Donald Trump

How You Respond To Ashley Judd Probably Indicates How You Feel about the Women's March and Donald Trump

Is there room for a politics that embraces abortion rights, economic rights, civil liberties, free trade, and immigration? Yes, now more than ever.


@SethMoulton, Twitter

The Women's March in Washington, DC today was massively attended and sprawling in its range of speakers, performers, and attendees. As with many such events, the tent keeps getting bigger until it is so large that no real political agenda is put forward. You can read the organizers' principles here. Whether the march succeeds in "launching a movement" is anybody's guess, but the relative failure of the Tea Party and Occupy Movements to either stick to effective single-issue advocacy (pushing against spending, in the case of the Tea Party) or even persist (Occupy) suggest how hard it is to transform marches into movements. At the very least, though, the size of the march is a visible indicator that the country remains sharply divided politically. Curiously (and despite his "pussy-grabbing" comments that surfaced during the campaign), the focus of ire—Donald Trump—supports paid parental leave and equal pay for women, He also (scandalously for a Republican) has praised Planned Parenthood despite being anti-abortion.

Comments by Ashley Judd, who has made controversial statements about everything from politics to hip-hop (which she once called part of "rape culture"), have been flowing freely on Twitter since she appeared earlier today. She recited a poem written by a 19-year-old Tennessee woman named Nina Donovan and that ended in a full-fury callout against Donald Trump. Along the way, she trafficked in some dodgy stats about pay inequality among women of different races and ethnicities and castigated states that levy sales tax on tampons but not Rogaine (a treatment for baldness). But it's also a pretty great riff about "nasty women" and feminism too.

I suspect that how you react to Judd's comments—she starts out by cutting off filmmaker Michael Moore—will say a lot about how you respond more generally to the demonstration itself. Take a look now:

Between today's march and yesterday's inaugural address, one thing is clear: The two major parties and the ideological positions that they represent are pretty much locked in mutual strangleholds. Despite winning the White House and holding majorities in both houses of Congress, the Republican Party is at odds with broad and mostly growing majorities of Americans when it comes to issues such as immigration, marriage equality, pot legalization, and free trade. Despite claiming to favor smaller government, the last time the party held such control of the federal government, it massively increased spending in all areas, from entitlements to education to defense to welfare. If Republicans govern like that again while working overtime to placate social conservatives, their majority will be short-lived. Democrats have their own obvious problems. Their practical leadership, such as it is, is ancient not simply in chronological terms (Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren are all old) but in policy terms. The Democratic agenda as implemented by Barack Obama in his first two years in office (when the Democrats controlled Congress) was unpopular enough to elect a Republican Congress again. Obamacare is clearly not working as intended and remains genuinely unpopular with people. Decreasing numbers of us trust the government to be competent in controlling more aspects of our personal and work lives, which seems to be all the Democrats talk about. Their ideas are all rehashes from the last gasp of liberalism in the late 1970s, as if even the presidency of Bill Clinton never happened.

In terms of politics, we seem stuck between two false choices that fewer and fewer of us want to make. To riff off a sign I saw during coverage of today's march, we have one tribe that wants the government to control women's uteruses and another one that want the government out of uteruses, except to pay for all health care. The general intellectual incoherence and financial unusustainability of traditional liberal/Democratic and conservative/Republican stances are why party loyalty is sinking on both sides of the aisle. They are enervating to witness but they also create a huge opening for introducing libertarian ideas and policies to a body politic that is exhausted by the struggle between two parties and points of view that have accomplished little more than a massive run-up in debt, prosecuting intractable wars overseas and growing incursions on civil liberties at home, and are both trying to prop an entitlement-state status quo that is morally and fiscally indefensible.

Libertarians, our opportunity is now, with conservatives and Republicans fearing what they have wrought and liberals and Democrats terrified that the swollen state they supported may be directed against them. We have a way forward that will scale down the size, scope, and spending of government while transforming the social safety net into an instrument of support and opportunity. We have an increasing number of examples (the sharing economy, Bitcoin) that permissionless innovation provides the great leaps forward that governments promise but rarely deliver. We can replace fiscally unsustainable entitlements to rich old people with unrestricted cash grants to the poor, we can offer children a choice of schools rather than remanding them to minimum-security prisons based on their parents' ZIP codes. We can insist on taxes being recognized as the revenue necessary to run agreed-upon services provided by the government, not an endless scam designed to ratchet up deficit spending. We can demand to be treated as adults, capable of deciding our preferred intoxicants and medical treatments and speech codes. We need to lay all this out both in broad, inspiring strokes and detailed, serious policy plans.

By a two-to-one margin (60 percent to 30 percent), Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a dread that was energized by the two main choices for president offered us in 2016—and then double-underlined in a signature-gold Sharpie by the election of the man who becomes president today. A future in which government is disrupted and diminished—and individuals are empowered and enlivened—is possible, but only if we make it happen.

Read more here.

NEXT: Pricing Laws Violate Free Speech

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Tea Party movement has been very effective at unseating incumbent and establishment-favored candidates in the Republican party. That grass-roots RINO-eradication effort is a large part of why we got Trump.

    1. Cites missing.

    2. the relative failure of the Tea Party and Occupy Movements to either stick to effective single-issue advocacy (pushing against spending, in the case of the Tea Party) or even persist (Occupy)

      Occupy was a bunch of people who couldn’t manage a decent campsite telling everyone how to run the world. They failed to “persist” because there was no one organizing anything. The movement illustrates one of the major problems of the left, hatred of corporations.

      They don’t realize that incorporation is the only way individuals have found to act collectively (cooperate) for a couple of thousand years. Even most elected governments are essentially organized and run like corporations.

      Unless a political movement is incorporated, it won’t spread much past the original leaders, or outlast them.

      1. there was no one organizing anything

        No, there was plenty of organization but little leadership. They had non-stop organizational meetings run according to “revolutionary stack” principals which meant the more victim accreditation you had the earlier and longer you got to speak to something. Full points to them for trying a form of direct democracy (however flawed) with weak or no leaders – they ran an experiment which confirmed yet again that that shit doesn’t work. Also, stupid hippies.

        1. Well, what can you say about someone who quits his job to protest unemployment?

          1. …thank you?

        2. The ‘Occupy’ movement was one more manifestation of the Progressive Left’s fascination with street theatre and protest-as-a-hobby. It represented nothing new and much that was trite and tired. Much the same can be said about the anti-Trump protesters. That I have already encountered Trump=a certain Austrian paperhanger indicates to me that they are merely hysterical.

          The Tea Party movement WAS something relatively new. The Right hadn’t marched a whole lot. Aspects of the Right are trying it on, and some (the Open Carry movement springs to mind) are enjoying a degree of success.

          We’ll see.

          1. There were some intelligent people who wanted to get leadership going, who wanted to set up a platform and get something going, but, as Tonio said, the “progressive stack” gave the loudest voices to those who perceived themselves to be most marginalized or oppressed. It just so happened that the people trying to organize and lead were white males, mostly. So, once the progressives came in and started screeching, what did they do? The only thing they could do, which was to throw up their hands and walk away. Then, along comes a girl named “Ketchup”, who identified as a “female-presenting human”. She got on The TODAY show.

            1. If Ketchup wasn’t even an otherkin then she can barely make a claim to being marginalized.

    3. And we thank you morons for it.

      1. Oh, you are quite welcome!


      2. Warty, you get grumpy when you’re hungry. Go eat some Trumpburgers.

    4. They’ve been good at tearing done things but they have no plan to replace it with something better. Being angry at your house and tearing down a wall without a plan is just plain stupid.

    5. No, the reason we got Trump is because the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton, a corrupt, incompetent, flip-flopping warmonger. Even a crude loudmouth like Trump could beat her.

  2. My response is to think Ashley Hudd is a talentless woman who made a confused speech that indicates she and her audience are in desperate need of a reality check, or at very least a history lesson.

    1. You’d have to have a heart of stone to listen to Ashley Judd’s discourse without bursting out laughing. (Apologies to Oscar Wilde)

    2. Also; would

    3. She’s started to look like the dancer in Billy Idol’s “Cradle of Love” video probably looks now.

      Oh, and would, with caveats.

      1. I haven’t tried “caveats.” Are they similar to anal beads?

        1. They’re smaller about the size of caviar, hence the name, but you shove them in your urethra instead.

  3. A ton of one-percenters at that march.

    1. Every person I know who attended has a six figure income. And that’s at least 15 people I know about; could be more.

    2. Of the people I know, all (I assume) are solidly in five-figure gross income. Two public school teachers (assumed to be upper five-figures, say 50-65k, they are both relatively young). One works as a teacher at a private school (assuming 45-55k). The remaining two work for non-profits, Planned Parenthood and unknown, assuming 35-50k.

      1. The only one that’s at all surprising is the private school teacher, but she’s probably been socialized to those views by her profession as a whole. The rest, unsurprisingly, all people who feed at the public trough.

        1. Yep. I have a classmate who is very conservative and a public school teacher. She posted that anti-Devos petition on her Facebook. I was surprised at first. Then I remembered she’s a public school teacher.

          1. I had a friend who is very pro-life go to a local march today, and she carried a poster stating that she is pro-life and supports equality. I think it’s naive to think that everyone was going there just for an issue of women’s reproductive rights.

            1. I think your friend is however naive to think she won’t get tarred and feathered there.

            2. The level of control over the local marches is probably much less, but pro-life feminist groups were very publicly told they were not welcome at the march in Washington, D.C.

      2. Who doesn’t have a five figure income these days that isn’t under their parents roof? This protests were about Trump trying to rescind Roe vs. Wade and promoting 50s values for women, who he (other than his daughter) wants to see back in the kitchen and making babies. That’s why the women are pissed. They want equality just as much we white dudes want it. I would think that libertarians of both sexes were of like mind with me on this. Although Judd seemed to be channeling Shia Lebouf a bit here.

        1. “…Trump trying to rescind Roe vs. Wade and promoting 50s values for women, who he (other than his daughter) wants to see back in the kitchen and making babies…”

          [citation needed]

        2. Lol, women?
          All I saw there were a few chicks.
          A few chicks does not equal women.
          And fuck them for assuming to speak for women.

          Nobody is actually worried about abortion. Nobody is worried women are going back barefoot to the kitchen. That’s why they hired an actress to give this speech.

          An extremely wealthy caucasian actress with million dollar tampons protecting her precious underwear, and enjoying caviar with champagne during each successive abortion procedure on her private jet, then cries about oppressed women while her male valets attend to her extravagant luggage and dispose of several 50 gallon drums worth of her aborted fetuses and/or menstral blood.

          If you look closely, you might notice a touch hyperbole to illustrate my point.

        3. So assuming Trump or his administration or Congress is going to do any of that stuff, and assuming women want equality, what exactly do the Women’s Marches accomplish? What policy changes emerged from the marches?

          They accomplish nothing and do nothing, and nothing comes from them. It’s a big feel-good party for America’s victim cult.

  4. Is there room for a politics that embraces abortion rights, economic rights, civil liberties, free trade, and immigration? Yes, now more than ever.

    Wait, small l-libertarianism embraces a pro-abortion stance?

    Well, shit.
    ::kicks pebble::

    1. In reason-land small “l” libertarianism embraces centrally planned immigration and trade restriction policies.

    2. Yep. Just like how every real woman is pro-choice.

      1. Yeah, I need to see some stats. Nick said “most libertarians are pro choice” on twitter. I’d like to see some polling though. “Most” means a considerable majority, and I’d be shocked if that’s the case.

        1. Oh, I agree. It’s almost like abortion is a tricky issue that has yet to be resolved.

          1. And hinges on one very basic premise that is a little tricky.

            1. Yeah, since libertarianism is about the rights of the living, and the central question about abortion is whether / when the fetus is considered living, it really doesn’t have much to say.

              1. There’s also the fact that only women are entitled to have an opinion about abortion and since there are no libertarian women……

                1. Hey now, don’t be spreading rumors. We may be rarely spotted in the wild, but we’re not extinct!

                2. And by “only women” they mean only those with the correct opinion.

        2. It’s probably more than half but not by much.

          1. And it would break even more on different limits.

            1. Agreed, all of you. I can’t believe Nick was so quick to say “most are for it” without a few qualifiers at least.

              1. I can’t believe that you can’t believe that Nick would say what he did.

                1. Unbelievable.

                  1. Inconceivable.

        3. I for one hate the very term “pro-choice”. It’s leftist drivel. Pro-choice on one issue? Oh wait, sorry that’s two issues:

          1. I want an abortion.

          2. I want you to pay for it.

          1. My choice. My body. My life…

            Your bill.

            So, me-me-me until the check comes due, then it takes a village.

            Prog-mind distilled.

              1. Nice handle!

            1. Just tell her this: “Next time you have sex, make sure you don’t get pregnant. Know how you guarantee that? Go Fuck Yourself!”

            2. Right, but the pro-life stance can get a little weird. Why should a woman be denied assistance if something happens and she has a child she can’t afford to care for? I mean, shit happens.

              1. Well, per the status quo, she can force the father to pay for the child with his own labor, otherwise known as child support, or slavery.

                Compulsorily child support, which we have now, makes sense in a world where abortion is illegal, but not in one where it doesn’t. The two should go hand in hand.

                1. Agreed

                2. Real “pro-choice” would go both ways: a man who does not want to be responsible for a child should be able to sign papers, within a set period of time after a birth, that release him from child support obligations.

              2. That’s always brought up by the loudest voices along the lines of ‘you force the woman to have a child but then take her welfare away,’ because they never look into the pro life groups and see what they do with the donation money. Prenatal health care, delivery room expenses, job services etc.

          2. The progs aren’t even really pro-choice, they’re the support base for the technocracy, and the Malthusian technocracy is pro-culling.

          3. They’re similarly hypocritical about the other “choice.”

            1. I want to have a child. My body, my choice!

            2. I want you to pay for it.

            Even if it grows up to be nothing but a burden on society. I want my employer to give me a year-long paid vacation just for grunting it out, I want the government to pay for me to stay home and raise it, and I want the government to pay for its education, room and board, clothing, healthcare, and playgrounds.


        4. Last time I saw a poll it was fairly close to 50/50 or maybe 40/60.

        5. “most libertarians are pro choice” means jack shit to me. Every day that I spend with my grandchildren I am more and more anti-abortion. How about ” libertarians don’t join the herd” which is a curse and a blessing.

          1. I’m anti-abortion, but I think laws prohibiting abortions will work as well as laws that prohibit drugs or alcohol.

            1. Meh, crimes against the person and against property are, by definition, prohibited, yet they occur anyway.

            2. Drug and alcohol prohibitions are victimless crimes. There’s a big difference.

              1. Exactly. That’s the guiding principle, not utilitarianism. I acknowledge, however, that the mother’s right to her body is also a fundamental right, hence why abortion is tricky, even for libertarians.

                1. Unless she was raped, she knowingly took an action with a non-zero chance of inviting that person into her body.

                  1. And if she was raped?

                    You can’t say, “It’s murder, except-“.

                    1. I was speaking strictly about the woman’s active decision to risk the pregnancy in the vast majority of cases. Don’t assume I support exceptions for rape. It’s still murder.

          2. Same for me. No grandkids yet, but after being a parent, I can’t imagine my wife having an abortion if she somehow defied science and got pregnant again.

          3. I recognize the sentiment Southern.

            However, after listening to Madonna, Michael Man, and Judd today I am torn in my attitude towards abortion.

          4. There are too many medical exceptions. I can understand people being anti abortion for use as birth control, but there are genuine medical reasons, as well as several ethical ones.

          5. I think abortions are bad and immoral, but as a libertarian, and as a practical matter, that doesn’t mean we should make them illegal.

            1. No more calls, please. We have a winner.

        6. I think the only reason you feel that way is because those of us who are pro-choice simply leave you to your echo chamber on this topic.

          There is no way to reason with people who take a purely emotional stance on something. None. There is a comparable circumstance also having to do with what one does with one’s body: drug use. Try to convince a person who is emotionally invested in it because they are connected closely to someone who has had or died from substance abuse. No matter how principled your stance, you will never convince a parent who lost a child to heroin that people should be free to choose what they do to their bodies.

          It’s clear-cut enough for me: any attempt to legislate against it results ultimately in the use of state violence against women for choosing not to incubate a fetus. It doesn’t matter how I personally feel about the practice. It only matters that I do not think any state has the right to use violence to stop others from making that choice. Libertarianism is all about self-ownership, and it is not adherent to the philosophy to make exceptions to that. Everything from my skin on in is mine, not yours, and the same is true for you.

          Your views are over-represented because it is simply not worth the ink trying to convince you when it will never happen and we’ll both leave frustrated from the attempt.

          1. It’s clear-cut enough for me: any attempt to legislate against it results ultimately in the use of state violence against women for choosing not to incubate a fetus. It doesn’t matter how I personally feel about the practice. It only matters that I do not think any state has the right to use violence to stop others from making that choice.

            What about if I believe in Anarchotopia that the father has a right to raise a hue and cry to prevent the destruction of the fetus?

          2. But I’m sure you’re fine with the state visiting violence upon parents who visit violence upon their born children. Pro-life libertarians think it’s logical to extend that to the unborn as well. Nothing emotional about it.

          3. results ultimately in the use of state violence against women for choosing not to incubate a fetus.

            Stipulate that the technology exists to magically remove a fetus from the mother with no physical harm, at any state of gestation, and raise it to maturity.

            Do you oppose the state taking the (by definition, viable…) fetus of any woman who would formerly have gotten an abortion and raising it as a ward of the state?

          4. I’m pro-choice, but your argument sucks.

            “…the use of state violence against women for choosing not to incubate a fetus.”

            Nope. I don’t see anyone demanding that all women be forced to bear children.

            The objection is the use of HOMICIDE as a birth control measure. Like it or not, after the procedure, something that was alive is now dead.

            Do I think the homicide is justified in some cases? Yes. So do you, obviously.

            But understand this: roughly half of the population believes it is MURDER. Further, they believe the law should reflect their belief.

            Abortion laws have nothing at all to do with “women’s rights” and everything to do with the belief that a fetus is a person worth protecting. The entire “women’s rights” strategy makes me cringe, and it’s in the process of backfiring right now.

            The pro choice movement has had decades to convince their ideological opponents that abortion isn’t murder, but instead you have shitheads like Lena Dunham saying “I didn’t have an abortion, but I wish I had”. Yeah, that’s totally what the murder crowd wants to hear.

            1. And yet the “Women’s Movement” can’t understand how their virulent pro-abortion beliefs my just really piss off Mothers….

              Of course if there’s one thing the left is good at, its denying that people who don’t totally match their beliefs have a right to be included in particular groups.

            2. Do I think the homicide is justified in some cases? Yes. So do you, obviously.

              Practically everyone but true pacifists agree that justifiable homicide exists. However, I will point out that it is an obnoxious trick of sophistry to substitute a definition someone else holds for mine and make me defend it as if it were my position. I do not define clusters of cells to be people.

              And what of one’s right to reject physical, mental, hormonal, etc. changes caused to them directly by said fetus? One could as easily define those as acts of violence and make every bit as good a case as the claim that it is murder. You must accept becoming a different person because the state says so and you had sex. You are a viable target of state violence because you want to remain you, not have the lifelong responsibility for a child you didn’t choose because you could not legally abort. You have to bear the guilt for giving another person you were forced to bring to term a shitty life because giving it up for adoption was your only choice. Can I physically attach myself to you because my life depends on you against your will? Well, let’s just do away with dialysis and use the power of the state to compel people to share functioning kidneys via their circulatory systems with complete strangers. What of conscientious objection to those as a matter of philosophy?

              1. It’s not my definition. It’s THE definition. Homicide is the act of one human being killing another.

                A fetus is one of the many stages of human life. We were all fetuses at one point.

                “obnoxious trick of sophistry” ???? Does calling it homicide make you uncomfortable or something? Do you need to pretend otherwise to hold the beliefs that you do?

                I think women should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy if they choose to do so. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t something that it is.

                1. A fetus is one of the many stages of human life.

                  I reject that claim. A fetus is a cluster of cells that has the potential to become more. It is not murder because it is not a person and it is not a person because it has no consciousness and it has no consciousness because it is not developed enough to.

                  My arm has been with me as long as I have been me. It has changed along with me. My arm is not a “stage of my life”. I cannot murder my arm. It has no consciousness and it has no rights other than my rights to defend it against harm, or not.

                  You may make up any definition of “murder” that you want, but that does not make it the definition I am forced to accept. And the majority of Americans do not accept that definition regardless of your personal feelings.

                  And yes, it is sophistry to substitute your own definition for mine and force me to defend your position for you. Not going to happen. If you want to make a point, you’re the one who must make it for yourself. PETA tells us all that killing animals for food is murder too. Now you have to defend their definition as your own. Ludicrous, isn’t it?

                  1. You’re still a cluster of cells. And now you’re confusing murder and homicide.

                    “PETA tells us all that killing animals for food is murder too. Now you have to defend their definition as your own”.

                    No. I don’t. I’m using the actual definition: the unlawful killing of a human being. If they had said that the killing of animals for food is slaughter, they’d be correct. And I’m fine with that.

                    Words mean what they mean. Sorry.

                    1. I require that a human being be capable of being conscious and capable of living as an independent entity.

                      Words mean what they mean. Sorry.

                      “I’m right because I picked a dictionary different from yours.” Not a compelling argument. Actually, not an argument at all. That is simply declaring oneself the victor of an argument by axiom.

                    2. Do you extend that set of criteria to the infirm, aged and disabled? How about Stephen Hawking? Is he a human being?

                      I wasn’t going to weigh in on this, but I *presume* that there’s some point where even the most ardent pro-choicer concedes that that clump of cells has become a human being, who deserves the moral protection of the NAP.

                      It seems to me that *most* of the pro-lifers I know are the more reasonable people here – they concede that there is a point, post-fertilization – that what was just a clump of cells, becomes a viable human being, even if that fetus is not ‘conscious’ and ‘capable of living as an independent entity’.

                      Most of them also concede that they don’t know enough to state just how far into gestation a fetus has to proceed before that transition occurs, and they’ll defer to medical science to make that determination. Furthermore, they’re usually upbeat about how medical science is advancing, allowing that transition to be moved nearer to conception.

                      I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand a certain level of legal scrutiny or even accountability if a mother elects to abort a viable fetus for no better reason than she couldn’t get her broke-ass off the sofa and deal with a problem before it became a crisis.

                    3. “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand a certain level of legal scrutiny or even accountability if a mother elects to abort a viable fetus for no better reason than she couldn’t get her broke-ass off the sofa and deal with a problem before it became a crisis.”

                      It IS unreasonable, though, unless you’re asserting that the government should only go after the ones that turn themselves in. You must think the Drug War and the Prostitution Prohibition are resounding successes if you think this is a good idea, and if that’s the case, this probably isn’t the right forum for you.

                    4. Hard cases make bad law.

                      What is the proper response to a late-term abortion undertaken on a viable fetus?

                    5. Social/cultural derision and shaming. No action taken by justice system. See my wall ‘o text downthread for the ‘why’, when I responded to swillfredo.

                    6. One last question.

                      The baby is delivered. The umbilical cord is cut, and the new mother plunges a scalpel in the neck of the newborn, killing it instantly and painlessly.

                      Why does a few minutes that represents no real physiological change in a human, suddenly constitute a crime where none existed before?

                    7. And by “why”, I’m concentrating on principles, not the practicalities of prosecution – at what point does a fetus begin to enjoy the benefits of the NAP?

                      It’s clear to (and agreed by) most people that a blastoid is not a human, but most of us will agree that what gets delivered in the maternity room is. So there’s obviously an event or an identifiable stage (or transition) where the non-human becomes human, and that would logically make sense to be the point at which causing that human’s life to end with mens rea consitutes a crime.

                      As I noted above, hard cases make bad law, but you can’t even undertake that task without a guiding principle. And as I also noted above, the best of a poor set of choices is *possibly* based on viability, which has the benefit of being broadly acceptable to the public at present.

                    8. I see your bloody appeal to emotion and raise you biological facts!

                      Birth constitutes a huge physiological change – a massive, tangible, biological restructuring of the relationship between the mother and child, in fact.

                      After birth, the biological relationship is no longer parasite/host, with the child’s body feeding off of and largely dependent on one particular host for survival, and causing significant and often permanent damage to the host body in the process(much of which is incurred during the act of birthing itself), without contributing anything to the survival of the host in return.

                      Instead, the post birth relationship between mother and child is merely a dependent one; a relationship which can be relatively easily transferred from one parent to another without the aid of skilled medical professionals (see; expensive, difficult to acquire, economic shortage) to reduce/minimize hazard.

                      I hope your confusion in this matter was really just related to the fact that you had ignorantly failed to ascribe any physiological changes to the act of childbirth, and that you’re all sorted out now! I’d hate to discover that you’re arguing in bad faith.

                    9. I had to re-read that to realize you weren’t discussing the screenplay for the reboot of Alien.

                      I wasn’t aware that I’d implied that birth incurs no costs upon the mother. I think almost everyone realizes that, and even if they don’t, there are plenty of medical experts who are better qualified and motivated than I am to itemize them and inform a pregnant woman of their impact. Conception, like almost every act, has consequences.

                      Those consequences can be eliminated by prompt and effective medical intervention to terminate the parasitic pregnancy, so the host pregnant woman can be cured relieved of her infestation unwanted fetus.

                      You seem to miss the point that there is some point at which that parasite as you call it is a human being, who really should enjoy the protection of the NAP. Your view is that the fetus needs to be outside the birth canal before that happens. Many people disagree.

                      Everything else is just smoke and mirrors until that decision is made, unless someone can come up with a justification for one human to be favored above another in enjoying the benefits of the NAP.

                    10. We have a way of covering unpleasant actions and relationships with warm fuzzy terms when they involve humans, rather than animals or inanimate objects, particularly where maternity is concerned. Try to take a step back and realize that this obfuscates the issue for you, rather than clarifying it. You remind me of the crazy bitch that lost her shit on me when I referred to circumcision as ‘genital mutilation’. I could hardly get out anything more than a stunned “That’s literally what it is, though. Like, real ‘literally’, not the bastardized version I’m sure you think I mean…”

                      Let me make it chillingly simple for you;
                      While the fetus is parasitic, it is the host’s parasite. The host’s property, to do with or dispose of as the host wishes. There can be no violation of NAP, because the fetus started harming the mother first: So long as it is parasitic, any action taken against it is defensive in nature.

                      If the host chooses to care for the parasite until birthing it into a human, that’s fantastic! I applaud that! Even more impressive, still, is if they decide they’d rather not deal with it and go to the considerable lengths and expense to have a viable pregnancy removed and cared for until it can be transferred into a different dependency. Yay!

                      It’s gross, and that’s why you don’t want it to be as clear as it actually is.

            3. The pro choice movement has had decades to convince their ideological opponents that abortion isn’t murder

              Yes, let’s discuss the futility of convincing people that their deity doesn’t exist while we’re at it, since we’re going to be dressing up religious objection as a secular actor for the part in a play and pretending for a while that we’re not.

              1. “Yes, let’s discuss the futility of convincing people that their deity doesn’t exist”

                I’m an atheist. I still care about where the line is between homicide and murder.

                BTW, some religious people are more reasonable than you might think. I know plenty of church going people who are pro choice. The key is convincing them that one outcome, no matter how regrettable, is better than the other.

                It’s a lot more effective than yelling “MUH VAGINA!!!!”

                1. I have given you plenty of philosophical objection far beyond “muh vagina!” So your objection is philosophical, however it’s an extreme minority of philosophical views and the vast majority of those on your side of the fence for the definition of murder hold those views solely because religion has cultured them to.

                  Does your philosophy trump mine? Is it more important than mine? Do you have the right to use violence by proxy to make your definition trump mine?

                  I was not being rhetorical earlier. Even by your definition of murder: Suppose there a medical procedure to save my life by which I could attach myself to you against your will and transform your body and its chemistry and in effect your brain and who you are as a person, getting a little of my fluid in an orifice of yours to establish the linkage was all it took, and severing it forcibly would result in my death. Must you endure nine months as my surrogate, or can you decide that what I did was an act of violence against you and your rights to self-ownership trump my rights to life?

                  1. The obvious rebuttal to that thought experiment is that the surrogate voluntarily initiated the bonding with the predictable outcome of dependency, (unless they were raped into it), thus the burden is on them.

                    Then failed prophylactics and rape are used to counter, perhaps even infertility, illustrating that the will of the surrogate (or would-be surrogate, in the case of infertility) is often completely divorced from the reality of biological developments. The implication being that the dependent mass is responsible for its own existence and the nature of it, from a biological standpoint, and that the parasitic nature of that existence is grounds for termination by the host.

                    And again, chilling as it is, I cannot disagree with that conclusion. I’d like the pro-lifers to provide some more solid ground to stand on than “Baby murder!”, because frankly their position feels less inhuman, while still turning up completely incorrect in every deep deconstruction I’ve ever witnessed/performed.

                  2. I have no objection to your philosophy. It’s sound and coherent. I’m sorry if it came across as preaching to you. You’re not the problem, and you get what I’m saying.

                    There’s a very militant and highly visible portion of the pro-choice movement that IS the problem, and they’re going to fuck it up for everyone.

                    1. I’m sorry if it came across as preaching to you.

                      Not at all. I chose to have this argument with you for a reason. I also suspected that you were the sort who knew an argument was more than “two people angry at one another.”

                      When I was young I held unwise beliefs. Not because the beliefs themselves were wrong, but because my reasons for holding them were unexamined. It wasn’t the beliefs that were lacking, it was me. I do not ask anyone to agree with me. I do ask that they defend them in a way that demonstrates introspection, especially if they’re of a controversial nature. All too many people hold “sincere” beliefs that are not sincere because they were indoctrinated into holding them and never questioned otherwise.

                      I’m not the child of libertarians or atheists. I was anti-gun as a child. I believed in the death penalty. I believed in the police and government authority unquestioningly. I realized at some point that not knowing why I believed anything was no better than believing any of the alternatives chosen at random. I sought out arguments just like this one as much to challenge myself as to see if I could challenge others.

                      I think I am wiser than I was as a child, but wisdom is a path, not a destination, and there is always room for improvement. Thank you for your time and the argument.

                    2. Respect. I’m the child of libertarians and atheists. You’ve walked a longer path than I have. It makes me feel…. lazy.

                    3. I do not ask anyone to agree with me. I do ask that they defend them in a way that demonstrates introspection, especially if they’re of a controversial nature.

                      Starting out by telling someone they are too stupid to argue with because they are brainwashed religious zealots is a great way to demonstrate that. I’m shocked you haven’t had numerous stimulating and meaningful conversations on that basis.

                  3. What an atrocious logical fallacy zero sum game. “Religious people believe x, ergo the philosophical grounds for x are necessarily religious.” Here’s a remedial sociology lesson: most people’s belief are largely the result of their culture, religious or secular. The vast majority of people who support gun rights are religious, and the vast majority of atheists support gun control. I suppose gun rights are also thinly veiled imposition of judeo-Christian morals on the polity?

                    What a disingenuous ‘argument.’

                  4. Suppose there a medical procedure to save my life by which I could attach myself to you against your will…

                    You know you can’t actually get pregnant from a toilet seat, right professor?

                    Your analogy works for rape babies. Nothing else. Consensual sex is volitional. Reproduction is a known hazard of consensual sex.

                    1. I can’t claim to see the future, but hot DAMN I nailed this with my 8:10 comment! (8:10 PM on the day this discussion was actually taking place, of course.)

                2. BTW, some religious people are more reasonable than you might think. I know plenty of church going people who are pro choice.

                  Judaism actually mandates abortion under certain circumstances. But Zero Sum Game like literally can’t even discuss this shit with religious zealots because they’re so stuck in their echo chamber…

          5. There is a comparable circumstance also having to do with what one does with one’s body: drug use.

            That’s not a remotely comparable circumstance. I am not in the slightest bit concerned with what you do to your body and believe you have sovereignty over it. But an unborn child is not “your” body, in spite of its inability to survive outside said body. There are many, many other ways to avoid being compelled to “incubate” a fetus, all of which I strongly advocate for.

            My stance may be emotional but it is also reasoned. And unless you believe abortion should be legal up until the day before a child is born then we both agree abortion is wrong; we just disagree on when it becomes wrong.

            1. “My stance may be emotional but it is also reasoned. And unless you believe abortion should be legal up until the day before a child is born then we both agree abortion is wrong; we just disagree on when it becomes wrong.”

              I agree with that, and I agree that the “acceptable boundary” becomes largely arbitrary in that case…

              …which is why – despite how uncomfortable it makes me emotionally – I was forced to conclude that abortion does need to be technically legal (though preferably socially derided) until the day before birth. I’ve sat on this for a long time because I can’t imagine it being a terribly popular conclusion, but I’ve been curious how it would be received by this community for some time, as well. This seems like the right moment to submit my analysis for deconstruction.

              1. If we confer enough status onto a fetus for terminating it to constitute murder, then a few things would seem to follow logically from this – In many cases, for example, the unintentional loss of a pregnancy would demand a negligent manslaughter charge, unless you are going to create a new web of arbitrary, entirely mutable distinctions, would it not? If not, then to make an abortion ‘legal’ in that pro-life justice system, the loss of the pregnancy merely has to be an “accident”. In that case, the pro-life legislator has achieved very little beyond making themselves and their constituents feel better at the cost of forcing the process underground, making it more dangerous, and inviting significant government intrusion into the private lives of citizens under the pretense of enforcing pro-life laws.

                1. If you admit that legal consistency in a pro-life justice system would also make criminals out of a number of hopeful mothers who failed to carry their pregnancy to term, then a number of serious flaws with a pro-life legal stance should immediately become self-evident. Beyond the moral abhorrence of trying a woman for losing a pregnancy she very much wanted to keep, you also have to try to give these laws fangs. Going after providers pushes the practice underground – as with all prohibitions – making it much more dangerous for all involved, and resulting in Drug War-esque abuses of power by authorities. Punishing abortion-seekers (and how can you argue against this, if you truly believe it to be murder?) would require Orwellian enforcement efforts that would come at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

                  1. I think there are strong social arguments to be made in favor of a pro-life position. I don’t think abortion should be celebrated, and I certainly don’t think anyone should be paying for any abortions other than their own. But I really don’t understand what type of laws/enforcement that pro-life libertarians are hoping for. Pro-Lifers may (or may not) be right about the issue from a moral standpoint, but pro-life is totally impractical and incorrigible from a consistent legal perspective, while an inconsistent and arbitrary legal system based on emotional responses invites constant abuse from all sides. A legal system with no internal consistency or integrity is valid only through abuse of force – I know that is what we have now, but I also think this community aspires to a higher standard.

                    My conclusion also forced me to deeply consider that measurably, provably correct solutions may not necessarily be ones that feel right. (Not that I’m claiming my position here is unassailable – merely that considering the issue to the depth that I did made me ask myself “What if this is THE answer, even though it’s too uncomfortable to admit freely?”)

                2. Disagree. If the termination of a pregnancy is due to action by an external agency, that could be considered “murder”, however spontaneous termination would no more be considered “manslaughter” than death by heart failure would be considered “suicide.”

                  1. So an avowed vegan attempts to meet the dietary needs of her pregnancy with bean paste and peanut butter, despite the existence of and against the recommendations of government supported dietary guidelines. As a result, she loses the pregnancy.

                    This is a real world example. Defend your position.

                  2. Also, suicide requires intent to harm, where Involuntary Manslaughter does not – rendering your ‘heart failure’ analogy erroneous. (Which is, of course, why negligent manslaughter is the relevant crime and the basis for my thought experiment; it can be committed without Mens rea, potentially resulting in hopeful mothers behind bars in the police state you seem to want)

          6. And my point is proven.

            This is why nobody will argue with any of you on this. Instant attack. It’s from an emotional standpoint, that is obvious. Nothing dredges up vehemence like emotionality.

            It’s really no different from the SJW camp. If you don’t like someone’s opinion, shout them down until they stop sharing it.

            I’ve heard every single argument from the pro-lifers ever given. I’ve given them all due consideration and rejected them all for the reasons I have stated. I have no emotional connection to somebody else’s fetuses and what they do with them. Depositing your sperm in someone else’s womb doesn’t give you any rights to that womb. Self-ownership (property rights) should be obvious enough. There are other women who will bear your child, so go find one.

            And finally, as for the “murder” claim. Plenty enough pro-lifers apparently care deeply about clusters of cells. As soon as the child is born, they do not care at all about the quality of its life. Birth defects, hated by its mother because it’s the product of rape or incest, destined to have a hard life in foster care or to become a genuine financial burden for a parent who cannot support it or a burden on the state, etc. And on top of it all, a law will never stop abortion anyway. Then you have dead women who tried to coat-hanger it out. If you care about the final disposition of a fetus, go adopt one, but don’t try to use violence to compel others to have them. That is all.

            1. Discussion of death tends to get people emotional, ZSG.

            2. Hoping you can address my non-attacking hypothetical… 🙂

              1. First rule of debate: ignore the strongest case for the opposing viewpoint and dishonestly characterize it as the result of fanatical religious/ideological neurosis to distract your audience from the shortcomings of your arguments.

                Worked for Freud, worked for Marx, will work for everyone!

            3. I’ve given them all due consideration and rejected them all for the reasons I have stated.

              For someone who has spent so much energy pondering the subject your stated position in this forum is remarkably free of substance other than the “my body-my choice” shibboleth.

              If you don’t like someone’s opinion, shout them down until they stop sharing it.

              This is exciting; one rarely sees such an example of projection in the wild.

            4. Where was I being emotional or attacking you?

              1. STOP BEING EMOTIONAL, SDY!!1!!!11!

                1. I think it’s pronounced “CW”, Jim.

                  1. STOP ATTACKING ME!

            5. Don’t forget the scenarios where the fetus will not survive until term, with no hope of miracle, and could threaten the life of the mother or actually suffer painfully and die. It’s a horrific decision I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, and I know staunch pro-life Catholics who have had to make this choice, but I wouldn’t take that choice away from them. That is between them and their doctor. If people are pro-life, do we let a fetus or baby suffer horribly and die? It’s a more ethical conundrum than just opposing abortion as birth control.

              1. “It’s a more ethical conundrum than just opposing abortion as birth control.”

                No. No it’s not. One is fairly obvious to everyone, the other is a matter of intense debate. Even the most fundamental Kansas Republicans have conceded the “life of the mother” issue.

                1. If it’s fairly obvious to everyone, then why are there so many people still trying to ban a termination after 20 weeks? Do people not realize that a D&E is very expensive (like a cesarean) and even a terminal injection costs about $30,000 out of pocket? If there is not a medical need, insurance doesn’t cover it, so people would have to pay out of pocket. Doctors have a choice not to perform a procedure if they don’t agree with it or can’t justify it clinically. Yet here we are, discussing a president who threatened to ban late term abortions, regardless of the circumstances.

            6. Playa gave a pretty unemotional response about point of life. Thus far you’ve returned with “religion bad!” Which is not a rebuttal, but an emotional response devoid of reasoning. Then we have the magical birth canal explanation.

              Before it comes out, clump of cells where state laws are like drug laws or something, after deserving of those laws. So if I punch a woman in the stomach and the fetus dies it’s simply battery like punching a man. That’s not convincing, rational, or scientific but I’m sure you have another brilliant logic response about religion bad.

          7. “I can’t argue with you because I’m so much smarter”

            That must come in handy in a lot of other policy debates as well.

        7. Men are not allowed to weigh in on the abortion issue.

          So I’ve been told.

        8. As long as the agency of unborn humans is completely disregarded, then of course abortion is totally libertarian…

          1. I get you and BigT confused sometimes.

      2. There is nothing wrong with having a personal stance of being pro-whatever. The problem is the pro-life people wanting to push their religion on others. That is about as anti-libertarian as anything I can think of at the moment, and pretty pathetic in general.

        1. If you believe in law – any law – then you are imposing your beliefs. I assume you believe homicide is wrong. Do you want to leave others alone to make the “choice” to kill another? If not, then you are imposing your belief that homicide is wrong onto others.

          Pro-life libertarians believe that fetuses are people and killing them is homicide. You obviously don’t characterize them as legal persons. Good for you. But could you at least attempt to understand the other side before calling it pathetic?

    3. small l-libertarianism embraces a pro-abortion stance?

      and don’t forget environmentalism

      (*as per the nolan-chart generator thingy which said the doctrinaire libertarian position was very pro EPA)

    4. small-ell libertariansim is a slippery thing. Basically every libertarian who is not an LP member. Which then leads to the “But are they actual libertarians” sticky trap.

      1. Aha! You’re a Hihn puppet!

        1. More of a small-h hihnist.

          1. Don’t worry. Someone came along late enough to laugh at this.

    5. Yes and no.

      True small-l libertarianism says to keep the gov’t out of it. Thus, persons may be pro-abortion, pro-life, or whatever they wish for themselves. Some of these persons are pro-life small-l libertarians; some are pro-abortion small-l libertarians.

      The end sum of gov’t staying out of it, though, could be called a somewhat “pro-abortion” stance in that abortion would be legal.

      1. The end sum of gov’t staying out of it, though, could be called a somewhat “pro-abortion” stance in that abortion would be legal.

        It’s not a “somewhat” pro abortion stance. It’s a pro-abortion stance. Substitute any moral question for “abortion” in the LP platform and see how it sounds:

        “Recognizing that age of consent is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

        “Recognizing that slavery is a sensitive issue…”

        “Recognizing that libel is a sensitive issue…”

        “Recognizing that intellectual property is a sensitive issue…”

        “Recognizing that women’s suffrage is a sensitive issue…”

        1. Those have all been, in the past or present, “sensitive issues” on which people have held good-faith views from differing sides. In a minarchist utopia where the government exists solely to secure individual rights and adjudicate disputes, saying that something is outside the purview of government is to say that it is not a legitimate moral or legal consideration. Since anti-abortion/pro-life/religious troglodyte folks reckon that the status and rights of a fetus are legitimate moral and legal considerations, that statement, even as it desperately tries to be devoid of any meaning, utterly dismisses that moral and ethical viewpoint in favor of the alternative. Libertarianism formulated as such is incompatible with the view that fetuses have rights.

  5. Despite winning the White House and holding majorities in both houses of Congress, the Republican Party…

    I’m not so sure you can really say “the Republican Party” won the White House even though their candidate did.

  6. My reaction to Ashley Judd is (remarkably, given her age) the same as it ever was: I want to have sex with her.

    1. Failing that, I suppose due to the recent election I now have the green-light to grab her by the pussy. JUST LIKE WIL WHEATON.

      1. Wait, I thought The Traveler was the one grabbing Wil’s bits.

        I’m confused.

        1. The Traveler did fondle a young Wheaton, repeatedly, but also taught him how to use cosmic intergalactic powers to seduce women. So it was kind of a wash.

          1. Wesley was asking for it, you ask me.

            1. He still is.

          2. To seduce women? Judd was begging for it and all Wil wanted to do was save the ship.

            A real Interstellar cuck.

            1. Priorities, man. He had to save the ship in order to have someplace to PIIHB. Hard to do in the vacuum of space.

              1. The positive pressure is a bitch to overcome.

              2. HE HAD TIME FOR A QUICKIE!

                1. He was saving himself for The Traveler.

            2. Heard Ashley Judd talking about wet dreams and Ivanka and I was like “How did she know?” Then I realized she was talking about some orange guy instead of me – but damn that was close.

              1. I don’t know if it’s my browser, but the still photo freeze of the video in Nick’s story above shows Ashley Judd with her mouth amazingly wide open, looking like she’s about to give head on a microphone she’s gripping just like she would a member she’s about to go down on.

                Is that the same freeze-frame everyone else in getting, or are these youtube linkers like Rorschach sensors?

                1. “And it looks just like a Telefunken U47.”

                  1. With leather?

                    Zappa and Zevon, gone waaaay too soon.

                2. Scott: I see the same “almost cock sucking” image.

    2. Honestly, I was quite turned off by it. Normally, crazy does it for me, but not that kind of crazy.

      1. I didn’t watch anything, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. I was making a generalized statement about my reaction to Ashley Judd in any circumstance short of her gaining a tremendous amount of weight or being disfigured in an accident.

        1. YOU LOOKIST!

      2. yeah I didn’t watch it but from the still shots she sure is ugly when she’s angry.

        1. Most women are pretty ugly when they’re angry. Well, from the neck up.

        2. yeah I didn’t watch it but from the still shots she sure is ugly when she’s angry.

          You don’t say.

        3. Nah she’s kind of hot. I like my women smart and nasty too. She’s just standing up for her Constitutional Rights. I would think we libertarians would appreciate that.

          1. I didn’t know the Constitution enshrined a “right” to free birth control or answered the question of when life begins. Try learning a little more about what libertarians debate before sounding so obtuse.

    3. Maybe it’s the bourbon – but LOL.

      1. After all that alcohol has done for you (and all of H&R)? Don’t blame her…sweet, sweet bliss in a bottle!

      2. Bouborn? I thought you were Canadian?

  7. “The Latest: Madonna curses President Trump at Women’s March”
    “Madonna says it took “this horrific moment” of Donald Trump’s inauguration as president to wake up the United States.
    The pop singer used several obscenities during a speech at the Women’s March on Washington to emphasize her opposition to Trump. Her comments were carried live on cable television.”…..dvO6N1lAM/

    So Trump said “Forget it, bitch!”?

    1. She’s so gross and anti-intellectual.

      Go back to pretending being a Kabbalist, Loose Vagina.

  8. She couldn’t even make it two minutes without going full Godwin. Frankly the only upside I can see from her rant will be looking forward to what shoe0nhead makes of it on her vlog.

    1. Within one minute she takes a shot at his appearance. Good to see she is above Trump tactics.

  9. My reaction to Ashley Judd?

    She is an incredible actress, a brave woman, a talented speaker, and one hell of a basketball fan.

    Also, I’d love to bury my tongue deep inside her tensed poop chute.


      1. The poop chute is not the pussy. I thought it through!

        Zig when they think you’re going to zag.

        1. Considering the shit spewed at the leftwing women’s march, you could mistake their mouths for that.

    2. “Where no man has gone before — except Wil Wheaton and Luke Perry”

    3. you really should go with relaxed poop chutes. less tongue fatigue

  10. My contempt for these people stems from the fact that there is zero justification for believing that the right to control one’s own body extends just to abortion and not to drug consumption, prostitution and any other voluntary or self-regarding act one can think of. And yet probably 99% of the people in those pictures are in favor the government regulating every aspect of our lives except abortion and gay sex.

    They have no coherent ethical or moral framework and that’s what makes them dangerous in the event they start making rules because there’s no limit principle.

    1. They are the same as the evil republicans they fight.
      They differ on what to control, sometimes.

      1. Democrats have a much better grasp on civil rights than Republicans, it’s the economy and regulations where they go wrong, which is the lesser of two evils.

        1. Remind me, which side is pushing for hate speech laws and favors laws which distinguish by race, sex, etc.?

          Which side wants to throw me in a cage if I, as a business owner, refuse to associate with one of the protected classes?

          And economic freedom is easily as important as civil rights.

    2. Pretty much.

      I think it’s well established they don’t have principles.

      They’re having a hissy fit. I would respect them had they marched against Bill when he was assaulting and raping women. But nooooo. They have to be all full of shit.

  11. Thanks Nick, reliably frivolous as ever. My favorite kind of posts. Step up your game, Robby.

  12. What is this about women’s products being taxed while men’s aren’t? Sounds like another lefty feminist lie.

    1. If that were true (fat chance), their solution would be to tax the men’s products, not to stop taxing the women’s.

    2. I have no idea what tax laws are in other states. In CA, groceries are exempt from sales tax.

      Sounds like they’re claiming that other states might have an exemption for medical products, including Rogaine (which, by the way, is ALSO USED BY WOMEN), but not one for tampons.

      But, for some reason, she’s OK with a sales tax on toilet paper, Because identity politics.

      1. Oh, so like conflating birth control and ED treatment.

      2. Why would women need Rogaine? For their pussies?

        HEY, IT’S TRUMP’S AMERICA NOW. The magic word will be PUSSY for the next four years.

        /Pee-Wee Herman giggle.

        1. Next time you’re at the grocery store, look at the scalps of women in their 50’s or older. Almost half might benefit from Rogaine.

          1. When I’m at the grocery store I’m looking at FOOD LABELS.

          2. Hey man, we don’t judge here. If “older” woman with bald heads gets you off, I’m cool with that.

          3. I can’t stare at their scalps and their asses at the same time.

    3. I vaguely remember looking into it. It has something to do with the type of product not who it is actually marketed towards.

    4. and castigated states that levy sales tax on tampons but not Rogaine (a treatment for baldness).

      It’s a mistake, not a lie:
      1. The President doesn’t, and shouldn’t, set state sales taxes.
      2. Rogaine is a treatment for baldness for both men and women.

      1. Does Trump use Rogaine or something, or are they just free-associating?

        1. Good news: look what Rogaine did for me! (Says Trump)
          Bad news: it only comes in orange.

    5. I would assume it has something to do with prescription medication, vs. an over-the-counter medical device.

      For example, here in Indiana, birth-control pills aren’t taxed, but condoms are.
      It’s exactly the same situation.

      1. Yes, that’s exactly it — it’s the difference between OTC products and prescription one.

        You could make the same screeching argument that “drugs for breast cancer aren’t taxed, but cream for jock itch is!”

        Totally disingenuous argument. Should all products just for women be untaxed? California would probably go bankrupt just on the lost sales taxes on cosmetics alone.

        1. And yet, when Republicans propose making birth control OTC, these people oppose it.

      2. Wait, tampons are no longer over the counter?

    6. Since when is Rogaine a men’s product?

  13. “They go low, we go high.”

    I think it was supposed to be “we get high”.

    1. It’s Like, I don’t care about nothin woman,
      roll another blunt, Yea (ohh ohh ohh),

      La da da da da da La, Da Daaa,
      La da da da, La da da da, La da da daaa

      I was gonna resist Trump until I got high
      I was gonna get up and march but then I got high
      my cause is still messed up and I know why (why woman?) yea heyy,
      – cause I got high

    2. Getting high makes it all a lot more bearable.

  14. RE: How You Respond To Ashley Judd Probably Indicates How You Feel about the Women’s March and Donald Trump

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I just love when some Hollywood half wit lectures me and all the other little people on what we should do and why, especially since these celebrities represent the one percent.

    1. It’s pretty amazing how they make shit up about being oppressed. Hmm…

    2. “…how you feel…”

      I stop listening the instant someone brings up their feelings.

  15. What would Mike M. call Ms. Judd? Ash Heap Thud?

      1. Contest over. Trshmnstr wins.

  16. What’s the porta-potty policy at the march?

    1. Put the seat up when departing?

      1. Many porta-potties I’ve seen have a urinal which is an open-top box with a pipe that delivers the fluid to the under-seat reservoir.

        1. Heh, one would expect the march to light porta potties at the march with features like that on fire because….patriarchy!!

    2. I was wondering the exact thing. Every woman I’ve ever known always has to pee at least every two hours, and starts to get really irritable and fidgety about it if they can’t. And I don’t see many porta-potties in these pix. for hundreds of thousands of women.

      I think the real violence is coming soon, after a million women who’ve been trying to ‘hold it’ for eight hours start fighting for the limited opportunities to void somewhere, anywhere, dammit.

      1. Wear skirt/dress with no panties. Squat. Clothing prevents flashing. Done.

        1. I like it. Are you sure you’re gay?

      2. Why do you think they called off the march to the White House? It’s not because there is too many people, it is because they are all in line at the porta potties.

      3. What a misogynist!

      4. Some men are like that too. Beer is the cure.

        I went to the San Diego Zoo Safari Park with my best friend and our babies a few weeks ago. Stone Brewery is nearby, and they have a few of the beers for sale in the part. We each had a 32 oz IPA, and then another one, and I didn’t pee until it was time to go home. He peed 5 or 6 times over 3 hours.

    3. You are what you shit.

      1. You were what you shit.

  17. “The Republican Party is at odds with broad and mostly growing majorities of Americans when it comes to issues such as immigration, marriage equality, pot legalization, and free trade.”

    In my read, a growing number of Americans are anti-immigration, have reluctantly accepted gay marriage, are pro-marijuana legalization, and are anti-free trade.

    I also suspect a growing number of the lonely Americans who answer calls from unrecognized phone numbers say what they think the callers want to hear. It’s certainly true that being anti-immigration or anti-gay marriage isn’t as socially acceptable as it used to be–but neither refugees nor illegal immigrants are especially popular right now.

    It isn’t socially acceptable to support Donald Trump either, but if Donald Trump doesn’t rape anybody after his first 100 days in office, either his approval ratings will rise–or the meaning of his disapproval ratings will be in open dispute.

    P.S. If Trump gets rid of the individual mandate and Dodd-Frank, he may be the most libertarian president we’ve had since Ronald Reagan.

    1. Has any ballot referendum ever show a majority for gay marriage?

      And why does Reason keep calling it “marriage equality” when it requires a license, that only certain select people can get?

      1. We passed an initiative in California against gay marriage.

        Even in California!

        1. That was my memory too. YEA MEMORY! Accurate at least once per day.

    2. “In his first executive order, President Trump on Friday directed government agencies to scale back as many aspects of the Affordable Care Act as possible, moving within hours of being sworn in to fulfill his pledge to eviscerate Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

      The one-page order, which Mr. Trump signed in a hastily arranged Oval Office ceremony shortly before departing for the inaugural balls, gave no specifics about which aspects of the law it was targeting. But its broad language gave federal agencies wide latitude to change, delay or waive provisions of the law that they deemed overly costly for insurers, drug makers, doctors, patients or states, suggesting that it could have wide-ranging impact, and essentially allowing the dismantling of the law to begin even before Congress moves to repeal it.” this) politics/trump-executive-order-obamacare.html?_r=0

    3. Yeah, the mention of immigration there is bullshit. Sorry, Nick.

      1. C’mon you know how this works. The Proggies that would enslave us get a pass because ….. ?? , and republicans are damned if they don’t completely toe the libertarian line….

    4. “P.S. If Trump gets rid of the individual mandate and Dodd-Frank, he may be the most libertarian president we’ve had since Ronald Reagan”

      In what way was Reagan libertarian besides talking a good game. He was an FDR New Dealer with charm. Since and including Carter I would put him as the 3rd or 4th most libertarian president.

      1. Taxes were slashed–on principle.

        The Federal Register actually shrank.

        He may not have been a libertarian, but he was the most libertarian President we’ve had since since World War II, at least.

        1. Taxes were slashed–on principle.

          Bull. Shit. Taxes INCREASED. Some income tax RATES went down. Not even vaguely the same thing.

    5. The number of people in favor of legalizing illegal immigrants has been relatively stable for decades. Anti gay marriage approval has basically steadily increased since the Clinton era. Whether it is socially acceptable to be a Trump supporter depends on the crowd you hang with. Trump is authoritarian by nature, and one of the most un-Libertarian presidents ever. He’s against equal rights for gay people, women, brown people, against immigration, he has cronies all around him from industry, he thinks the press should be curtailed, he thinks authoritarians like Putin and Duterte are doing it right in the way they run their countries denying basic human freedoms. Where are you getting your ideas from that he is even close to being libertarian?

  18. My first reaction when I saw Ashley Judd: “I’m SO glad I’m a libertarian!” Angry, liberal activism is a huge turn-off to me.

    Nick, your headline was perfect. 🙂

  19. So Michael moore is there? Look, I know being a woman and all is just a social construct, but they should apply SOME standards, don’t you agree?

    1. I’m just disappointed that he wasn’t wearing a pussy hat. He would have looked better in it than anyone there.

      1. You didn’t watch the video, he was wearing a 49ers hat.

        1. *applause!*

    2. Michael Moore identifies as two women, at a minimum.

      1. Same estrogen level, but twice the boobies!

        1. In all fairness he hasn’t seen his penis in at least 20 years, so he has good reason to doubt if it’s still there.

      2. Michael Moore identifies as an asshole.

        1. Is that why he smells?

      3. I initially read that last part as “and a minivan.”

    3. Well, would you call Moore a man? If there was ever a case for one of those made up genders, there xe is.

      1. He’s transitioning into his Beluga whale identity, you hater.

  20. UCLA-Arizona. Tight game so far.

    1. You know what else is tight right now?

      1. Ashley Judd’s butthole?

        1. That escalated quickly.

      2. Johnny Fuckerfaster’s girlfriend.

  21. Is there room for a politics that embraces abortion rights, economic rights, civil liberties, free trade, and immigration?

    Yes, lots of room, especially since only like 10 people in the country are willing to go there.

  22. “How You Respond To Ashley Judd”

    Piss off, cunt?

  23. Also, I guess it’s going to take a while for the social justice warriors to dial their expectations back. The last eight years were not the new normal.

    It used to be that if your ex-girlfriend caught you on tape saying something awful, they could make you sell your basketball team. Nowadays, just because you say, “I thought the KKK was okay until I found out they smoke pot”, that doesn’t mean you can’t be the Attorney General, and just because someone records you bragging about pussy grabbing doesn’t mean you can’t be president.

    Women coming to DC by the thousands in outrage over things the voters already knew isn’t about to change anything. Elitists screaming bloody murder over Trump winning without their support and over their objections isn’t about to change anything either.

    Whether you’re a politician, an activist, a concerned citizen, or a journalist, there’s really only one choice to make here–either abandon your elitism or abandon all hope.

    The last election was a referendum on elitism–and Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all chose the anti-elitist over the condemnations of the elitists that run the Democratic party and the media. If they double down on elitism, we’re gonna see Trump reelected for sure.

    1. Women coming to DC by the thousands in outrage over things the voters already knew isn’t about to change anything.

      I heard a clip of one of the women at the local march. “I guess we just weren’t heard before the election.”

      Dumb. Bitch. Everyone heard you all just fine, it’s just that pretty much nobody gave a flying fuck and the ones of us who did care actually hate people like you.

      I would say that these people are illogical and lack self-awareness. But I’m starting to think it’s impossible for someone to be that self-unaware. I think they care way more about getting attention than their cause. In fact, I think getting attention is their actual cause. I don’t think they’re trying to change anything, except the fact that they don’t have a camera in their face 24/7.

    2. Ken, like the apocryphal blind pig you managed to grub up an acorn with “I thought the KKK was okay until I found out they smoke pot.”

      Remember that a certain major party had absolutely no problem whatsoever with Sen. Robert F. Byrd (KKK, WV) for fucking decades. Not only did they have absolutely no problem with him being a senior US Senator, but you couldn’t even question that. “Because WV swung the vote for JFK so they are off-limits forever.” And the one example of that party sucking it the hell up to pander to uneducated, working-class whites. Delicious.

      1. This.

      2. Tonio,

        I ‘d ask why a libertarian should stick up for an anti-libertarian drug warrior like Sessions, but the bigger question is why I should care whether the Democrats also did the same thing–you obtuse fuck.

        Sessions said it, and if he’s confirmed anyway, then that demonstrates the point that the social justice warriors aren’t in control–and that was my point. Can you follow a basic argument?

        Actually, I don’t expect you to follow any argument. You’re a willfully obtuse fuck.

        1. “Obtuse fuck”
          Isnt that how it’s usually done? I’ve never fucked in a position at an acuse angle. Sounds uncomfortable.

          Nah, but you guys are cute when you fight.

  24. Wait, so Madonna was offering to blow people for voting for Hillary, and now she’s going to blow the White House?

    I’m have trouble keeping up with all of this.

    1. She should just do us all a big favor and try to blow up the Whitehouse. We all know where that’s going. I don’t see a possible downside.

  25. I can easily explain this ‘women’s’ march. There’s no secret here or anything to figure out. The meaning of it is simply this:

    I want an all powerful centralized leftist regime with more power to take your stuff and give it to me.

    See how easy that was? In only one sentence.

    1. All shall worship me and despair

  26. There’s a rambling incoherent diatribe about how identity politics will save the Democratic Party, as long as “women of color” are put in charge, over at the NYT. I think that’s what it was about. I could be wrong.

    By all means, people; continue to slice the world into smaller and smaller identity groups, and set them against each other. You’ll conquer the world.

  27. It’s not about “controlling women’s uteruses,” no more than preventing a hospital from burning down is about the plaster.

  28. ” tent so large that no real political agenda is put forward”

    Maybe so, but I’ll bet there weren’t any signs saying “I can buy my own damn birth control” and ” I don’t need you to intercede between my employer and me.”

  29. We have a way forward that will scale down the size, scope, and spending of government while transforming the social safety net into an instrument of support and opportunity.

    Too bad that’s not even close to what your typical Americano wants.

  30. Say what you want about Trump – he proved that we are a resilient people and don’t need to be protected from ‘microaggressions’ and we don’t need ‘safe spaces’. He left PC in a burning heap. It’s a huge opening for libertarianism, and he is already allying with them and principled conservatives. He will be relying more and more on Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. This is why I voted for Trump despite disagreeing with him on other matters.

    1. Take your meds, shreek.

        1. Why would Hyper Ion take *your* meds? :/

  31. A girl I went to undergrad with just posted a picture of her exhausted child with a sign around its neck on the way home from marching. This kid is about 3 years old.

    1. Sounds like child abuse to me.

      1. A few eggs, omelettes, etc.

      2. “Only if it’s an icky pro-gun or anti-abortion march.” /CPS Hag

    2. Wow. Plus don’t forget this kid.

      It’s fine to raise your child how you see fit. And it’s fine for me to think that you’re an incredibly shitty parent whose kid wouldn’t be allowed to play with my kids.

    3. Well then, that makes the child more mature than his parents.

  32. Whatevs, gramps

    Someone hires skywriter to draw gigantic “TRUMP” letters above Sydney Women’s March

    I think that sets the bar for “Epic Troll of the Year” very high.

    1. Damn, scooped by the Aussies. That was my suggestion (with a banner) in DC on the last article.

      I got ten bucks it was the One Nation guys.

  33. I want them all to just STFU and go away.

    Donald Trump, Ashley Judd, George Soros, you name ’em.

  34. “I suspect that how you react to Judd’s comments?she starts out by cutting off filmmaker Michael Moore?will say a lot about how you respond more generally to the demonstration itself.”

    I suspect how people perceive the Republicans’ position right now says a lot about them.

    I hear it from people at work, socially, see it on TV, . . .

    The Republicans have control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and total control of so many state legislatures, they can almost propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution without help from any Democrat anywhere, but to hear some people talk about the Republican party, you’d think they were teetering on the edge of irrelevancy!

    If this is what the Republicans look like when they’re out of touch with the American people and in trouble, then they should hope to be in danger of becoming irrelevant all the time.

    Ronald Reagan never had it so good.

  35. The two major parties and the ideological positions that they represent are pretty much locked in mutual strangleholds.


    1. “Mutual strangleholds” makes it sound like they’re both powerless to do anything.

      Look to me like the Republicans have the Democrats in a stranglehold.

      1. its basically a “fight” which makes them both orgasm

  36. I suspect that how you react to Judd’s comments?she starts out by cutting off filmmaker Michael Moore?will say a lot about how you respond more generally to the demonstration itself. Take a look now:

    Not quite. I think the protest is a bunch of well to do people who need something to bitch about and that is now Trump. If Judd’s speech was entirely the poem written by the 19yr old from Tennessee, it made me sad. What the hell kind of men has she been around where she thinks if she smiles, it means she wants to have sex? I have a hard time believing that is the norm for male behavior, and if it is normal behavior in her world, she needs to change her world, and nobody is stopping her.

    As to feminine products being taxed, but other products not being taxed. Take it up with your local government and save me from listening to you bitch about it.

    1. “As to feminine products being taxed, but other products not being taxed.”

      You can just translate that to “I really got no fucking idea what I’m talking about, but you’re probably as dumb as me or you wouldn’t be here listening to this, right?”

  37. She piled upon the whale’s orange hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by her whole gender from Eve down; and then, as if her tits had been twin cannons, she burst her hot heart’s shells upon it.

  38. My response: Who’s Ashley Judd?

    1. I think it was ‘Juggs’, Ashely Juggs. Porn actress of course.

        1. Out of material, shreek? Oh yeah, that happened years ago.

    2. If how you respond indicates how you feel about the Women’s March and Donald Trump, I’m going to guess that response indicates “Don’t know, don’t care”.

    3. An actress who got her first kiss from Wil Wheaton.

  39. the size of the march is a visible indicator that the country remains sharply divided politically

    Not really. Trumpkins have been thoroughly humiliated, they even have to pretend to like libertarianism (as if they were Ayn Rand followers their whole lives). They got cucked so hard it’s not even funny.

    1. “Trumpkins have been thoroughly humiliated”

      Take your meds shriek

      1. You guys need new material.

  40. What’s funny about this headline is that its intended to be expressed with ‘scorn’… apparently unaware of the irony of the wording

    Trump backers’ disparate hopes coalesce around promise of change

    hmmm. You know who else campaigned on hope and change?

    1. Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

      You know who else had some big plans?

      1. The pharoahs?

    2. Hey look, what’s that over there?!

  41. What we really need is more has-been Hollywood types incoherently virtue signalling at us about our failings in politics.

    1. Well, is there anyone, anywhere, who can stand to be around leftists for that long? Me thinks not.

      1. Can you imagine what the stench must have been like?

        1. Probably smelled like equal amounts of patchouli and victimhood.

  42. My favorite photo from today’s wiminz march in DC was the one with the sign being held by one of the protesters that read ‘I’m one of the 65 million women who voted against Trump’. So, math still not the forte of the left?

    I’m just sad that they didn’t all try to make us look at their tits. I mean out of that many women, surely one of them had to have some nice tits, right? What a lame protest, not even any tits. F-

  43. Man Loses His Marbles


    This must be why my mom told be to “go play in the road”

    1. Nobody needs that many marbles.

      1. Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin says “Na ah.”

    2. Woulda been better if it happened outside Scranton, Pennsylvania.

  44. Mainstream

    Last week, the protest organizers released a platform of their principles, developed by a group of contributors that include Alicia Garza, one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement; the author and transgender rights advocate Janet Mock; and Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women.

    The platform calls for a broad range of reforms to address not only gender inequity but also racial and economic inequality. It supports paid family leave; anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans; access to affordable reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion; an end to the use of military-style weapons and tactics by the police in minority communities; a living minimum wage; immigration reform, with a path to citizenship; and protection of the environment and public lands.

    None of these goals are particularly radical.

    Not if you’re a goddam totalitarian, anyway.

    1. Jesus Christ the obsession with keeping public lands public. Are progs incapable of owning land and keeping it pristine themselves?

      1. some of that is the selling off public land to private lands maybe, but together with environmental protection, I think they mostly mean keeping all those nasty humans away from federal lands, because people are icky.

        but lol, apparently military weapons and tactics by the police are okay in non-minority communities. Thanks BLM!

      2. Of course they are. But their opponents want to sell public land to people who will rape and destroy it.

        1. Yet, nothing is stopping them from pooling their money and buying it themselves.

          1. They’ve been impoverished by free markets. Now the 1% own everything. Only the state can save the earth.

            1. Did you see Juve’s new brand/logo? They claim it’s the future and meant to appeal to non-soccer fans. Thoughts?

              1. That’s quite the change. I don’t know enough about Juve’s history to understand all the details. But I figure those kinds of changes are probably low risk: long-time fans aren’t going to quit the club over a logo change and you might get some new fans.

              2. When I saw the logo, the first thing to come to mind was that scene in “Silicon Valley” where Ehrlich complains about tech companies all using lowercase letter logos.

    2. an end to the use of military-style weapons and tactics by the police in minority communities

      But totally OK when used against icky gun-totin’ crackers, right?

      1. +1 Waco, Texas

        +1 Ruby Ridge, Idaho

        +1 Malheur Wildlife Refuge

    1. What in the everloving fuck? Seriously?

      1. well, it was in Nigeria. but still.

      2. Friday’s demonstration in southern Rivers state was organized by the Indigenous People of Biafra, which wants Trump to support the creation of an independent Biafran state for the Igbo people

        I would not be surprised if it was the people who oppose an independent Biafran state who did the killing and it had very little if anything to do with Trump. Or maybe some other dispute. It is kind of lawless in areas down there. Especially the closer you get to the southern area on the border with Cameroon.

        1. I would not be surprised if it was the people who oppose an independent Biafran state who did the killing and it had very little if anything to do with Trump.


          unfortunately, they could only afford 1 MAGA hat, which they keep in a shrine to honor the Donald.

          1. And a darn nice banner at that! It says they declare, “their unalloyed support” of something I can’t read. And a big plus for the picture of Putin next to Trump. I don’t recognize the other dudes.

    2. Going for a career in headline writing, Gilly?

      1. That’s how they work these days = ambitious, hyperbolic conclusion in headline, completely unsupported by the actual story.

        Did you know that Russians hacked the US energy grid? True story.

  45. You know what really makes people (other than those already on your side) sympathize with your plight? An out-of-touch celebrity incoherently ranting and coming off as borderline delusional.

    But this has been the identity politics/the left’s problem for an extended period of time. They think arguments that validate themselves makes everyone feel the same way (except of course, all the evil people who couldn’t be convinced anyway). They’re fundamentally incapable of tailoring their arguments for an audience is that is not them.

    1. Well, tailoring IS an art form. It takes considerable skill and talent to be a good one.


      /takes sip of bourbon.

  46. Heard some speaker say, “the President is not America, Congress is not America,” to great fanfare.

    Of course, libertarians have been saying that forever, and people like this speaker laughed at us. Fuck those people.

    1. Libertarians aren’t America either, don’t you know? You have to be a faithful commie to be America.

    2. The President isn’t America, and Congress isn’t America…until they’re run by the right people, i.e. the people I want, and then they’re America, traitor.

      1. Seriously, does not even a passing thought cross their minds like, “Wait, I remember those small government types said that about our guy before; what gives me the right to say that now”?

        1. Well, it’s pretty easy to bypass that thought when you see institutions as something you can exploit to push your ideology through. The entire core belief of these people tends to be that power is completely fine as long as it is abused for our ideology. It’s just blanket utilitarianism where they don’t think of the consequences of other people having that power. And when they do, it’s never about questioning why they should have that power, it’s framing the people they don’t like as evil and unable to wield it ‘properly’ (i.e. in a way they want).

          1. And then complain (and pretend to be righteous) when the same tactic is used on you.

            1. /takes sip of bourbon.

  47. A few reactions to the women’s march:

    1. What new executive orders has Trump issued in his first day in office that merit such protests? Oh, wait, we’re not actually protesting anything he’s done, just what someone on CNN says he might do.
    2. I really have to wonder how much of the feminist “outrage” against Trump is just projection. Their assumption seems to be that because Trump is a misogynist asshole, that will necessarily become a dominant feature of government policy. Yet somehow Bill Clinton (who is just as much of a misogynist asshole) managed to go 8 years in office without doing so.
    3. Ultimately, because pretty much all the women marching today likely adore Bill Clinton unconditionally, I have a hard time seeing this as anything more than vulgar, tedious partisan politics.

    1. “I have a hard time seeing this as anything more than vulgar, tedious partisan politics.”

      You don’t have to dig very far with any of these lefty groups to find out that they don’t give a shit about their supposed cause. In the end all of them amount to one thing: destroy capitalism.

  48. How about some tedious hysteria about the end of America?

    Yet when I say that I have lost the America I knew, I’m not talking about policy, or even fundamental rights, disorienting as their loss would be. I mean a greater, almost spiritual faith that I had in my fellow citizens and their better instincts, something that served as my north star in all I wrote and all I did.

    Boo hoo hoo, whar muh glorious all-inclusive paradise gone?

    Them knuckle dragging retards done ruint it.

    1. They wouldn’t know a fundamental right if it bit them in the ass. Not the same as the right to free shit or making others STFU.

    2. Fundamental rights that no one thought of as rights until last year, you know?

    3. You made me waste one of my free NYT articles for that?

  49. I’m reluctant to pick on Ms. Judd, as I know she’s been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and I have to conclude that she was off her meds during the time that this video was filmed. I find watching this quite disturbing, and I can only imagine the burn marks from Dario Franchitti’s car that were left on the driveway of their home from when he chose to get the hell as far away as possible from her.

    1. she’s been diagnosed with bipolar disorder

      Uhhhhh yep, guess so. That certainly puts things into perspective. I wonder if any of her compatriots know that about her and that they’re so crazy they’re nodding their heads to what a clinically mentally ill person is saying.

      1. Because to do otherwise would be just the same as openly mocking her for her disability. The mentally ill can never be truly equal until their frothy ravings are taken as seriously as those of sane, rational people.

      2. Once a person has received a mental health diagnosis, they should be ignored forever. Gotcha?

        1. That’s a bit of a stretch from what I was saying.

          But essentially, if a bipolar person is off of her meds, she is bipolar.

          Should a person that was once diagnosed as mentally ill be ignored forever? No, but if the diagnosis was correct, she is certainly bipolar forever and her remarks/attitudes should be viewed accordingly.

    2. Good point.

  50. I don’t think the tea party was particularly libertarian, but they set aside single issues for the broad goal of beating Obama and the dems. They would not have objected to Peter Thiel or Milo speaking in one of their rallies.

    A lot of the tea party’s success is actually what the other side did – or didn’t. Voters grew a bit disillusioned by Obama and they didn’t never liked the democrats running for office as much as they liked Obama in 08. Enough voters stayed home for the TP to make noise, and they simply took advantage of the situation by sticking to a message that energized the base.

    The left has no such discipline. They’ll keep yelling, cursing, and getting in your face. The celebs will mock Trump supporters as racist apes. A little riot and sporadic outbursts of violence will be inevitable. It’ll keep Trumpsters motivated for years. There a few libs (Bill Maher) who recognize that lefty antics will be counterproductive in the end. There’s not enough of them.

    1. There a few libs (Bill Maher) who recognize that lefty antics will be counterproductive in the end.

      Very true. I had the displeasure of being a few blocks away from last night’s protest-turned-riot in Portland (the stun grenades were very loud, the rain thankfully kept the tear gas from bothering us), and even in hippie/hipster-liberal OR, the lack of sympathy for the rioters was pretty evident.

      More generally, I can recall conservatives being angry, frightened, and upset by Obama’s election in 2008, but I don’t remember them persisting in denial of the fact that he’d won the election fairly. What disturbs me about the left right now is that they literally seem unable to come to grips with the reality of Trump being President (hence the certainty they felt about the Electoral College overturning the vote, and their present certainty that impeachment is coming shortly). Denial of reality seems to be a sure path to tragedy.

      1. don’t remember them persisting in denial of the fact that he’d won the election fairly.

        TBF: the 2008 election wasn’t close. I don’t think conservatives would have been in the streets anyway but that might be a difference.

        1. Except they’re not even claiming the votes were miscounted. They’re claiming he’s illegitimate because the American people should not have found out about how corrupt the DNC was and how in bed with it the MSM was. The vote totals are apparently irrelevant this time.

          1. Agree.

    2. Bill Maher who…had Jane Fonda on last night along with Keith Olbermann (who condoned violence against Trump supporters)? And who spent his show mocking any supposed problems Trump supporters have and accusing them of being heroin addicts?

  51. What does any of this have to do with making me a sandwich?

    1. The NYT twitter feed said we could ask questions of their people at the march today and I asked, with the first reply, “who is gonna make all the sandwiches today?”
      The reactions were predictably awesome. Then they started going down the memory hole.

      1. Nice:)

      2. I would have written something like, “Mommy please come home, billy put all your cosmetics in the washing machine”

      3. [stands and applauds]

  52. My body.
    My choice.
    Your financial responsibility for 18 years whether you want to have the child or not.

    Seems legit.

    1. It doesn’t always end at 18. Here in SC you can also pay for college if your kid’s mother’s attorney says the right magic words.

      1. No perverse incentives there. “I let him eat the paint. Sorry, I don’t think he’s college material.”

      2. Plus keeping Junior on your insurance until 26!

  53. Speaking of things I did not know an hour ago

    Sig Sauer Inc. was awarded a $580 million contract for its Modular Handgun System including handgun, accessories and ammunition to replace the current M9 handgun. The Newington company competed with several other manufacturers for the 10-year contract. The new sidearm will replace the M9 Beretta.

    “We are both humbled and proud that the P320 was selected by the U.S. Army as its weapon of choice,” Ron Cohen, chief executive officer of Sig Sauer, said in a statement given to at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas on Thursday. – See more at:…..EhuVM.dpuf

    It looks like a fucking squirt gun.

    1. I loved my M-9, and trusted my life to it….but the M1911 would be better.

      1. Can you guys go 2 seconds without triggering me?

        1. Why? Are you some sort of pussy?

          1. /Drops souvlaki pita. Runs out of room crying.

            1. / Picks up rest of Rufus’s souvlaki pita and quickly devours.

      2. One of the companies that was competing (Deltonics) was known for it’s 1911s

        I guess they weren’t big enough to get it.

    2. Yeah, I saw that. Heres a review. I would have gone with the P227.

      1. Or an HK45

    3. The P320 is Sigs version of the striker-fired polymer 9mm (Glock, Smith M&P, Springfield XD, etc)

      the one advantage it has over its competitors is that its modular; the “gun” is a removable trigger-group that can be swapped between different frame/slide sizes.

      people say the trigger is also a lot better than the standard striker-fired mechanisms on its competitors.

      its also quite a bit (~50%) more expensive that its peers (tho still much cheaper than re-upping w/ M9s AFAIK). but that’s the way it goes. everyone else in the military seemed to be going for Glocks. I guess the army had to be different. Credit to Sig’s DC lobby.

      1. An out-of-the-box P320 is much nicer to shoot than an out-of-the-box Glock, and the body interchangeability is a real plus.

        1. Better trigger then?

  54. Despite winning the White House and holding majorities in both houses of Congress, the Republican Party is at odds with broad and mostly growing majorities of Americans when it comes to issues such as immigration, marriage equality, pot legalization, and free trade.

    Um…so everyone hates Republican positions, more and more….and keeps voting them into office in increasing numbers. Wut, mate?

    1. Yes, I think we need to develop a Cosmotarian to English decoder.

    2. Sounds legit.

    3. Sounds legit.

    4. Well if you look at this skewed chart…

    5. The polls that failed to predict those elections say so.

  55. There is no “marriage equality” majority in the US and there can’t be a growing majority for one that does not exist.

    That is a stupid phrasing anyway crafted to make gay marriage easier to swallow, or something. When gay marriage has been put to referendum, it has been defeated by a majority of those who bothered to vote on it.

    If you really wanted marriage equality you would advocate for an end to marriage licensing. But the Cosmotarian Publication of Record never does that.

    1. When gay marriage has been put to referendum…

      Awwww…..that’s so cute. Let’s see, what other rights should we “put to referendum?” First Amendment rights? Second Amendment rights? Fourth Amendment rights? Etc.

      If you really wanted marriage equality you would advocate for an end to marriage licensing.

      Which pretty much I and every “Cosmotarian” here does see as an ultimate goal. But, AA, because we have this thing called consistency of principal we are forced to accept incrementalism. As long as we have marriage rights, they must be extended to all including icky Mormon polygynists. As long as we must have public funding for education of schoolchildren, then that must include funding mechanisms for such things as charter schools.

      1. As much as I hate reasoning employed in Obergefell, I think the EPC is pretty clear that states can’t discriminate against gays (or polygamists, for that matter), and that’s a good thing.

      2. I don’t think he’s advocating putting rights up for a vote. He was merely refuting Nick’s claim. And he’s accurate that it’s been defeated on every statewide ballot initiative.

        1. Yes sloopy, you and everybody who can read could see that too.

  56. I’m glad to see all those women marching, because a lot of them really need to lose some weight.

    1. And then they all went home and, while barefoot and pregnant, made their husbands a sandwich. The end.

      1. And then they all went home and, while deciding which bottle of Chardonnay to pair with the three frozen pot pies they plan to eat for dinner, fed their eight cats and dropped “Pride and Prejudice” into the DVD player again.

  57. “HIT & RUN BLOG
    “How You Respond To Ashley Judd Probably Indicates How You Feel about the Women’s March and Donald Trump”

    Well that’s a pretty mealy mouthed non-thesis. Especially now that you can reach more people with less work online, political protests like this can’t convincingly claim to be about anything more than people liking the feeling they get from it. Which is fine , I guess, but combined with the moral posturing and the assumption that your opinion matters to anyone, I find it awfully unattractive

  58. I don’t understand. Equality for Women? Don’t they already have equality? And arn’t they 52% of the population?

    (I gotta remember that last one, since progs always use the Christians blah blah blah majority)

    1. But women were zero percent of Seal Team Six when they perforated Bin Laden! Can’t you see the injustice?

      1. seriously though, I really don’t understand what they are protesting for? And when they say equality, they arn’t talking about equality of opportunity. Then I wouldn’t have seen all the rabid anti-Devos posts this week

        1. rabid anti-Devos posts this week

          You can’t be a woman if you don’t tow the progressive lion. See: Palin, Sarah.

  59. ” If Republicans govern like that again while working overtime to placate social conservatives, their majority will be short-lived.”

    Maybe social conservatives will ruin the party, but if so, your gun rights will be in danger.

    Because *guns are a social issue.*

    It’s part of the standard definition – remember “God, guns and gays”?

    Scratch a “moderate” or “centrist” Republican Congressman who frets about the power of the SoCons, and I’ll show you a politician who, if he thought he could get away with it, would vote for “common sense bipartisan gun safety legislation.”

    1. Let me rephrase – “Maybe social conservatives will ruin the party” should read “maybe the party will reject SoCons just like you advise it to do.”

    2. George W. got 8 years governing that way while simultaneously starting a disastrous war.

      1. My point being, I guess:
        1. Nick’s pontificating is usually way wrong and filled with projection.
        2. It’s condescending to claim that the party winning all these elections is out of touch in so many ways. Despite Trump, the GOP is dominating politics from the bottom up.

        Nick needs to look in the mirror and accept reality. Trump can do things he doesn’t want along with the rest of Republicans and continue to win elections.

  60. My take on it is she’s getting old, and apparently reaching for Madonna’s bag of tricks to try to keep getting attention.


    1. The inherent beauty about blow jobs is that the patriarchy convinced women to put that stupid thing in their mouths and even swallow its contents.

  61. If this irrationality continues it may be only a matter of time–Trump or not

  62. Nick, we need to be clear with progressives that economic rights do not include things like subsidized birth control, mandated “living wages,” and forcing people to do business with others.

    Good luck getting through to them.

    1. I’m going to try this to get through to them. Do I care if it works? No, but here it is. We aren’t compromising with you losers, your ideas are in complete opposition to liberty. Fuck off, you want war with liberty, you got it.

    2. Dude, Gillespie just made it perfectly clear that he loves him some taxpayer funded abortion and “unrestricted cash grants to the poor”.

      So good luck trying to get him to make your argument.

      1. Cosmotarians dig that leftie shit.

    3. Being for “unrestricted cash grants for the poor” as opposed to the current money-with-strings + services (+ sometimes, commodities and other goods) welfare entitlement mess is similar to being for payroll withholding throughout the year, instead of having to write a single big check to settle up with the IRS on tax day. The “reform” makes the entitlement perhaps more “efficient,” more bearable, and less visible, but it doesn’t eliminate the objection or the problem, which springs from the entitlement itself. Making things more bearable is what you do when your sad situation will never get better and will probably get worse. Real human progress is when you make the situation better, not just for some, but for all. A free market in goods, services, and labor will yield the best results overall, and it is depressing to hear defeatist talk from self-proclaimed “libertarians,” along the lines of maintaining and extending entitlements, but making the burden “easier to bear, since we’re going to have to bear it, anyway.”

  63. Ashley Judd is just projecting her own past incestuous sexual abuse onto Trump.

  64. You know who else went to marches?

    1. Bobby Flay?

    2. John Philip Sousa?

    3. The Marquis de Sainte-Marie d’Agneaux?

  65. I find it fascinating that a large % of the women marching for abortion rights are well-off and white (and in many cases well past their reproductive years) , while in many (most?) cities, the majority of those exercising that right are young “women of color.” So who’s doing the oppressing, again?

  66. I don’t know how one could be for what Ashley Judd said, because, really, she was all over the place; between the so-called “poetry” of some most-likely fictional 19 year old kid, the hilarious moments where she decides to play the rural card and pulls out a phony Southern accent, and my anticipation for the criticisms from the hard left and feminist crowds for mentioning Condoleezza Rice in her hilarious shout-out/roll call/whatever that was–I must admit I had a good laugh.

  67. Womyn marching for Hillary the bloodthirsty warmonger!!!

  68. What is the Republican position on “immigration” that the majority of American disagree with?

  69. re: abortion question:
    do I own my own body or not ?
    if so, then question answered…
    if not, then screw you, you authoritarian puke…

    1. Another person isn’t your body.

  70. Hold on just one second, I need to go back and look at something again…

    …unrestricted cash grants to the poor

    Wait a minute, WHAT??? You want to eliminate Social Security, and then turn around and replace it with “unrestricted cash grants to the poor”?

    You are an absolute fucking joke, Gillespie.

    1. Sounds like fascism straight up.

  71. Ah yes, nothing says I’m making an intelligent argument than wearing an imitation pink pussy on your head. You go girls! I was going to organize a counter protest with a bunch of guys wearing groucho marks style penis glasses but other than the village idiot the general consensus among the men I spoke to was we would look like blathering idiots. Besides, given current biases in accepting female on male violence and skewed enforcement we would certainly end up getting our asses kicked being unable to protect ourselves for fear of arrest if we did.
    Yes, the speaker announces they march “for the moral core of the Nation” as they holler that they should be allowed to get an abortion, flushing some man’s baby down the toilet against his wishes, while they also deny access to any woman who would speak against abortion as it being murder. Yet if a man should claim he doesn’t want that out of wedlock child she carries we’ll just disregard his wishes and subject him to the law which will force him to pay under threat of debtors prison. HER body he right of CHOICE is HIS body his FORCE of responsibility.

  72. Another issue is “climate change’ because we all know this is singularly a woman’s issue. Indeed, any man could tell you that because woman show how can’t manage their body temperature and are forever turning the thermostat up and down on a whim while the rest of us suffer. Indeed, should the earth environment fail I’m sure it will only be woman who suffer the melt down. Men will somehow be spared any ill effects.
    They march for a “fair wage”, ignoring, of course, the fact that college educated females earn 104% of what men do. In other professions it certainly can’t be that men take on the dangerous shit jobs which pay more, reflected in the fact that men account for 95% of workplace deaths.
    But hey, they have a vote and so should have a voice in politics. No need to treat women different, they can hold their own. Unless it’s time to protect the nations, then they can just skip out on signing up for the selective service. A little thing like RESPONSIBILITY which counters a right shouldn’t slow down their fight for “equality”.
    And it’s world wide also, the collective sisterhood marches against trump. Although the last I looked he is President of the US of A only and the other countries are sovereign nations. I believe we have a Constitution which says they also don’t get a vote in how we do things in this sovereign nation.

    1. “dangerous shit jobs which pay more”

      Dangerous shit jobs pay less. Roofing, garbage collection etc. The more highly paid jobs, like wearing an Italian suit and making deals over the phone, are not so dangerous.

      1. Are you being deliberately dense? When two jobs require the same level of education, the more dangerous one pays more, and women will almost invariably choose the safer lower paying one.

        Example: garbage collectors often make more than teacher despite being less educated. Are garbage collectors patriarchal overlords of oppressed female teachers? No, they’re jobs are just riskier and more inglorious and fewer people want to do it.

        1. If you want a highly paid job, the less danger and dirt the better. You don’t need much of an education to understand that.

  73. But to show this isn’t an anti-male they include Gloria Steinem, a leader of the feminist movement. when she said “The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home.” I’m sure she wasn’t talking about all men.
    So after much thought I came up with a protest I think I can get men to join in Nationwide. it’s NOON, time to get a beer and go do some household fix me up chore. You know, the one that women don’t do as they have a rally to attend to.
    And as far as this rally goes, I think this is the last I’ll spend any time on it, save to check Breitbart and have a laugh at the idiots wearing pink pussy hats. I’m sure their fathers are so proud of them for that!

  74. I made it almost 2 minutes into that Judd screech. It sounds like a performance from a 1990s drunken unscheduled poetry slam in a near-off campus tavern/laundromat.

    Swastika painted on a pride flag? Has a single one of those incidents been verified to be anybody other than leftards pretending to be harassed?

    1. Scarlett Johansson’s speech about her pussy was more interesting.

      1. Which Marvel movie was that?

      2. The one with the pussy.

  75. “Whether the march succeeds in “launching a movement” is anybody’s guess”

    My guess is that it won’t. Ask me again after we see some burning police cars.

  76. Yawn

  77. The one with the pussy.

  78. If Ms. Judd wanted to have made a better impact regarding her beliefs, then she should’ve shown everyone her tits.
    But she didn’t.
    This woman, who unfortunately suffers from a bi-polar disorder, would have made a much bigger impact with her tits instead of her mouth.
    Maybe next time.

  79. I wonder if Wesley Crusher ever suspected that Ensign Lefler was a “Nasty Woman”?

  80. “If Ms. Judd wanted to have made a better impact regarding her beliefs, then she should’ve shown everyone her tits.”

    She upstaged reality president Trump and inspired hundreds of fan boy comments at Reason. Her impact seems better than you’re willing to give her credit for.

  81. Ashley Judd is a raving lunatic.

    The only response to her should be a face-palm.

    1. Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home? This is how she done


  82. I have a very honest and appropriate comment to make to any all all women that participated or will participate in the future. Why have you not protested before this in regard to basic human rights? For example at the various embassies and other available points in regard to the horrible record of woman’s rights in the Middle East, North Africa and Egypt for example.

    Are the women there not worthy of your angst? This entire event seems loosely based around whining crying voters that lost not what you want people to believe since if it was that important to you you obviously should be protesting at any of the other talking points above.

    (Iraq ranked second-worst after Egypt, followed by Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen in regard to woman’s rights.)

  83. Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home? This is how she done


  84. These female celebs do very little about calling out sexism and injustice in Hollywood. It takes real courage to actually call out people who can greenlight projects at the oScars instead of going after random politicians.

  85. Seriously? If what you’re saying is really true, then this blathering nonsense is all I need to hear to form an opinion of the march?

    Well, they’ve lost my support.

  86. “relative failure of the Tea Party ”

    Are you kidding?

    They just elected a president, secured majorities in the senate, the house, most statehouses and governorships, look poised to secure the SC, and have an election headed their way in 18 that already appears to favor them.

    Every single libertarianish politician in office(the REAL ones, not the leftists reason democrats try to pass off as ‘libertarians’) is there by virtue of tea party support.

    The only ‘tea party’ that’s a failure is the one the leftists made up to discredit the actual tea parties.

  87. It’s very sad to see all these womyn supporting Hillary Clinton, a bloodthirsty warmonger.

    Where have all the flowers gone?

    1. You make ?37/h that’s great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online , seriously I couldn’t be haappier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in ?35/h and sometimes even as much as ?85/h?Heres a good example of what I’m doing,,,,,,, ??.>>>>>


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.