am being sincere when I tell him he didn’t miss anything. I was the one who missed out until I found my current wife.

        1. Yeah I’ve been all over the block. Its pretty exhilarating at times, but so is hanging out with my current girlfriend, all the time. Personalities are almost impossible to find on the other side of the fence.

      2. I wouldn’t say age has nothing to do with it. 25, 35, 45 year old single women are looking for vastly different things.

        1. It’s a dichotomy. There is under thirty and over thirty. Just when they are hitting their sexual prime they notice that men aren’t looking at them anymore. Thats gotta be hell.

          Vastly different desires and vastly different attitudes.

          1. Being a dorky 18 year old malewith no money must be hell, too. It all evens out.

    4. So, if you’re 20, 4 years is 20% of your life. By the time you’re 50, it’s only 10%. What I mean is that, as you both agree, the difference becomes less.

      1. Good point

    5. When I was 30 I married a woman who was 36, and she was married twice before to boot. We just celebrated our 30th anniversary. What counts is personality (broadly defined) congruence. Age is not important.

    6. People still get married?

      One thing I’ll never comprehend. I’d rather not lose half of my bike, IKEA sofa, and Xbox one.

  27. Who would have guessed that dropping a nuclear bomb could be so boring:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dIqfN_aPtY

    1. Dude, the instructional films from that era make blow jobs look boring.

  28. “This would be a 35% tax on all Americans?a tax that especially hurts low-income families. Maybe the slogan should be #MakeAmericaVenezuela.”

    Not bad. Amash is able to insult trump and Bernie Bros in one tweet.

    1. Justin is one of the very few politicians who have ever received any campaign contributions from me. I’ve been quite satisfied with his conduct in office.

      -jcr

  29. Started off with a Gulden Draak 9000. On to a Trappistes Rochefort 10. Capping off day off work of picking up stocking suffers and hitting the shooting range.

    1. Actually watching a recorded Red Eye with Matt Welch. Tammy Pescatelli also a guest, yum.

  30. What does this carpetbagger have in his luggage?

    “Chicago transplant Robert Pickens came to Savannah about five years ago and immediately detected a deficit in the food scene.

    “‘When I got here, I noticed there was no Chicago food and Deep Dish pizza was nonexistent,’ Pickens says.

    “Pickens immediately found his niche in Savannah and dedicated the last four years to perfecting his epic Deep Dish Pizza Pie. As of March 2016, Pickens became the owner, chef, and delivery boy of Windy City Savannah, discreetly located inside Barrelhouse South on West Congress Street.”

    1. “The South is So Bizarre! They have no shitty midwestern food?!?”

      1. I’d be shocked if you couldn’t find a Chicago hotdog in Savannah.

        You can.

        Chicago hot dog/Polish sausage/Italian beef sandwich joints are all over the country. I’ve found them in small cities that have their own strong, distinct “coney culture”.

  31. In business, you need an inventor and a promoter; in politics, you need an intellectual and a promoter, and Trump is a promoter. Libertarians are mostly intellectuals unable to promote their ideas on a large scale, partly due to a lack of promoting skill, partly due to the fact that this country is not yet ready for pure libertarian ideals. If Trump takes small steps toward greater freedom (e.g. an EPA executive who will cut regulations, a Department of Education executive who will increase privatization, a Department of Energy executive who will increase domestic energy production, a foreign policy that will curtail nation building, senseless wars, and billions of dollars in giveaways to foreign countries), the libertarians will complain that his steps are not good enough. The fact is that even Rand Paul himself would not have been able to take bigger steps toward freedom–even with the power of the presidency–he would have better ideas, but he wouldn’t be able to implement them because he wouldn’t be able to effectively promote them, and the blowback would ultimately result in even less gains. Lastly, I can’t believe that an alleged libertarian is against tax cuts.

    1. Did you read Steve Chapman’s latest article? The retard is strong with that one.

    2. And partly due to the fact that libertarians have as many blind spots about the real world as anyone else. Ok, maybe not as many, but they have some.

    3. I think the underlying complaint is that tax cuts with no spending cuts is really just shifting taxation from the present to the future.

      And Trump seems stimulus happy, which bodes ill for spending cuts.

      1. Libertarians should follow Ludwig von Mises, who persuasively argued that taxes merely shift spending from individuals to the government on the pretentious assumption that politicians know what’s best for individuals. Libertarian thinkers have excellent plans for reducing the deficit without increasing taxes. Ron Paul says that Fed should just burn all of its treasury bonds–why should US taxpayers owe the Fed money? My broker Peter Schiff says that we should threaten Chinese holders of treasury bonds with default in order to negotiate better terms. Why should US taxpayers pay for a reckless Fed that has printed and borrowed money at whim behind our backs? And why should rich Chinese investors make money on their foolish investments?

        1. Well, for one, the US government would never be able to borrow again, or loan again for that matter. Which is fine if you intend to abolish the government. Much like businesses, even governments that run balanced budgets in the long run still need to borrow in the short run due to illiquidity of assets.

          So, to those of us who aren’t anarchists, renouncing the debt is just absurd.

          And if you think Trump is a promoter of libertarian ideas, you’re at least as delusional as Chapman.

          1. The libertarian plan should be to replace fiat currency with gold & silver. The United States Treasury could demonetize American currency and Americans could go to their banks and replace the old currency with gold and silver certificates, which could be redeemed on demand. The US government owns at least 8000 tons of gold, and the IMF own an additional 3000 tons. You’re right–if we default on the debt, no one would ever trust our fiat money any more–but gold and silver have universal value and respect because they cannot be printed. We should not try to live beyond our means and there is no reason to borrow money from foreign countries. We only need to trade with foreign countries, using gold and silver as the medium of exchange.

          2. Another crucial point to make is that if our country needs money, it should tax its citizens, not borrow money from foreign countries. Citizens feel the pain of taxes and will openly revolt if they think the alleged needs of the country are frivolous. In contrast, when we borrow money from foreign countries, the alleged needs are often frivolous; but since the taxpayer doesn’t feel any pain from this, our government can get away with this time and time again.

  32. America’s official tax calendar is set for next year, and the filing deadline has shifted to April 18, a Tuesday. The nation’s 16th President is the reason.

    1. Are they waiting for Civil War II?

      1. Don’t want to remind Democrats what happens when they get way too butthurt about a Republican winning an election.

    2. And of course the commenter are your typical “right-on” lefty types.

    1. “LONDON ? The fertility regulator
      […]
      The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)”
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../95467076/

      I really don’t want to live in a country with a “fertility regulator”.

    2. They have turned into a proggie hell. I used to be something of an anglophile…used to be. Now they just piss me off. They are a disgrace.

      1. You know who else the English pissed off?

        1. Everybody else in the European Union?

      2. I’ll speak for the English. Most of those twats would never refer to themselves as “English” and would flee from the Cross of St George like….er…vampires from cross.

        I’m not joking – for those assholes, if you fly an English flag, you’re a racist.

  33. Welfare recipients spend more on sugary treats than they do vegetables, study finds. I can only roll my eyes so hard. Half as much money was spent on “sugary beverages” as it was on meat. Soda can economy, I hear.

  34. The progs warned us that this election would lead to violence:

    “Mike Banerian is a youth chair of the Michigan Republican Party and an official elector obligated to cast his electoral vote for President-elect Donald Trump.

    “‘Mike Banerian: I’ve been inundated with hundreds and hundreds of letters to my house and Facebook messages and some of those Facebook messages are death threats. I’ve had people threaten to put a bullet in the back of my mouth. People saying to throw myself in front of a bus, sending me pictures of a noose. Saying if I don’t do the right thing that they’ll get me.'”

    1. Who are the bullies now?

  35. I think i’ve found the most hilariously sexist/mysogynistic/un-PC film in history

    Its like “Lolita” meets “Throw Momma From The Train” or “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” = A comedy about pedophilia and Con-men

    Le Far? Da Padre / “Bambina” (1974)

    (translated “I’ll Take Her Like a Father”)

    In order to convince Raimonda, a wealthy noble woman, to finance his project for a holiday resort, Saverio gets engaged to Clotilde, her mentally-disturbed and sex-obsessed adolescent daughter. He plans to have her kidnapped and raped by an accomplice so she won’t be a virgin anymore and he’ll have an excuse to get out of the impending marriage. But what he doesn’t plan is to fall in love with the girl…

    Scheming middle-aged man falls in love with retarded nymphomaniac teen. Hilarity ensues.

    I came across this while scanning lots of 1970s European movie soundtracks. Obviously, the cover made me inquire further about the film.

    I may be wrong – its not really “Anti PC” so much as actually confirming the SJW’s wildest imaginations about how men would actually prefer to behave all the time.

    1. Maybe it’s time for someone to do a gritty remake? Is Quentin Tarantino doing anything? Pedro Almodovar?

      1. Roman Polanski, but he’ll use drugs.

      2. I never said it was a *good* movie. All i’ve seen of it is some creepy clips of titty-grabbing and child-groping.

        1. …and having said that, I think I’ll give it a pass.

          *winks at Preet and his everseeing eye, pbuh*

            1. *frantically motions finger across throat*

            2. Jesus, that was fucking disturbing.

        2. You don’t remake *good* movies.

          I just want to force Sarkeesian, Marcotte and Valentine to watch that movie, then ask “did you notice any differences between it and, say, Age of Ultron?”

          1. I think Marcotte and Valentine are real, but I’m starting to think that Sarkeesian is a legitimate conwoman. She’s made way more than either of them over the past couple years, and I’d honestly applaud her if she suddenly turned around a few years from now and said “stupid American bastards, I just made millions poorly regurgitating half-baked women’s studies lectures that made you feel noble and self-righteous, now I’m going to take my money and fuck off to the Caribbean.”

            1. Given that she hasn’t delivered on her kickstarter obligations after all this time, con woman she is. But she’ll ride the feminism pony to the end.

          2. You don’t remake *good* movies.

            Meh. We could debate this for a month. Even if the OG movie is weak in its first version, the essence of the story has to be good.

            e.g. one of my favorite ‘remakes’ – DOA. the plot concept is what makes it such an easy thing to update. (“man discovers he’s been poisoned and has 24 hours to catch his killer”)

            2 stories i’ve always thought would made a great ‘remake’ (or adaptation) were Typhoon (joseph conrad) and Stray Dog (1949)…. the latter being the easier of the 2 (the former is the dreaded ‘boat movie’ which hollywood hates)

            both are super-simple stories that allow for a wide-range of subtle subtexts.

            I just want to force Sarkeesian, Marcotte and Valentine to watch that movie, then ask “did you notice any differences between it and, say, Age of Ultron?”

            lol. did they call the Avengers movie ‘sexist’? i watched i again the other day. I do recall the ‘love story’ between hulk & scarlett johansen being sort of silly

      1. You SugarFree’d the link….

    2. I thought 1970’s Italy cranked out zillions of those.

      1. I think you’re right. Italy at the time (late 60s-early70s) had a thing where if there were a single successful film, they’d pump out 2 dozen copies of it until they’d become an entire genre. Often the “one decent one” was lost in the pile of ridiculous copies.

    3. The 1970s really were like that. Peak Libertinism

  36. Parents should be able to decide whether to circumcize their sons

    “To put it mildly, the brain is an important part of a person’s body. It’s certainly more important than the foreskin of the penis. One’s brain is inevitably shaped by the parents or guardians one has as a child. This is not some metaphorical allusion to the information that’s put into one’s brain nor am I referring to one’s genetic inheritance ? no, the physical structures of one’s brain are changed based upon one’s training and education….

    “We rightly value self-determination, but our ability to choose our own path and make our own decisions about our bodies begins after our bodies have already been shaped by our parents in ways we are powerless to change. In this light, agonizing over the loss of a foreskin is an unwarranted, excessive reaction.”

    1. What kind of shit is that? Parents can do one thing so anything goes? C’mere Ron, I have something to show you. You’ll love it.

      *hides paring knife behind back*

  37. Three historians urge Obama to proclaim a Reconstruction monument in Beaufort, South Carolina (as urged by local boosters)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12……html?_r=0

    1. “…a turbulent and misunderstood era…”

      Uh huh. Lots of people left the south after the war and it had nothing to do with politics. They left because northerners flooded down here and, as my grandfather put it, “stole every goddamned thing in sight”. My own family tried to leave. They packed everything in 4 wagons (one of which was loaded with logs to make a raft out of) and headed for Texas. When they got to the Sabine it was flooded so they camped out to wait for it to go down. Three weeks later it hadn’t gone down and the women had had enough so they made the men bring them back ‘home’.

      We still own that land.

  38. I bet that shreeky is eating a big old box of crayons right now. Hey, shreeky, which tastes better, the greens or the reds?

  39. Tampa will celebrate the fun parts of Florida history

    “‘We surveyed our audience for what else they would like to see,’ said C.J. Roberts, the history center’s CEO. ‘They answered pirates, pirates, pirates. So, that is what they’ll get.'”

    1. I hope they have the open bar and wench display.

      Drinking before noon does not make you and alcoholic, it makes you a pirate.

  40. Why is it so hard for people to accept that Trump’s demagoguery may have been mostly demagoguery?

    It’s almost like they want him to be evil incarnate, like they’ll be disappointed if he isn’t.

    It’s like right wingers back in the day sitting around hoping there will be another terrorist attack so they can say, “I told you so”.

    It’s like bored firemen sitting around in the firehouse wishing there were a fire they could go put out.

    If Trump doesn’t build the wall, doesn’t renegotiate GATT and NAFTA, doesn’t herd illegal immigrants out of the country by the millions, and doesn’t throw Muslims out for being Muslims, the cosmo left may be more disappointed by it than Trump’s supporters.

    I guess we’ll have to wait and see, but I’m starting to suspect that Trump helped the left build him into a strawman–and the joke’s gonna be on them for being afraid of its shadow.

    1. “–and the joke’s gonna be on them for being afraid of its shadow.”

      Nope.
      They’ll claim *they* kept him from doing that stuff, ’cause righteousness!

    2. Why is it so hard for people to accept that Drumpf’s demagoguery may have been mostly demagoguery?

      Not hard at all. It seems to be really hard for you, though.

      1. Anybody know what this is supposed to mean?

        Hi Tulpa!

      2. Drumpf

        Deep thoughts.

  41. Trump sounded distinctly authoritarian notes during the campaign and he’s no fan of free speech, free trade, and anything remotely resembling open borders.

    I don’t know when he sounded authoritarian other than just sounding kind of like an A personality asshole. The free speech I don’t think is a real threat given the constitution. I am not buying he does not like free trade given his business experience using it. (Granted the 35% tariff bs is moronic, but I don’t think it will ever happen.) But can the big L Libertarians explain to me how open borders would remotely make things better in this country given our current tax code and welfare state? It is a tax burden benefit if employers hire non citizens and then pay shit so they get government aid. How does that promote the economy and or a free employment market when one group is cheaper than the other by tax breaks? Or is there some free market utopia that will magically appear if we don’t have borders and every person who wants to be in the US makes it here?

    1. Ah grasshopper. The laws of supply and demand, and of incentives, work everywhere except for with labor. See, importing millions of workers and increasing the supply of labor in no way causes the cost of labor to go down. Or maybe it does, but just because the cost of labor goes down in no way causes wages to decrease. Of course that’s not true.
      The problem is that libertarians tend to be like most people: unwilling to admit that the theoretical best course is not always the real best course in the real world.
      If both the US and Mexico (for example) were fairly free and uncorrupt, and if both had similar welfare programs, an open border would be ideal.
      Many libertarians refuse to accept that, in the real world, an open border between Mexico and the US means that the US imports poverty.

      1. No, I think they just think that having millions of very lowly paid workers is a plus, no matter what.

        Same with Wall Street, they want cheap labor, period. After all, it helps their profits in the end.

      2. I totally read that first paragraph in a David Carradine voice, and it made as much sense as the shit he said on tv back in the 70’s. Nice.

        Perhaps the libertarians will realize the real world is not theory some day.

      3. What if I’m a entrepreneur who wants both the cost of labor and the wages I have to pay to decrease?

        1. Oh, I can sympathize. But do you seriously disagree that an open border between the US and Mexico imports poverty? That, by expanding the welfare roles and paying to teach non native speakers English in schools (at the opportunity cost of using those funds on native speaking children or reducing taxes) the government is not subsiding labor costs for business? Open borders in the real world is not libertarian, it is cronyism.

          1. But do you seriously disagree that an open border between the US and Mexico imports poverty?

            I’m not sure what you claim is so terrible about “importing poverty.” I mean, this doesn’t look like a group of plutocrats to me. People who have been successful in their native country tend not to immigrate. Wherever they hail from, as a group, immigrants are poorer than the native population. That’s why they are willing to work for less wages in my factory.

            That, by expanding the welfare roles and paying to teach non native speakers English in schools (at the opportunity cost of using those funds on native speaking children or reducing taxes) the government is not subsiding labor costs for business?

            Assuming that we’re talking about legal immigration, those immigrants would be paying taxes for those services at the same rate their native peers would be. As such, it is no more problematic than any government spending for entitlements that native-born citizens would use. I reject your claim that hiring an ESL teacher for a public school is any more of an example of objectionable government subsidy than the fact that the bill for my groceries is artificially inflated from government agricultural subsidies combined with heavy tariffs placed on cheaper foreign corn, milk, and bean products.

            1. Agree with all of that except the immigrants tend not to be successful in their native countries part. My personal anecdote refutes that!

                1. Looking for scratch. That’s it right there. I’ve been able to work in various countries because of my passport and would be a massive hypocrite if I denied that to others that simply want to make a little scratch by serving their fellow man.

            2. Ah well. Legal vs illegal is a red hearing, to a point. Legal immigrants tend to be exactly those you describe: hard working, smart people that add to our wealth. I’m referring to hordes of illiterate, unskilled/semi skilled blue collar workers. To pretend that importing millions of those doesn’t equate to importing poverty is non rational.
              And by importing poverty, i don’t mean just importing poor people; it is importing the wage of a third world economy, and thus displacing US workers, who are now poorer because they are competing for work against people who think $10 per hr while sharing living quarters with 12 other families is good money.

              1. You get rid of the welfare state and public education, I’ll agree to open borders

                1. Since the welfare state is the cause and not immigration, get rid of the cause.

                2. I will agree to open borders when we get rid of the welfare state, public education, and make employers pay FICA taxes on temporary visa workers, aka H1B, H2B and any other of the temp stuff. Then I am all in. Or just get rid of FICA, that works too.

            3. Or, they leave because they are among the more well-off, and they want to leave for a country that has things money can’t buy, like safety, a less polluted environment, a government that won’t get in your way at every turn and then rob you blind if you somehow succeed despite it.

          2. Um, is it so different from importing half of Europe’s poverty between 1850 and 1920?

            1. Last of political will to assimilate immigrants due to anti-nationalism.

        2. That makes you smart. Seems to me the libertarian platform concentrates on just the cost of labor going down. The other aspects of wages, seem to be a back burner issue.

          1. The other aspects of wages, seem to be a back burner issue.

            How so? I’ve read plenty of articles here about inflation, sticky wages, and sound money.

            1. I was referring to the other part of “wages” as in FICA. H1B for instance, FICA is not an issue. The employer does not have to pay it. In your factory are you going to hire the kid out of college who you have to pay half FICA, or the guy you can get from Pakistan on a visa who you don’t have to pay anything? Or if it is unskilled and said employee is here illegally. Not to mention if a business hires a “refugee”. Additional breaks if said person makes that cut.

              I have worked in quite a few countries over the past ten years. To be allowed to work in all of them I had to prove I was not taking a job that a citizen of said country could better fill, and in the last one, prove that I was actually training their citizens in their job to be more productive in their society.

              I don’t know, I think we do it wrong and it is getting expensive.

            2. Heroic Mulatto|12.16.16 @ 10:10PM|#
              The other aspects of wages, seem to be a back burner issue.
              “How so? I’ve read plenty of articles here about inflation, sticky wages, and sound money.”

              HM, luv ya. I’m glad you’re doing the heavy lifting tonight.
              I’ll add this in the hopes it helps:
              In aggregate, tariffs harm the importing country which imposes them, regardless of any temporary gain in employment as a result. I can’t see selling labor as any different.

    2. Dear westernsloper – If you want to watch normally sane, smart people turn into gibbering idiots simply ask about open borders. I’ll get the popcorn.

  42. Obama signs bill to review civil rights-era killings

    “Obama signed the bill Friday. It indefinitely extends a 2007 law that calls for a full accounting of race-based deaths, many of which had been closed for decades. The law was set to expire next year….

    “The law provides federal resources to local jurisdictions to look into the cases and extends the time span of cases to be considered to Dec. 31, 1979. It will also require the Justice Department and the FBI to consult with civil rights organizations, universities and others who had been gathering evidence on the deaths.”

    1. Pick those scabs Obumbles. Pick’em good.

      1. Well… trying to solve genuine murders that are legitimately within federal purview is probably the most utterly unobjectionable thing he’s done in his whole presidency, even if it’s probably an exercise in futility.

        1. Nope. He is picking scabs. Community organizing.

          Those crimes, as bad as they were, are ancient history. Most of the perpetrators, victims, families, and witnesses are dead and gone. ‘Solving’ them will solve nothing but keeping them fresh in people’s minds will foment resentment and anger, which of course is the point.

          1. The law provides federal resources to local jurisdictions to look into the cases and extends the time span of cases to be considered to Dec. 31, 1979.

            37 years ago is definitely a cold case, but it doesn’t mean the people involved are cold, especially since murder is a young man’s game. Hell, they still manage to dredge up the occasional Nazi for trial.

  43. Dunno. Saying the electors will certainly put Trump in is almost like predicting Hillary was a shoo-in prior to the general election. Funny though how lefties embrace the finer points of constitutional law after eight years of writing the constitution off as an embarrassing anachronism.

    1. Of course the electors will vote for Trump. To do otherwise would mean more than a constitutional crisis; it would cause civil war. Literal, killing-the-other-guys, civil war.

      1. I doubt that. Riots sure, and maybe a steady decline in public trust toward political nihilism, but a shooting war over Trump? I don’t think so.

    2. I wonder how many people who voted for Hillary would prefer to see the total meltdown of the US economy were Trump to be denied. Wild stab, but 40%?

    3. Eh, basically what, 60-something would have to change their vote for Hillary to win. If no one has 270, then Congress votes and they are certainly going to vote for Trump.

      But frankly, I think while a lot of Republicans hate Trump, they hate Hillary even more.

      1. They only hated Trump when they thought he was going to lose. Now that team red has all branches of government, well then, Trump is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.

    4. Enough electors are obligated by law to vote Trump that he has it in the bag. The casting of the votes is symbolic. If those electors try to vote otherwise they will be removed and replaced with alternates that will follow the law.

      Trump is our next president. Period.

      The left is just has an epic case of denial. They can tantrum all they want, it won’t change anything.

      1. If they are encouraging electors to violate election laws to throw the election, isn’t that basically agitating for a literal coup? It doesn’t have to involve violence, just the unlawful usurpation of power.

        Seems dangerous to do publicly, especially when the person you’re acting against has a reputation as someone who is not shy about fucking his enemies. I don’t really expect a lot of sympathy from John Q Public either. “I tried to overthrow democracy because I was butthurt about losing an election, and now the government is being totally mean to me”. Ok, if it’s death camps, maybe you’d get some posthumous sympathy, but if it’s just a bunch of state-worshippers on the wrong end of unrelenting bureaucratic harassment…

  44. So who is going to stand up to him?Well, not Republicans.

    And Republicans posing as libertarians (reason.com denizens) would still be blaming Hillary (who was never President), Obama, and maybe FDR.

    The debt has never bothered Republicans, other than of course when Obama was in charge.

    Watch them spend like drunken sailors, cheer-led by reason.com. While looking to criticize a sportscaster turned commentator turned… for .. what?

    Comedy?

    1. Oh look, tard got himself a new sock puppet.

      1. Reason supports massive debts.
        Troll grade: F

        1. Generous!

        2. Generous!

          1. It’s OK Mr. Squirrel, they saw it the first time.

    2. BTW, tard, i spent the Booosh! years arguing against the administration and their unconstitutional actions. During the Obama years, i did the same.
      But simple minded folk can’t see beyond the two parties: if you disagree with a Democrat you must be a Republican, and if you disagree with as Republican you must be a Democrat .
      Retards like yourself simply can’t see beyond the duopoly.

      1. No one here (out side of our lefties) pitches spending; this is lefty bored on a Friday night hoping for attention.

    3. I’m hoping no one wastes electrons on this sorry piece of shit, even for the possible benefit of some 3rd-party.
      Reason screws up often enough, but I’ve yet to see the rag or the E-version or the commentartiat pimp for more spending. Hell, even Reagan gets beaten up here.
      Just posting blatant lies ought to qualify for the ‘ignore’ pile.

    4. Just noticed the post upthread.
      This is the ass which shows up every week of so with a new handle and simply posts contrarian crap.

    5. I’m always amused by the posters who accuse a community with a surprising amount of Canadians as all being secret Republicans. I mean, come on, at least call some of us Tories!

      1. I have a feeling the ass’s vocabulary and knowledge don’t extend to “Tory”.

      2. You’re a Tory!

          1. You should appreciate this, especially since it’s played on a Renault:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRXwWbo_mX0

    6. Republicans posing as libertarians (reason.com denizens)

      Where do the Real Libertarians? reside, since you seem to know? I’d like to see what *they* talk about.

      1. G, this is a troll who shows up every week or so, tosses out horseshit like that and goes away. You’ll get no real answer since the claim was never honest.

  45. “SF artists get eviction notice amid crackdown”
    […]
    “The tenants of a live-work space built out of a commercial warehouse on Peralta Avenue in San Francisco, a brightly painted building in Bernal Heights near Highway 101, said they received an eviction notice this week that gave them 30 days to find somewhere else to live.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..802072.php

    The owner really doesn’t have a lot of options, and you can bet the “artists” (yes, scare quotes) aren’t going to pay for an upgrade.
    Even if they did, would the owner accept rent control.
    Some of the comments are whining that the owner ‘profited’ until now, ignoring, of course, that the tenants did too.

    1. After the warehouse fire in Oakland that killed so many every city is going to do this. Those things are peppered all over the country. I think it just happened in Shreveport (large artist community) but nothing about it hit the news. I cant blame them.

      1. I live in a part of SF which was fairly dense with the arrangements, say 30 years ago. Some were well-arranged (windows to dive out of, if need be), others not so much.
        There are still some multi-story units which are not code (fire escapes, etc) run by ‘non-profits’ (in SF, that means taxpayer money handed out to those who support the local supervisor come election). I would bet those supervisors are back-peddling like crazy right about now, making sure their name is nowhere in the records.

        1. Well-arranged? I love me some divin’ windows!

          1. Playa, if you had to vacate through *that* ‘public space’ to get out in case of a fire, the window that let you do that was well arranged.

            1. I have one. I’m allowed to call it an office, but not a “bedroom”.

              The actual bedrooms are “tuck and roll”, where there’s an overhang every ten feet. The “office” is a straight shot to concrete 30 feet below. Better than getting burned alive, but still….

          2. I love me some divin’ windows!

            Defenestration is an underappreciated sport

            1. Right now, I can’t remember from whom you stole that, but it had to do with greasy wymyms and the lack of early TV content…

              1. I can’t remember from whom you stole that,

                Not “whom”, “where and when”

                From Prague

                The Defenestrations of Prague (Czech: Pra?sk? defenestrace, German: Prager Fenstersturz, Latin: Defenestratio Pragensis) were two incidents in the history of Bohemia in which multiple people were defenestrated (i.e., thrown out a window). The first occurred in 1419, and the second in 1618, although the term “Defenestration of Prague” more commonly refers to the second. Each helped to trigger prolonged conflict, within Bohemia and beyond.

                I think its a wonderful way to express your dissatisfaction with a political regime = throw them out the window.

          3. It’s also handy in case of a SWAT raid, which might be of some interest to the people living there.

  46. I was talking with my Progressive friend about the election and he voiced his support of doing whatever we can to prevent Trump from being President. I asked him, does he know that by doing that, he and his ilk will create a very dangerous precedent of invalidating the election results simply because the winner is perceived as being horrible?

    His response was, “Yep because Trump is an existential threat to this country.”

    Sigh.

    1. Yeah, the left has me a little worried. Their inability to accept electoral defeat is the existential threat. They want power at any cost. When the electoral college hands Trump the victory we will see what they do.

      Ask your friend why he hasn’t picked up his rifle and gone off to fight the good fight if he really believes that Trump is an existential threat.

      1. Their inability to accept electoral defeat is the existential threat

        Thank you, those are the words I needed.

    2. Push him more. Ask if he would actively assist with an assassination plot. If he declines, roll your eyes and say “guess he’s not that much of an existential threat then.”

    3. LITERALLY HITLARR!!!11!!

    4. existential |?e?z??sten(t)SH(?)l|
      adjective
      of or relating to existence.
      ? Philosophy concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.
      ? Logic (of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.

      I was hazy on the actual meaning of that word so I had to look it up. Thank god for people like your friend. He is saving the world.

    5. Unless your friend is Israeli or Sartre, he shouldn’t even try using that word.

    6. His response was, “Yep because Trump is an existential threat to this country.”

      Did you ask to to justify that conclusion? like,

      “How exactly will Trump’s presidency cause the United States to cease to exist?…..
      AND…
      If he *doesn’t* cause the End of All Things in the next 4 years, what exactly will your argument be *then*?”

      1. This kind of talk is making me nervous. The left has gone utterly bonkers over Trump, and heaven knows there are enough nuts and fanatics who will take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously. The Secret Service is going to be working overtime. I’m surprised there’s only been one assassination attempt. (Which, by the way, the media seemed to care very little about, and the guy just got an amazingly light sentence, which nobody seems to care about, either.)

        1. Same here Pap. I am confident that things would go badly for them so I try to take heart in that, but the cost would be very high for everyone.

        2. I believe the judge patted him on the head and called him a nice but confused young man, or something along those lines. Which is totally what he would have done if the guy tried to whack the Lightbringer. If Trump needs a name for the enemies list, there’s a place to start.

    7. Well, in fairness to Democrats, we’re entering into entirely uncharted, historically unprecedented territory.

      We have a situation where America has become incredibly polarized between Republicans and Democrats, and between different regions. A major issue is related to a minority population whose legal status is below both citizens and legal immigrants. Currently many business elites rely on them as a source of inexpensive, compliant manual labor, especially in agricultural fields, and Democrats see them a means to increased representation in Congress and the Electoral College; Republicans are particularly concerned about the latter. Republicans and workers in their states have moral and economic (and sometimes racist) reasons for opposing the Democrats in all this, though there is a split between those who want to grant more legal rights to the minority and those who want to repatriate them to their home countries. Both Republicans and Democrats fear the balance of power is unstable and will lead to total, permanent dominance of one over the other.

      Now, a deeply polarizing Republican has been elected and Democrats are convinced that it’s the end of the line for them. They’re talking of openly defying federal laws that would deprive them of their minority workers, or even seceding to protect their way of life. If only history could educate us about what happens next.

    8. Honestly, if it were Kasich who won but lost the popular vote, there’s at least a 50% chance he’d be saying the same thing.

  47. Damn, Nick!
    “Good, GOOD! Let the hate flow through you!”

  48. If Trump is successfully opposed when he runs afoul of libertarian/small government/separation of powers principles that will only serve to make the outcome of his term(s) better.

  49. I am mixing up another drink and watching my favorite Florida woman videos.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq-GKfXmohc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMukyho6Haw

    I think I will mix this one a double.

    1. A diet of mostly fish will give a person a lean physique, it seems.

      1. Watch some of her blue water videos. She will spend an hour cranking a fish that weighs three times what she does up from depth. That will slim you down too. My kind of girl.

        1. My first serious girlfriend, a live in, was a solid country girl. She hunted barefoot so she could be extra quiet. She could skin a deer in fifteen minutes. She would wake me in the middle of the night and make me take her coon hunting. She could fish like a champion. If she hadn’t been dead-set against me going to college I never would have left her.

          1. D00d… stinkin thinkin.
            Stop it. It was…
            Now is now.

            *I am not one to take advice from

          2. “Coon hunting..”
            Deplorable!

    2. “I’ll be in my bunk”

    3. I love fishing shows.

    4. Nice legs. Smells like fish…

    5. I posted a Darcizzle video months ago. And it had a lot more ass. You’re fired.

      1. Dammit. Fired already?

        I posted it for the fishing. HM is the ass specialist.

        Here’s more. It’s a bonus for anyone who has only ever heard fake coonass accents in movies.

        I love these guys:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTgmkKoD-G4

        And her:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_pou64ajY&t=173s

        I think I am drunk and trolling like Eddie but with better links

        1. I like you.
          You gotta snowbird place we can rent while it’s a frozen hellscape up here?

          1. I just sold it last year. Most of my family has moved away so we didn’t need it anymore.

            1. >:

              1. We are empty nesters, we have two extra bedrooms and a bayou in the backyard. The bayou is kinda scary though. It’s chock full of alligators and fish bigger than you are.

  50. I think I am drunk and trolling like Eddie but with better links

    yeah, that’s what all the drink trolls think. It’s why I never read the dumb shit I posted the night before, the morning after.

    1. Oh, I have embarrassed myself on here bad enough in the past that almost nothing I do now is worth worrying about.

    2. I did once. I will never do that again.

    3. I feel free to post here at any time, sober or drunk, though no one can ever tell.
      Thank you all.

    1. Probly me for one Reason or another.
      Getting my next passport should be fun.

      1. Well, I guess if you need two passports that could raise some flags.

  51. You know I didn’t vote for either one, Johnson got my vote, but Clinton was the better of the two. Do you want free minds or free markets? I want both, but the foundation of libertarianism is liberty and the right to make choices. Democrats have a far better history on this than the past 3 decades of presidents. Both are crappy on the economy. Democrats want to give away the 1% ers money and Republicans want to bankrupt the country and give it to the 1%’ers . However Dems have a better record on individual rights (minus the 2nd amendment). Oh well I’m just ranting, Trump is going to be a horrible president from a libertarian perspective.

    1. However Dems have a better record on individual rights (minus the 2nd amendment)

      1st amendment/free speech? nope. Citizens’ United is all about trying to regulate political speech. Dont even get started on their attempt to control the internet… or the “hate speech” nonsense.

      2nd amendment (as you note) = ha ha

      4th amendment? (privacy/ Don’t think so. its probably a tie, but depends on specifics. Both dems and republicans have allowed domestic surveillance, used it in domestic prosecutions, tried to force companies to break encryption. Still give the edge to republicans/conservatives – Scalia, for instance barred law enforcement from being able to search phones.

      how about the right to property? lol. nothing you own belongs to you according to the dems.

      Right to work? (freeing people from union compulsion)

      basic protections from unfair prosecution? (5th-8th) again there are violations by both but in the sum of details, Republican jurists have a far longer and deeper track record of protecting due-process.

      Drugs & alcohol? Weed legalization has happened faster in ‘purple’ western states. Its happening slowest in solid blue places like NY and CA. with exceptions (MA recently). Dems are culturally ‘cooler’ with weed, but faster to regulate every aspect and increase petty enforcement.

      we could go on, but why bother.

    2. Democrats want to give away the 1% ers money

      Sigh. Anyone who uses the term ‘1%ers’ in an unironic fashion needs more book learnin’.

      Clinton actively showed her disdain for the First Amendment. She was corrupt and sycophantically supported by large parts of the media establishment. She was openly inviting armed conflict with Russia so she could look tough and claim “smart power” cred. She was not the better of the two. Trump will have an active media challenging him, not to mention one not worshiping the concept of an Imperial Presidency. His cabinet is more libertarian leaning than the past two administrations, and is definitely more libertarian than anything Clinton would have done. If he goes for someone like Janice Rogers Brown for the Supreme Court he will have done more for libertarianism than anyone else has done in forty years. He’s bound to have some stupid trade positions, likely some police abuse problems and probably some other populist bullshit though.

      1. If he goes for someone like Janice Rogers Brown for the Supreme Court he will have done more for libertarianism than anyone else has done in forty years.

        I should better define this better. I meant in the context of libertarians or libertarian-leaning people with actual political and legal power, not culturally (which in many ways I think is more important because it’s playing the long-game).

    3. I may be rare around here in that I’m agnostic as to whether Hillary would be worse than Trump, but I’d say Romney was definitely less bad than Obama. And who did the Dems have that was less bad than Reagan?

    4. Democrats want to give away the 1% ers money

      Try the 25%ers or even the 50%ers. The 1%ers account for too little money to do anything with besides run the DNC, lobbying firms, NGOs, and other “nonprofits”. The Democrats have no interest in really sucking that teat dry, because it’s what keeps party apparatchiks living cushy lives. No, substantial spending initiatives require either debt (which is paid by all, diffusely) or tax increases on the “middle class”, or both.

      To put it plainly, the top 1% may have incomes 3.5 times larger than the top 25%, but the 25% have 25 times the number of taxpayers. Which is greater, 3.5 or 25?

      1. Ok, those numbers are wrong. It’s actually kind of hard to get decent numbers for the top 1%. Correct numbers this time:

        The top 3% have incomes 2.2 times those of the top 25%, but the top 25% has 8.3 times the number of people.

  52. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

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

  53. Too busy pushing for higher national minimum wages during a crap economy and lobbying for student-loan relief for the relatively small number of in-debt brats of a middle-class too dumb or insecure to send their kids to relatively inexpensive state schools, I guess.

    So someone who thinks it’s:

    1) OK for the poor to put up with slave wages that barely earn enough to live on; and
    2) That only rich folks deserve to go to GOOD (as distinct from crap) schools so as to obtain an education in order to get a job that pays a decent LIVING wage. As distinct from the slave variety.

    Next thing you know he’ll be doing a Marie Antoinette and telling them to “eat cake”.

    1. Except that…

      (1a) Without low-paying jobs, how do people get the skills and experience to move into higher-paying ones?
      (1b) What if people just need some spending money, not a “living wage” or whatever?
      (1c) How’s the minimum wage working out for the homeless and other people at the “margins” of society who can’t justify being hired at full wages full-time with a full slate of benefits?

      (2a) If the problem with crap schools was monetary, then it would have been solved 40 years ago (at least). The Feds and most states even out funding discrepancies arising from property taxes with income tax revenues. Indeed, some of the best-funded schools in the country are those in the poorest neighborhoods. It doesn’t change the outcomes much, if at all.
      (2b) Why is so much poverty concentrated in the inner cities, anyway? The whole reason people moved there is because that’s where the jobs were. A big part of the answer is that city governments have put in place onerous and unsustainable policies that deprive people of wealth and opportunity.

      For example on (2b), Baltimore City’s real property tax rate is $2.248 per $100 of assessed value. In nearby Anne Arundel County, the property tax rate is $0.915 per $100 of assessed value. Meanwhile, the population and economic dynamics of the two places show growth in AA County and decline in Baltimore.

    2. Next thing you know he’ll be doing a Marie Antoinette and telling them to “eat cake”.

      Do you understand this analogy, at all? The death of the French monarchy, entitled and out of touch though they were, was followed by the Reign of Terror where people were executed left and right for no real reason at all, which was itself ended by Napoleon becoming Emperor and waging war across Europe that resulted in millions of deaths. It would take another 60 years after Napoleon before the French finally shook the monarchists for good, but they still maintained an oppressive colonial regime for another 90 years after that.

    1. Twitter: a soon-to-be-contracting circle jerk of apparatchiks, media operatives, and other narcissistic celebrities.

  54. “They’ll go along with much of what Trump wants, especially if when it comes to Muslim bashing (and bombing)”

    Reason has become as bad as slate and MSNBC, f*ck you Nick.

  55. If you have some free time on your hands, why not make some extra cash every week? Follow this link for more information……………………..
    http://www.buzzjob6.com

  56. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  57. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  58. When I first read the phrase “(we!) put principles before politics,” I laughed out loud–remember, the Libertarian Party fielded Gary Johnson twice, primarily because he could supposedly win over more voters by downplaying or abandoning libertarian principles.

    Of course, maybe this will teach the politically pragmatic libertarians in the LP that to be libertarian is to strongly adhere to (libertarian) principles–otherwise, a voter might as well join the gimme-dats in the Republocrats and Demopublicans.

  59. With only a 52 to 48 margin, just two or three Republican Senators can have a major impact.

  60. 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.homejobs7.com

  61. my friend’s sister makes $79 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $19847 just working on the laptop for a few hours…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.