Trump Says He'll Announce Court Pick and Wall Plans, Lawyers Guild Decries 'Indiscriminate' Inauguration-Day Arrests: A.M. Links

|

• Trump made two big proclamations on Twitter Wednesday morning: he will announce his new Supreme Court pick a week from tomorrow and also open an investigation into voter fraud in the past election. And on Tuesday night, the president tweeted that there was a "big day planned on national security tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!"

• Six journalists were arrested on Inauguration day while covering a clash between D.C. cops and crowds of demonstrators, rioters, and onlookers that resulted in tear gas, pepper spray, some smashed business windows, and a limo set on fire. They were charged with rioting or inciting a riot, a felony.

• Overall, more than 200 people were arrested as part of demonstrations Friday, and for many, the police report simply noted that "the crowd was observed enticing a riot by organizing, promoting, encouraging and participating in acts of violence in furtherance of the riot." The National Lawyers Guild accused police of "indiscriminately targeted(ing) people for arrest en masse based on location alone."

• Badlands National Park rebels.

• Colorado considers allowing police to use wiretaps during sex- and labor-trafficking investigations.

• "The FDA's Newly Proposed GMO Rules Are Nonsense," says Gizmodo.

• "But soon, cities may start running out of millennials," worries The New York Times.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Brickbat: On a Clear Day, You Can See Forever

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump made two big proclamations on Twitter Wednesday morning: he will announce his new Supreme Court pick a week from tomorrow and also open an investigation into voter fraud in the past election.

    Wait, are we done talking crowd sizes?

    1. Hello.

      Looks like Trump will act on what he says…just like Caesar.

      I want you to all reflect on this.

      1. Mornin’, Rufus. I’m not a very reflective kinda guy.

        1. There’s a spray coating that could help.

      2. “Looks like Trump will act on what he says…just like Caesar.”

        Vini, vidi, agitari.

        1. There’s going to be so much vici that you’ll get tired of all the vici!

          1. That’s how you order a tall at Starbucks, isn’t it? Starbucks sucks.

        2. I thought it was vini, vidi, tweet.

          1. Ack such grammar.

            More like veni, vidi, tweetimus.

            1. Tweetimus Maximus!

              1. “Are you not entertained?”

        3. Vide, vici, carpi vulvum , veni

      3. I want you to all reflect on this.

        Et tu, Rufus.

        1. Plunge, squish, squish.

          /runs off slipping and sliding in blood with tuque ajar.

        2. Especially with a high kevel SSofficial facebooking that she would not take a bullet for this Prez and that she was With Her.

          Him having private security as well as SS is no guarantee but is wise none the less.

    2. Either Trump is a rick-rolling genius that plays the media like a fiddle, distracting them,with nonsense so that he can get done what he wants done, or he is an idiot savant who will serendipitously achieve everything he hopes and dreams.

      1. Win-win!

        Corky Caesar!

      2. Win-win-win!

        Trump wins-The People win-America wins!

        Better than the lose-lose-lose strategy of Dubbya and Obama.

      3. I think everything he does is calculated, including creating the image that he is an impulsive guy.

        He’s got everybody acting silly over the size of the crowds at his inauguration. Because, you see, Trump is obsessed with it. That’s why the Senator from Oregon brought that prop of the crowd size comparison to confirmation hearing for the OMB director. Because Trump is obsessed. Riiiiight.

        Trump knows he can get the opposition, including the press, to chase any shiny object he throws in front of them.

        1. I don’t know about everything, but I agree there is definitely a planned agenda driving some of the (apparent) crazy, and everyone who thinks he’s just blowing hot air all the time is off base. Trying to figure out the signal-to-noise ratio of what he puts out is a fool’s errand though, so I mostly wait to see what he actually does instead of says on most issues.

        2. This. Now we’re on to immigration fraud as the latest distraction, and once again they take the bait hook, line, and sinker. While they focus on nonsense, he’s acting on individual items in his agenda before any organized resistance can be ginned up.

          Just look at the CNN home page as a perfect example. The huge headline at the top has been about crowd size, voter fraud, etc. All the important stuff is on the sidebar, where Trump wants it.

      4. I don’t think it’s even 4D chess at this point. It’s like distracting a kid with an iphone game so they stop begging for you to buy them something. Staff meeting:

        “What should we tell the press when they attack order X for reason Y?”

        “Just toss em another tweet about crowd size or voter fraud.”

      5. “The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.”

        ? Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal

        …when you leak your dastardly plot in the form of a book and they still don’t realize they’re getting played because they hate you so much they’d never read it…

        1. Ok, I feel compelled…
          You know who else leaked their plot in the form of a book?

          1. L. Ron Hubbard?

          2. Tom Clancy?

          3. Theodor Geisel?

          4. And how could I forget: God?

          5. Dr. Seuss?

  2. 280) (Part I of II) Trump gets ball rolling on Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines

    I see these pipelines as two different issues, and to me the Keystone XL pipeline is the far simpler one. In my view, Obama blocked the Keystone XL pipeline purely as a politically symbolic sop to environmentalists, with no real justification nor actual ecological benefit, and at considerable cost to our economy and relations with Canada. Trump’s reversal here is rational and reverses one of Obama’s dumbest decisions.

    1. (Part II of II) But I see the Dakota Access pipeline as different. It passes through a Sioux tribe reservation, and they simply don’t want it. I think the tribe’s claim that the pipeline threatens their drinking water is overblown?but their claim that the US violating treaty rights is serious. I’m no expert in tribal law, but I looked at the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 (I assume this is the treaty referred to?news articles mention only the “treaty” with no further specification), and the relevant section would seem to be:

      [the reservation is] set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named? and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons except? such officers, agents, and employees of the Government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article.

      We’re building something across their land, and they don’t want it, and that appears to be a clear violation. Am I missing something here?

      1. Roman numerals? Really, JATNAS? Sigh.

        1. No, it was part 1 of 11 and part 11 of 11, he just skipped over 9 parts.

        2. I, for one, like Roman numerals.

      2. We’re building something across their land, and they don’t want it, and that appears to be a clear violation. Am I missing something here?

        I’m pretty sure that, like the constitution, most of our treaties with various Indian tribes also contain a “fuck you, that’s why” clause written in invisible ink on the back.

      3. It doesn’t help that the NODAPL people have variously referred to those lands as both “federal” and “tribal.” They have not helped their cause.

        Totally in agreement about the sovereignity thing. If that land is truly part of a sovereign indian nation, then they can absolutely tell the pipeline folks to fuck off.

        This also has the interesting potential for the left to rediscover property rights both for the tribe and for private landowners.

        1. But they’ll only discover property rights exist when Republicans are in power, and when it helps the correct kind of people. It’s similar to how Mark Zuckerberg is trying to force out Native Hawaiians that own property surrounded by his property, so that he doesn’t have to allow them access to their own property, but because he’s a big Hillary donor, no one cares.

        2. No the left will do nothing of the sort. Property rights for the tribe. None for the common private man person

      4. You’re assuming the protesters represent the tribe. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that the tribal council saw jobs and royalties and said hell yeah, then the vocal minority opposed it.

        1. No, they tribal council has frequently been against it from what I have seen from them.

      5. I thought it only came close to their land, didn’t cross it. Hence the focus on their water not their land.

        1. That would be important if true (and seems like something the Washington Post article should have mentioned!). More research required…

          1. That’s what I get for trusting the Post. This map does not show pipeline as crossing tribal land. Count this one as a plus in the Trump column.

            Thank you Bra Ket for pointing that out.

          2. My understanding is that the land in question isn’t legally recognized as theirs and that they’ve disputed this for decades.

      6. The pipeline is more than mile from the reservation border. That’s one reason the Sioux didn’t really give a crap and provide any input- they were not going to make any money from it.

        1. No Wonder the Standing Rock Sioux Opposed the Pipeline

          In the case of the Standing Rock Sioux, the tribe didn’t have the chance to benefit from the DAPL project because the pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners, opted to route the project around the tribe’s reservation instead of trying to negotiate a pipeline agreement directly with the tribe. This should come as no surprise. Developers routinely avoid doing business with tribes because federal regulations make it so burdensome. J. W. McCartney, a pipeline industry expert, advised companies, as far back as 1982, to simply “go around Indian lands” because these regulations can be “too costly and time consuming” to even bother trying to strike a deal with tribes.

          1. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is involved in nearly every aspect of energy development on Indians lands, including reviewing and approving pipeline agreements and rights-of-way approvals, and the process is notoriously inefficient. A 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report observed that “the added complexity of the federal process stops many developers from pursuing Indian oil and gas resources for development” and that the process “can involve significantly more steps than the development of private or state resources, increase development costs, and add to the timeline for development.” The GAO report noted further that in 2014, the Southern Ute tribe reported that the BIA’s review of several of its pipeline rights-of-way agreements took as long as eight years. A simple review of a wind-energy lease on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota took a year and a half for the BIA to review. According to the developer, the delay made the project lose its agreement with the local utility, resulting in a loss of revenue for the company and the tribe.

            The Sioux want a piece of the deal. They’re protesting inane federal policy more than anything else.

        2. If, by “more than a mile”, you mean “about 500 feet”.

          1. According to the Court, the “new pipeline was being planned that would cross the Missouri River under Lake Oahe about a HALF MILE North of the Reservation”. The Court’s source for the half mile figure is a declaration from David Archambault, Chief of the Standing Rock Sioux.

          2. Doesn’t matter if it’s one foot. If it’s not their land, they should be told to go pound sand.

            1. True, just pointing out it is well over 500 feet and also well under “over a mile”. At least according to the Tribal leader himself.

              1. Well, I meant “yards”. But here’s a map. Note the scale on the right and how close the pipeline route is to the Cannonball River (the tribal border) as it crosses the Missouri. It’s well under a half mile from the Cannonball.

                Map of proposed DAPL route

                disclaimer: I am not responsible for accuracy of this map.

      7. no persons except? such officers, agents, and employees of the Government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law

        We solemnly swear we are never going to take anything away from you unless we really need to. And we’re the ones who get to decide when we really need to. Sort of like the “reasonable” infringements of your Constitutional rights that aren’t really infringements because they’re reasonable. You’re not the one who gets to define “reasonable”.

        1. Yup sounds like the same raw deal we get when we sign the social contract.

          Now if I could find my copy somewhere.

      8. My understanding is that it does not cross their land, that it crosses the river just upstream from them. Their professed fear is that any leak or spill will contaminate the river flowing onto their property. Anyone who has dealt with this sort of thing before knows that their real fear is that they won’t get paid.

        1. If there is a spill, they’ll get paid. It’s not like the EPA is building the pipeline.

          1. You have to post that everywhere. Perfect.

      9. Its way more complicated than the US simply building across tribal land without permission. This opinion from the Judge who’s been handling the case does about a good a job as you could hope of summarizing the whole thing. The whole 58 page opinion is worth a read, but if you’re only interested in the factual background start at the bottom of page 11.
        http://law.justia.com/cases/fe…..180660/39/

      10. JATNAS, they went ahead and murdered Sitting Bull and then slaughtered 300+ women and children at Wounded Knee with Hotchkiss guns. Then gave NUMEROUS members of the regiment that slaughtered those innocents MEDALS OF HONOR!!!!

        You think our government is gonna shy away from running a pipeline through their territory? The fuck are they gonna do?

        1. JATNAS, they went ahead and murdered Sitting Bull and then slaughtered 300+ women and children at Wounded Knee with Hotchkiss guns. Then gave NUMEROUS members of the regiment that slaughtered those innocents MEDALS OF HONOR!!!!

          and buried them at Arlington National Cemetery. Meanwhile we constantly bash Japan for respecting a private shrine that nonjudgmentally lists millions of their war dead because a few of those names were determined by our tribunals to be war criminals.

          1. Well, in both cases, the United States beat the other guys.

            1. Vae victis.

      11. It passes through a Sioux tribe reservation

        It doesn’t.

      12. the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons except? such officers, agents, and employees of the Government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article.

        It doesn’t look like an open and shut case to me. From a property rights perspective, the government can fuck right off. From the perspective of this treaty, the government seems to be within their contractual rights on this one.

      13. Violating treaties with the red man is part of what made this country great. Do you want America to be great again or not?

        1. Which treaty do you speak of?

          1. Pretty much all of them.

          2. Just about all of them.

        2. Violating treaties with the red man

          Of course, the red man can’t ever violate treaties.

      14. It passes through a Sioux tribe reservation, and they simply don’t want it.

        It’s that first part that is very highly suspect. The pipeline doesn’t pass through what is legally recognized as their reservation. Now, they have claimed that the land in question is their land for years. But, their claim, at its fullest, is that the entire upper Mid-West is their land :”where the buffalo roam”. And the courts have said certain areas were theirs but passed to other owners, for which they were granted a settlement (although their actual taking of this settlement has been limited).

        So, the question hinges on whether you believe that the land in question is properly theirs or was transferred. As far as the law has been concerned for decades, it’s the latter.

      15. ‘[the reservation is] set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named?’
        Well as the treaty was dated 1868, I’d guess those guys are dead.

  3. even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time).

    Yeah, but who better to understand that dead document everyone keeps going on about.

  4. “But soon, cities may start running out of millennials,” worries The New York Times.

    I literally can’t even.

    1. What will they burn for fuel after that?

      1. Presumably all that horse manure that the NYT a century ago predicted would cover Manhattan by now.

        1. Now it can mostly be found in the NYT.

          1. They figured out the best way to ?

        2. There is enough paper in that building to heat the city for a century.

      2. “Cold is God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics”

        /Lady Whiteadder, the most phanatique Puritan in England

        1. It’s a dry heat.

  5. “But soon, cities may start running out of millennials,” worries The New York Times.

    Our most renewable resource.

    1. Especially if 18 becomes the new 26.

  6. Poll: Majority of American approve of Trump’s ‘America first’ address

    Dark. Negative. Divisive. That’s was the immediate narrative about President Donald Trump’s inaugural address.

    But many Americans liked it.

    A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that the new president’s message is resonating with voters, refuting the idea that Trump bungled his first speech as commander in chief.

    Trump got relatively high marks on his Friday address, with 49 percent of those who watched or heard about the speech saying it was excellent or good, and just 39 percent rating it as only fair or poor. Sixty-five percent of those surveyed reacted positively to the “America First” message, the cornerstone of the Trump campaign and governing posture.

    1. Seriously? We’re still citing polls when everybody knows polls are blatantly rigged to come up with whatever outcome supports the desired narrative?

      1. So are comments.

    2. Definitely liked it more than that “Fellow citizens of the world” crap that Obama was always spouting…

  7. Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!

    Sounds like if they find no dead people voted and some live people abstained that they might just weaken voting procedures.

    1. It does sound like that

  8. Colorado considers allowing police to use wiretaps during sex- and labor-trafficking investigations.

    Always looking for new materials to jack it to.

    1. Or…those investigations are just pretexts to go on fishing expeditions.

        1. This is where, if they allowed GIFs in the comments, someone would post that GIF of the dolphin jacking off with half a fish.

          1. With all due respect, that comment ain’t worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin’ it on.

    2. I’d tap that.

  9. Bigfoot hunters say claw marks likely evidence of ‘Alabama Booger Monster’

    According to the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Center website, people have reported seeing Sasquatch in 43 of Alabama’s 67 counties.

    McDonald said he didn’t get to the Sepulga River bottoms, an area where about six people have reported “seven- to 8-foot-tall hairy bipedal creatures crossing the roads, seen coming out of the river and in people’s back yards.”

    If the “Killing Bigfoot” team were to find a creature that threatened humans, they would kill it, McDonald said. “They are not these forest friends that many people think they are,” he said.

    He said Alabamians have different names for the creature known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch. “These Bigfoot creatures in Alabama have several local names, he said. “The Alabama White Thing, and around Evergreen, it’s the Alabama Booger Monster. I’m sure there are a lot more local names throughout the state.”

    1. We call it “Warty.”

        1. If STEVE SMITH and Warty got into a fight, who would win?

          1. Neither, but we would all lose

          2. Warty is, was, and will be battling STEVE SMITH across space and time for eons gone and eons yet to come.

            1. STEVE SMITH AM LOVER NOT FIGHTER!

          3. That’s like asking which would win, the yin or the yang?

    2. The Alabama Booger Monster is a terrible nickname for a penis.

      1. Accuracy is often more important than circumspection.

        1. Don’t let’s turn this into another circumspection thread.

          1. Circumspection is child abuse!!!

        2. My aim is true.

    3. HA! STEVE SMITH ALWAYS SAY NICKNAME FOR COUSIN “BOOGER” WOULD STICK!

  10. NPR Tactical Blunders Dept: NPR reporter Maura Liason yesterday dogged Press Secretary Spicer about lack of evidence for the claimed voter fraud. Today the administration has announced an investigation into that. I suspect that we will see that crowd immediately running away from an actual investigation, particularly in places like Philadelphia and Chicago.

    This morning NPR White House correspondant Tamara Keith seemed to claim that people remaining on voter rolls for long after they were dead was not voter fraud, an assertion that even the NPR anchor called her on. To state the obvious, you remain on the voter rolls only if you vote so if those people are remaining on the rolls either government is failing to purge the rolls, or someone is voting in the name of those dead people. Oops.

    1. They didn’t learn from the Jill Stien fiasco?

      Oh, they are the left. Of course they didn’t learn.

      1. Well who can blame her for not knowing about the widespread fraud uncovered in Detroit — it was reported as minimally as possible by the national media including NPR.

        If Trump gets the Detroit fraud investigations rolling nationwide…that will be interesting.

    2. I heard on NPR just this morning that there’s no evidence of voter fraud so the call for an investigation is obviously something other than what it sounds like. Of course, they don’t bother defining what “voter fraud” is and I suspect they use an extremely narrow interpretation. For example, the dead people voting thing – obviously the dead people can’t possibly be voting, therefore they’re not the ones committing voter fraud, are they? The people who are voting in the name of the dead people, well, we don’t even know who those people are so isn’t it a bit presumptuous to accuse them of fraud?

      (OTOH, we all know damn well Trump ain’t really interested in voter fraud so much as he is interested in getting a sufficient number of Hillary’s votes disqualified so that he has some basis for his lawsuit to get Hillary retroactively disqualified as a candidate so that he can claim he won the Presidency in the largest landslide in electoral history with 100% of the vote. And, hell, he’s just as apt to sign an executive order to that effect and order that the official records be changed to reflect the fact that he ran unopposed. He can’t stand the fact that those lying liars in the lying media keep insisting he’s the one lying about his margin of victory when he knows damn well only seven or eight people at most voted for Hillary and several billion voted for him.)

      1. But they confuse, or more likely deliberately conflate, lack of evidence with evidence of lack. Remember that this is the crowd that thinks investigations are BS unless they reveal evidence of wrongdoing. That’s not how things work. You audit your books not because you want to find problems, but because you don’t.

        This is why replicability is important in science. Some describe that as wasteful “doing the same experiment over and over.” No you don’t need to do it infinitely, but you do need to do it regularly.

        I really think that college and advanced HS laboratory courses should heavily focus on replicating published studies and that the journals should publish those results, though perhaps in summary form.

    3. Pretty sure James O’keefe got a top NYC election official on camera bragging about his various methods of voter fraud… don’t know why that hasn’t got more attention…

      1. You mean “domestic terrorist” James O’Keefe? They really do refer to him as that. They are still hopping mad about the ACORN thing, and have yet to acknowledge that he did uncover evidence of wrongdoing.

  11. “The FDA’s Newly Proposed GMO Rules Are Nonsense,” says Gizmodo.

    Uh, gizmodo has a G, an M, and an O in their name. As Chandler Bing would say, could they be any more biased?

    1. The 2nd “o” is for “awful.”

    2. You ruined it by quoting a Mad About You character.

      1. Uh, he’s obviously talking about the Jane Austen character. Geez, read a book, people.

    3. Gizmodo is such a fucking SJW pos site. They don’t even do tech right – they do it through the lens of SJW identity politics, which I didn’t think was possible….

      1. What tech site doesn’t? Techdirt, maybe? Ars disappeared up its asshole a long time ago, I can’t even read it anymore.

      2. So long as the development team is sufficiently diverse, they will crank out great stuff. What’s so controversial about that?

  12. Lawmakers Introduce Bill Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons

    Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) introduced legislation meant to pry the nuclear football out of the president’s hands.

    “Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival. Yet, President Trump has suggested that he would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists,” Markey said in a statement. “Unfortunately, by maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, U.S. policy provides him with that power. In a crisis with another nuclear-armed country, this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear escalation.”

    Over the course of her campaign against President Trump, Hillary Clinton repeatedly warned that “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” It would seem Markey and Lieu agree.

    1. I think it’s a great idea to embolden our enemies by letting them know ahead of time what we will or won’t do to counter them.

    2. SAD! Self Assured Destruction.

    3. What just a thought said. Lets tell the world they can kill as many Americans as they like and will never have to worry about our using Nukes. That ought to work out well.

      1. Hacker: “It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it.”
        Humphrey: “Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.”
        Hacker: “They probably do.”
        Humphrey: “Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know.”
        Hacker: “They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t.”
        Humphrey: “Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would.”

    4. Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival.

      Climate deniers!!

      1. And what is “radical Islamic terrorism”, chopped liver?

        1. Literally.

          1. If we start using nukes.

    5. Democrats are enemy of the state.

      They’ve lost their minds.

      1. They’re the enemy of all civilization. If they had their way all the time we’d be eating tree bark soup, those of us that survive the central planning and population control measures, that is.

        1. DO YOU DENY THE INCREDIBLE EFFECT POL POT HAD ON REDUCING CAMBODIA’S CARBON FOOTPRINT?!?!?!?

        2. Don’t you know bark soup is the new superfood now that bone stock is passe?

          1. Hollywood liberals are the sort of people who speak positively, with no irony, about the Khmer Rouge.

    6. Serious question, in the event of nuclear war, who is going to prosecute the rouge general who fired then off first? If it’s like fallout, then everyone is dead and no one knows who to charge

      1. Bitch, I have the power suit, I have a legendary laser gatling cannon, and I have a ton of perks in endurance. *I’M* in charge.

      2. Huh. I didn’t realize that the General responsible for launching nukes had to be a Native American Indian.

        1. Treaty of 1868…

      3. I don’t think the Khmer Rouge is around anymore, Tyler. 😛

        1. Say it ain’t so!

    7. No first use? There’s some people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would like to have a word with you.

      1. You wanna start a shit thread around here, start talking about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. Which they were.

        1. Dresden was (arguably?) worse.

    8. This will consteain the President, just as the War Powers Act constrained President Obama from acting without congressionsl authorization in Libya.

    9. But if they hadn’t attacked us first, how would we know that they were terrorists in the first place? Ok, I guess if they attacked someone else.

      “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

      That’s why we don’t let the Trump chumps in the press have them. The Democrats should have worked harder on keeping nuclear weapons out of Harry Reid’s hands. They’d still be up shit creek, but they might at least have a paddle.

      1. Ah, nvm on the first point, misunderstood.

    10. The transparency of this nonsense is galling: first, they know this has no chance of passing. Second, they know if that by some miracle it did, the law would have absolutely zero effect on the country’s potential use on Nuclear Weapons and would be symbolic at the very best.

      But I’m sure it makes for good press release and future campaign donations.

  13. “But soon, cities may start running out of millennials,”

    I shall begin my breeding program immediately!

    I promise you a new generation of millennial, one that is tech-savvy, compact and efficient. The cubicle and barista jobs will be filled!

    Just don’t feed them after midnight.

    1. Um, if you are breeding now, they will not be millenials. There is no way to make more millenials unless you have a time machine. God only knows what this new generation will be called. The only thing we know for sure is that they will be worse and that we will be commiserating with the millenials about how much they suck.

      1. So you’re saying you want Warty to create new Millenials? GOD help us all!

      2. There is no way to make more millenials unless you have a time machine.

        You are clearly unfamiliar with my line of work.

  14. “But soon, cities may start running out of millennials,” worries The New York Times.

    “But soon millennials will start running out of cities,” worries democrat politicians.

    1. They might get jobs and lives and realize living in a partially gentrified shit hole isn’t so great. The horror.

    2. I found it amusing that the urbanist types just assumed that younger adults would live in cities for the rest of their lives. They’re starting families at older ages than in the past, but now that more of them are getting to those ages, they shockingly are starting to decide that maybe having more room and a yard for the kids isn’t such a bad idea after all.

      1. Everyone I knew in NYC in my 20s is now either in the burbs, or got so rich that living in NYC is no problem for them, or is some kind of demographic that tends to remain childless and in the city (e.g. gay), or is stuck there and really having a shitty time of it.

  15. open an investigation into voter fraud in the past election

    “We have great voter fraud, the best voter fraud!”

  16. Pretty funny how Trump owns the media. Because he’s saying crazy stuff about illegals voting – now they are going to actually investigate how much (not “if”) voter fraud took place.

    1. Like the recount in Michigan, I don’t think they are going to like what they find.

    2. Trump: “Obama fucked sheep nightly on the White House lawn.”
      Media: “It is absurd to think that Obama could do this every night without anyone noticing. Theoretically, a President could fuck sheep on the White House lawn a few times and get away with it, but certainly not every night.”

    3. Had the exact same discussion last night in the migrant threat, even before this tweet. I think I’ve figured the technique out enough now that I could probably step in if something happens to Trump.

  17. Badlands National Park rebels.

    So this is what that show on AMC is about?

    1. I thought that was an alt country band.

  18. Police: 7 protesters climb crane at DC construction site

    At least seven protesters are climbing a crane at a downtown Washington construction site that’s just a few blocks from the White House.

    Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Aquita Brown says police responded to the area of 15th and L streets in northwest Wednesday morning for a disorderly person. Brown says protesters, possibly seven people, are at the site, climbing a crane and refusing to allow workers to work in the area.

    Six people can be seen on the horizontal arm of the crane with ropes connecting them. Some of the people on the crane have objects hanging from ropes attached to them.

      1. That’s a terrible thing to say! But good for humanity nonetheless….

        1. I’m pretty sure they could make it. I’ll bet them 5$.

    1. Glover says the protesters believed to be associated with Greenpeace told police they’re conducting a First Amendment action.

      IOW they’re for everything and nothing.

  19. Police: 7 protesters climb crane at DC construction site

    At least seven protesters are climbing a crane at a downtown Washington construction site that’s just a few blocks from the White House.

    Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Aquita Brown says police responded to the area of 15th and L streets in northwest Wednesday morning for a disorderly person. Brown says protesters, possibly seven people, are at the site, climbing a crane and refusing to allow workers to work in the area.

    Six people can be seen on the horizontal arm of the crane with ropes connecting them. Some of the people on the crane have objects hanging from ropes attached to them.

    1. Squirrels climb things, too.

    2. Wow. 14 in total.

    3. Squirrelz climb cranes and trees and other stuff

    4. The protesters are squirrelz?!

    5. I only clicked once! *gets dragged away to the nuthouse*

      1. Look at the other comments. The squirrelz have infected the commentariat.

      2. Just call the second one an update.

    6. Meh. Starve them out. They can only have so much food with them; absolutely prevent them from getting more. Harass them via helicopter, including water dumps – “you hippies haven’t had a bath in days, you’re welcome.”

      Unfortunately, the only people I can think of who have the skill set to rappel out of a chopper and fight while using climbing gear are military special forces. It is distasteful to use troops to quell domestic disturbances, even in highly unusual situations such as this. Legal exceptions?

      1. But those water dumps could extend their window of survivability up there; you’re resupplying them with water.

        1. Sewage dumps… Duh

        2. I vote glitter bombs in lieu of water dumps. It would simultaneously be more humane (water could cause a slipping hazard) and less humane (no vacuums up there, so they’re stuck with the glitter).

        3. What the fuck happened here?

          Why are you replying to yourself like you forgot to switch handles while having a convo between 2 of your socks?

    7. If they have tied harnesses to the crane to make sure they don’t fall (surprisingly prudent), then just get someone in the cab and start spinning that fucker. They’ll come down on their own when you stop.

  20. “Disapprove of the Trump administration in the most daring way possible; USA-made underwear with strategically placed fly

    1. Daring, eh?

      I guess you have to yank your breeches down so people can see.

      1. Yep. Instead of “GET A PAIR” the ad should say “GROW A PAIR”.

    2. If they really wanted to show disapproval of the Trump administration they would have gone with foreign made instead of USA made.

  21. I’m in danger for my life and I’m privileged and I’m exploited and yet I’m privileged….

    This goes particularly to women who are privileged like me?hey, rich white ladies with fancy college degrees! As women right now, our dignity, well-being, and even lives are at stake. We’re gonna fight because we have no choice ? for many of us, it’s literally fight or die.

    1. The whole thing is worth a jaw-dropping gape.

      Now the other aspect of this is that, if we’re lounging on a plateau looking out over a great vista sunbathing and sipping a daiquiri, it’s really hard to see that what we’re really sitting on is a heap of other human beings. If you’ve ever gotten into a screaming match with a man trying to explain why yes, it does matter that he can’t cook and no, you will not be washing his dishes for the rest of his life and yes, the expectation that you will is sexist? then you’ll get how hard it can be for people with certain privileges to understand what it’s like to not have those privileges. It’s hard to see the exploitation we benefit from and also, we don’t always really want to see it. We don’t want to see the person we’re stepping on to look over that great, Simba-esque, everything-the-light-touches vista. But to the people we’re stepping on, it’s pretty damn clear what the real state of affairs is, because being stepped on hurts. That’s why when we talk about social movements and social justice, we often talk about listening to the people affected by a certain system, -ism, or state of affairs.

      1. I like the way her argument with boyfriend/husband the night before wormed its way in that paragraph despite its complete irrelevance.

        1. Her feeeeeeeelings are the only relevant things in the universe.

        2. They love to pretend it’s 1940. Really? Show me a contemporary man that expects a woman to cook and clean for him. First she is a privileged white lady with a fancy college degree and next she is enslaved, barefoot and pregnant.

          These bat-shit fuckers are going to bat-shit themselves right out of existence. It cant happen fast enough to suit me.

          1. From what I have seen with my cousins , there is more of an issue with women who will not cook and clean, but also are not terribly interested in bringing home a paycheck either.

          2. This is why God invented Chinese mail-order brides.

          3. Progressive men can be incredibly sexist. That doesn’t surprise me at all. Remember progs always projecting.

          4. Show me a contemporary man that expects a woman to cook and clean for him.

            I mean, not every meal and not every room, but we did agree that she would take on most of those duties when she stopped working to raise the babies. If she starts bringing home money, we will renegotiate the deal to a more equitable position.

            1. Because your wife is not an insane maniac.

      2. That’s why when we talk about social movements and social justice, we often talk about listening to the people affected by a certain system, -ism, or state of affairs.

        Clearly hasn’t talked to those affected by socialism or the state of affairs created by social justice.

      3. If you’ve ever gotten into a screaming match with a man trying to explain why yes, it does matter that he can’t cook and no, you will not be washing his dishes for the rest of his life and yes, the expectation that you will is sexist

        Look at Edith Bunker over here.

        1. I can’t even begin to imagine a first date with her.

          “uh, could you pass the salt?”

          “And there it is! You’re enforcing your cis-hetero patriarchal norms on me already!”

          1. Yeah, somehow I doubt the issue is as black-and-white as she makes it out to be. Just a guess, unreliable narrator and all that.

          2. “Since i’m not trying to be patriarchal here, how about YOU pay for dinner?”

          3. “I don’t want the salt, it’s just that you’re already salty enough without it.”

          4. She’s actually sort of good looking, from the right camera angle that shows off her big tits, if you scroll down to the bottom of the article (can’t post link of pic due to 50 character limit).

            Not supermodel hot, but OK.

            But, never knowingly put your dick in crazy. And she’s fn crazy.

        2. Do you do plumbing repairs? Why not? Are you willing to learn?

          1. Yep. I don’t cook, it’s true, but my wife doesn’t take the sink apart to empty out the fucking u trap after the third time she clogs it by putting eggshells in the garbage disposal.

            But who the fuck washes dishes? That’s robot work.

            1. Don’t Date Robots!

        3. If you’ve ever gotten into a screaming match with a man trying to explain why yes, it does matter that he can’t cook and no, you will not be washing his dishes for the rest of his life and yes, the expectation that you will is sexist

          1) I can cook.
          2) I don’t do the dishes because when I do, I’m told I do them “wrong.”
          3) I still get in trouble for not doing the dishes.

          1. 1) I prefer cooking, because
            2) I do the dishes as I cook, leaving very little residual mess, and
            3) it’s just a package deal like that.

            1. I do the cooking, because I’m better at that. My GF does the cleaning up, because she’s better at that. We’ve never had a screaming match over that, or anything else.

              This isn’t hard if neither of you is batshit crazy like the author of this piece (of … something).

              1. We’ve never had a screaming match over that, or anything else.

                That just means you’re not doing enough to affirm her strength as a womyn.

                My roommate wanted a similar arrangement where we’d switch off cooking and cleaning, but I declined. She is historically messy, doesn’t mind using three pots where one would suffice, and leaves the stove and countertops a spattered mess. So I clean up after my meals and she cleans up after hers.

            2. “2) I do the dishes as I cook, ”

              No, you don’t. They’re still being used.

              But it’s a nice lie you tell yourself, and no one cares that you wipe off the paring knife.

          2. “But you’re so much better at it!”
            OK, might not work on dishes but worth a shot?

          3. At some point in the 90s, my dad started doing more chores, and it didn’t take long before he started using the “you’re doing it wrong” complaint against my mom, who had been doing the laundry and cleaning for a couple decades. Today, all she does are the dishes; he insists on laundry, vacuuming, etc.

            Unless I meet a trained chef, I can’t imagine not doing the cooking. I only wish I had the kind of skill and presence of mind that commodious mentions, cleaning up as I go. I’m not there yet, so everyone in the vicinity has to deal.

            1. Mise en place motivates me to clean as I go. Sure, there are 20 bowls on the counter, but when 15 of them are just holding various chopped vegetables, it’s not hard to just do a quick rinse and scrub and put them back where they go. I wash the stuff that touched raw meat or pungents while the food is cooking. Then I’m just stuck cleaning the cooking pot/pan and whatever we ate out of after the meal. After the meal, it’s really no worse cleanup than if I were to pop a frozen pizza into the oven.

              The “you’re doing it wrong” argument was one my wife and I dealt with regarding placement of things in the dishwasher. Our dishwasher at the old house sucked ass, so I would load it sparsely in order to reduce the chance of needing to rewash things. She would pack it full so that more things would get cleaned, but more things would also require a thorough prewash.

      4. Then give it all up and go live as a hobo. If capitalism is that bad, stop taking the benefits of it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

      5. I bet she’s the kind of psycho bitch who gets all pissy whenever a man holds a door open for her:

        Her: “I can open the door myself, what you think just because I’m a woman I need some man to open the door for me?! YOU CIS-HETERO PATRIARCHAL MALE SHITLORD!”

        Me: “Fine, open the fuckin’ door yourself, bitch.” *slams door in her face*

        1. I bet it’s a character she affects for pageviews, and she’s probably a very standard person outside her column.

          1. I bet your “I wash dishes that havent been used yet” character is the same, a bulshit mask that has nothing to do with reality.

    2. ” for many of us, it’s literally fight or die.”

      AS long as you’re not being hysterically melodramatic, then I’m in.

      Seriously, when they left uses the term “literally” 99% of the time it is not referring to any literal situation….

      1. The social justice crack suicide squad will be a thing to behold.

      2. The social justice crack suicide squad will be a thing to behold.

    3. …for many of us, it’s literally fight or die.

      [citation needed]

    4. Meanwhile… Yazidi girls are being sold as sex slaves. But let’s not offend folks by talking about it.

      http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/982…..omen-march

    5. Oh, hey, it’s that fat, butt-faced girl from Harvard always talking about all the disappointing sex she has.

      1. If you are going to lie about having sex, shouldn’t you at least say it was good sex?

        1. I believe her when she says the sex was disappointing, but when you are begging to be lied to, you get what you ask for.

          1. I seem to meet plenty of attractive women who have a hard time getting laid. I am always skeptical about fat homely women who claim to have any sex at all.

              1. She’s got a bad face of Picket Fence Mouth.

                1. I take it this means SugarFree has a Picket Fence Butt.

                  1. Diabeetus is a hell of a condition.

          2. But ethical sex is hard.

            No. SJW-compliant sex is impossible.

            1. Is there anything less sexy than “ethical sex”?

              1. Hillary Clinton?

            2. Ethical sex? Fuck that. Have you seen the paper work involved?!

              1. Yes. I wasted a few hours on that paper mache Liz Warren head I violated.

              1. Got to be satire.

                If we look at the act in more detail (skip this parag if you can’t take it), PIV is a man mounting on a woman to thrust a large member of himself into her most intimate parts, often forcing her to be entirely naked, banging himself against her with the whole weight of his body and hips, shaking her like he would stuff a corpse, then using her insides as a receptacle for his penile dejection. How is this a normal civilised, respectful way to treat anyone? Sorry for the explicit picture, but this is what it is and it’s absolutely revolting and violating.

                1. So, if the girl is on top, that isn’t PIV? It’s, what, VAP?

                2. It’s not satire, but separatist lesbianism. They also don’t consider transwomen to be female.

                  1. Whatever it is, it fucking white hawt.

                3. from the comments:

                  talkingtomyself16
                  December 15, 2013 at 12:41 pm
                  Everything you said was worded brilliantly. I had a piv post of my own, but I don’t think it came out the way I originally intended.

                  I’m done with the notion that piv should be used for reproduction alone, if practiced at all on a female. There’s just no need for it. Our bodies weren’t made for that. A big clue is that every hetero female’s “first time” is painful. No other form of stimulation is painful, never (i.e. our clitoris, the main female source of pleasure) . A woman has to make her body not feel pain via piv over time.

                  1. This has to be satire right? I mean, childbirth is agonizing, so clearly it’s not something women should do by this logic.

                4. Agreed. Got to be satire. Now they are just railing against evolutionary procreation… which is kind of important for a species…

                  1. Their procreation is most certainly not important to the species.

            3. And if he’s hard, it ain’t ethical, right?

      2. The contortions she goes through trying to establish her conflictedness about privilege and her own status are fairly amazing. She’s desperate to be a victim and virtue-signal her white guilt at the same time.

        1. Well-stated, Lee.

        2. She’s from India, so it’s actually “I went to Harvard and managed to learn jack shit fuck-all” privilege.

          This mediocre mind was a Fulbright Scholar.

      3. that fat, butt-faced girl from Harvard always talking about all the disappointing sex she has

        You are going to have to be more specific.

        1. Ok, yeah, I didn’t really narrow it down much, did I…. 🙂

    6. Literally.

    7. “Won’t someone think of the spoiled white ladies?!?”
      *the rest of womankind simultaneously checks watch, mumbles, and leaves*

      1. “I, too, am a victim!”

  22. I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD…

    If you’re trying to limit the size of the federal government, you might not want to jump straight to a major investigation. A minor one may suffice.

    1. Yeah investigating the election that fit you elected is weird.

      1. Ah, Tyler, but it’s a brilliant strategy.

        If the investigation reveals no voter fraud then the administration suffers a minor embarrassment, but then gets to spin that they conducted an investigation in the first place.

        If the investigation reveals voter fraud that was a net benefit to the losing side or a net neutral, then that’s a win for the administration.

        If the investigation reveals voter fraud that was a net benefit to them then they still get the spin points for having done the investigation, plus some deniability points.

        If the investigation reveals ongoing voter fraud and incompetence by election officials then it’s a win for everyone.

        Maura Liason did not think that through very well.

      2. He’s probably preparing to prevent fraud in future elections by investigating now.

        These business guys are good at thinking ahead.

      3. We did have the last guy directing his security agency to release reports denying the legitimacy of the opposition party’s victory in succeeding him. Kind of set Trump up for the obvious counter move once they were under his command.

  23. Trump moving forward with border wall, weighs refugee cuts

    President Donald Trump will begin rolling out executive actions on immigration Wednesday, beginning with steps to build his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to two administration officials. He’s also expected to target so-called sanctuary cities and is reviewing proposals that would restrict the flow of refugees to the United States.

    The president is expected to sign the first actions ? including the measure to jumpstart construction of the wall ? Wednesday during a trip to the Department of Homeland Security. Additional actions will be announced out over the next few days, according to one official.

    Trump is said to still be weighing the details of plans to restrict refugees coming to the U.S. The current proposal includes at least a four-month halt on all refugee admissions, as well as temporary ban on people coming from some Muslim majority countries, according to a representative of a public policy organization that monitors refugee issues. The person was briefed on the details of that proposed action by a government official and outlined the expected steps for The Associated Press.

    1. Really, the only animal that would be is the kangaroo, because they have those pouches and everything. Although you might end up with a joey as a roommate.

      1. Kangaroos are real dicks about sharing their pouch space.

      2. I’m still laughing about a post here at HnR that kangaroos are the best animal to be a drinking buddy.

        Because they are Australian so you know they can handle their liquor, and at the end of the night you can ride home in their pouch.

      3. How ya doin’?

  24. Dead Spin gets owned by Ted Cruz and proves that Leftists have no sense of humor at all.

    http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/te…..um=twitter

    1. You know what is worse than twitter? Reading “analysis” of a twitter war.

      I feel dumber for clicking on that.

    2. I did a double take when I first saw this, I thought it was photoshopped. The resemblance is startling. Hard to call who is hated more Cruz or Allen.

      Cruz is brilliant and quick witted, and he has wonderful enemies.

      1. He is a wicked smart guy. And Deadspin were fools to screw with him. The best part of this is how Deadspin tried to explain how he didn’t own their dumb asses. If you are having to explain how you really were not owned, you were owned.

      2. Cruz’s problem has always been that’s clever, and he knows it. I’m pretty sure Cruz was the nerdy, know-it-all kid in school and that’s been reflective in his campaigning, especially in the Republican nomination. It doesn’t matter to him if he’s persuasive, it matters that he’s right and ticks off all the little boxes that ‘should’ get him the nomination.

        1. *Cruz’s problem has always been that he’s clever, and knows it.

          1. Yep. Exactly. Serious case of Smart Kid Syndrome.

        2. That’s why he was a debate star at Harvard. Unfortunately, they don’t score Presidential debates like that.

          Hell, they don’t even score college debates like that anymore. Jesus Christ.

          1. There’s no arguing it!

            Incidentally, there’s a video of the President (?) of the debate committee (?) defending giving those dopes the win. It’s ridiculous.

          2. That video is one of many such videos of “debates” taking place at universities these days. One of the two teams in this video went on to win some sort of national championship for alleged debate. (Spolier: the winning team is the one that repeatedly uses Tupac lyrics to make their non-arguments)

        3. That is exactly Cruz’s problem. Ted Cruz lost to Trump because Cruz is the kid that tells the substitute teacher about the quiz you were supposed to have and Trump is the guy who gives everyone the answers.

          1. Nice analysis!

          2. Trump is the guy who givessells everyone the answers.

            1. Yes. That is a better way to put it.

          3. He lost a debate to a redneck in wrap around sunglasses calling him lying Ted. “There he goes again. Lyin’ Ted.”

      3. Honestly when RBG retires or kicks the bucket Trump should nominate Cruz to replace her. The reaction would be like nothing we’ve ever seen before from the proggies.

        1. The Progocalypse!

          1. Prognarok.

        2. He really should. Nominating him to replace Scalia would have been too easy. Leftists would have seen him as no worse and been glad he is out of the Senate. But nominating him to replace the Notorious RBG would be a living nightmare for them. It would be perfect.

        3. So, an even bigger march with more pussy hats?

          1. “I am so going home and stroking to all of what I’ve seen here.”

            My placard for that march.

            1. Growing the balance of my spank bank.

  25. The National Lawyers Guild accused police of “indiscriminately targeted(ing) people for arrest en masse based on location alone.”

    I’ve had it with these gilded lawyers and their fancy foreign languagin’

  26. Obama Sets Record For Lowest Supreme Court Win Rate Since Zachary Taylor In 1850

    Three findings emerge from the raw data.

    a. Presidents prevailed in nearly two-thirds of their cases; and captured over 60% of all votes cast.

    b. Obama’s win rate of just 50.5% is significantly lower than the average win rate and, in fact, the lowest in our dataset.

    c. A few commentators have noticed Obama’s problems in the Court, attributing them to Obama himself. But because our data show a downward secular trend in presidential success ever since the Reagan years, it may be that the Obama administration is just the latest victim of a Court that has gradually been losing confidence in the executive branch.

    “Obama’s performance was especially poor. He prevailed in just 50.5% of his cases?a percentage slightly lower than the states’ win rate while Obama was in office (55.4%). This is the worst record of any President in our dataset; and it may be the worst since the Zachary Taylor administration.”

    1. Apparently Ellen got on a bunch of like-minded people on her show to thank Obama for what he’s done for gay rights/marriage.

      Amazing.

      1. What he’s done??

        Wasn’t that “Oppose gay marriage until the LGBT electorate turned against the Democrats by 1/3 supporting Republicans in the midterm election, after which Obama ‘spontaneously’ decided to ‘support’ gay marriage, which translated to doing literally nothing but saying he supported it and sitting on his ass while the Supreme Court went through and legalized it??”

        Wow he’s done just so much.

        1. Obama was the deciding vote in Ogberfell. Didn’t you know that?

        2. I suppose you could count the fact that the solicitor general refused to defend DOMA, and argued for th he plaintiffs in Obergefell, but I have seen people give him credit for it just because he was President when it happened. Despite the fact that the presidency had little direct influence over the result, which could have happened similarly under a Romney administration.

        3. It wasn’t “spontaneous,” either. He sent Biden out first to see what the reaction would be before coming out himself.

    2. Or maybe, just maybe, his cases were weak and perhaps the SCOTUS actually (sometimes) did their job and actually served as a check against at least some unconstitutional executive power grabs. Maybe… Nah, that’s crazy talk.

    3. Just imagine the scandal if Obama had lectured on the Constitution in his teaching career.

    4. I think c. is probably the most fair interpretation. Expanded executive overreach since Nixon, and continuing with Reagan, required the court to be much more skeptical of the executive branch if they wanted to maintain any of their traditional powers.

    5. “…it may be that the Obama administration is just the latest victim of a Court…”

      Maybe these guys should go back and look at those cases. Obama’s arguments were spectacular in their stupidity but they tried to make up for that with breathtaking arrogance. On more than one case they actually used the FYTW argument.

      Obama is the victim of his own stupidity, thats all.

      1. The stat they didn’t talk about was the number of 9-0 decisions that went against him.

        There were certainly a significantly greater number than I ever remember against all the other Admins in my timeframe. Nixon forward.

    6. But what was Obama’s wins-above-replacement percentage?

  27. Wacky Word Wednesday: Sealioning

    Have you heard of sealioning? If you’ve encountered trolls online, there’s a good chance that you’ve come across it.

    The term sealioning, coined by David Malki in his webcomic Wondermark, describes someone who pretends to be clueless about an issue in order to waste your time. It can be frustrating to go around in circles with them ? and you’ve got better things to do.

    So try these tips the next time a troll tries to sealion into your conversation!

    1. OK, so how does a sea-going mammal end up under a bridge with a mythical creature? And why do people get so upset at the thought of it? Sorry, Lee, I must have missed something – can you explain it for me again?

      1. Well, when a troll loves someone….. (Sugarfree slashfic follows…)

      2. What you perpetrated there, I witnessed it…

    2. So what would shriek, tony and the real amsoc be?

      One eyed, three legged dogs?

      1. One-legged dogs, hopping in circles.

    3. Pretty sure that’s the same thing as Socratic irony, which was invented 2500 years ago.

      1. Yep. And a valid argumentative tactic.

    4. The term sealioning, coined by David Malki in his webcomic Wondermark, describes someone who pretends to be clueless about an issue in order to waste your time.

      So, does this apply to Tony, AM, and PB? Or are they really just that stupid?

      1. Sounds more like Bo of old, tbh.

  28. Manchester woman cuts herself performing sword tricks, gets arrested

    When officers arrived, they found Bunker with a gash over her left eye; her ex-husband had cuts to his hands. He told police he had tried to take the sword away from Bunker to prevent her from hurting herself further.

    Police said Bunker attempted to demonstrate to officers what she had been doing and her hands struck an officer in the face. According to police, Bunker then walked away and began swearing at the officers as they tried to arrest her. Bunker curled up on the floor and concealed her hands beneath her body before officers were able to place her in handcuffs, police said.

    Bunker was taken to Manchester police headquarters for booking after refusing medical treatment at the scene.

    1. -1 Joan Vollmer

    2. Does Archie know what Edith’s been up to?

  29. Many thanks to those who have already played (Col. Chestbridge, no need to repost as I got your answer yesterday, but thanks for the thoughtful offer)

    ________________________________________________

    Hit and Run Public Service Announcement

    OK groovers, given that the next four years will be full of boring arguments about Trump and accusations of bad faith, TDS, and general lunacy, it seemed a good idea to get a record of how Hit ‘n’ Runners will mark Trump.

    If you want to play, you have to set out:

    (A) What Trump would have to do to be even a semi-success in your eyes

    AND

    (B) What Trump would have to do to be even a semi-failure in your eyes

    Put your answers here, or email them to invisiblefurryhand@gmail.com

    I’ll post this message every day this week, and then collate the answers and share the doc next week. You can then use this as a way to keep track of people’s positions (and your own) so we don’t get to pretend we had different criteria four years down the track.

    1. Are you asking for *one thing* for each of A and B? Do we take into account what he has done already? Are we saying success or failure on net or gross?

      How is one supposed to have views of both A and B simultaneously?

      I could give a very long list of things for either A or B because I think Trump will do many bad things and many good things. For instance, closing the borders and instituting heavy import duties are a horrible thing. But eviscerating the federal deep state through indiscriminate budget slashing and staff cuts would be wonderful.

      But I never get what I want.

      1. But sometimes, if you try, you get what you need.

    2. A. Not expand the power of the executive branch or the federal government. (that would be a semi-success, actually reducing either would be genuine success). Or, through his actions, cause members of the left to question the need for a powerful executive.
      B. I guess the opposite, expand Presidential power, govern by executive order. Further cement in the left’s eyes the need for Top Men of the RIGHT ideology.

    3. (A) Carry out a full four-year presidential term without dying, resigning, being impeached, or subject to a coup.

      (B) Start a global thermonuclear war that leads to a nuclear attack on the continental US

    4. semisuccess: cuts to spending, the national debt, regulations, etc. Full-on success: tea bags Chuck Schumer and slaps Lizzie Warren on the ass.

      I expect lots of failure, but just to pick one example, signing any legislation that contains the border adjustment tax. Am not a fan of that idea.

  30. send in the Feds Clowns!

    Trump warns he’s ready to ‘send in the Feds’ to Chicago

    Trump tweeted Tuesday night: “If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible ‘carnage’ going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!”

    Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson responded late Tuesday, saying: “The Chicago Police Department is more than willing to work with the federal government to build on our partnerships with DOJ (Department of Justice), FBI, DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) and ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and boost federal prosecution rates for gun crimes in Chicago.”

    Mayor Rahm Emanuel criticized Trump on Monday for worrying about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. Emanuel, a longtime political ally of former President Barack Obama, also acknowledged his own frustration with Chicago’s crime rate.

    Trump isn’t offering specifics about how the federal government could help. The White House website says: “Our country needs more law enforcement, more community engagement and more effective policing.”

    1. Oh great. Just what we need is the *ATF* to straighten out ChicagO.

      1. They do like killing white people. It will restore racial balance to the Chicago shooting stats.

    2. Look, man, it’s a lost cause. Let’s just build one of those walls you like so much around the place and use it as some sort of dystopian future superjail.

    3. Why would he do that? He just gains a higher percentage of the vote every time a trigger is pulled there…

  31. OT: I got to see Alcest live last night. A good show but the sound was too damn loud. Luckily the bar sold ear protectors for $1. Also a surprising amount of bearded hipsters there and only a few metalheads.

  32. Overall, more than 200 people were arrested as part of demonstrations Friday,

    But I heard there were way more protestors than people attending the event, so if the cops were arresting by location then it would be way higher no?

    1. It’s called kettling. The police form lines, and then the lines swoop in and contract randomly around a mass of people. Everyone within the kettle goes to jail. Everyone outside of the kettle is supposed to thank their stars the lion ate something slower and go back to chewing their cud a wiser animal.

      1. It was more of a joke about the penis contest that was crowd size

        1. Huh.

          *reads*

          *reads*

          *reads*

          Full marks for Hide the Sausage. You are officially the classiest of us all.

  33. Today on Derpbook I received an invitation to join a “secret” group – the Scientists March on Washington. Based on the names I recognized the group seems to have very loose criteria for membership wrt actual scientific credentials. Look forward to ongoing sideshows of increasingly more narrow groups marching on Washington. Looks like they just changed that from “secret” to “closed.” Because nothing says transparency like meeting in secret. *cough* Journolist *cough*

    Tempted to join for the lulz and intel-gathering, but that could turn into a time-suck.

    1. Do it and report back. That sounds like a really high-quality derp mine.

  34. A woman flew through a tornado in a bathtub and survived

    “She heard the tornado warning come out and she took cover in the tub in her bathroom,” he said. “The only thing she remembers is that the tornado came in from the southwest across her home. At that point the whole backside of her house was sheared off. Her bath tub was ripped out of her bathroom and she ended up still in her tub in some woods near her home.”

    Hansford said he didn’t know exactly how far the women, who he estimated to be in her 60s, was thrown. Except for some cuts and bruises, “she was uninjured but emotionally shaken,” he said, adding that her house was totaled

    This stands out as one of the most incredible tornado survival stories I’ve read. In the absence of an underground storm shelter, meteorologists frequently tell people to shelter in a bathtub during a tornado because it is heavy and typically well-secured.

    1. Did her tub fall on a witch? Was her dog with her?

    2. She wasn’t involved in making a Cialis commercial?

  35. NAKED restaurant opens in Spain ? customers can eat dessert off nude models

    The restaurant will also give you a chance to disconnect as you have to check your smartphones in at the door before being led to a changing room to strip down to a bathrobe.

    Diners will then walk to their tables and take off the robe and left to enjoy the “orgasmic atmosphere”.

    Bamboo partitions screen tables from each other so customers can be naked without the fear of being seen by others.

    On the menu include libido-boosting specials like the “aphrodisiac menu” which is served on naked male and female models who serve as human tables.

    The models have “just the odd fig or vine leaf to cover their modesty”.

    A popular menu item is the “Happy Endings”, a dessert in which the model is drizzled in melted chocolate for you to dip your strawberries in.

    semi-NSFW. Buttocks

    1. No thank you

    2. Awesome

    3. That seems extremely unsanitary.

      1. ^^My first thought.

        “Well… I suppose if they fit in the dishwasher, it should be fine.”

        1. Or if the dishwasher fits in *them*, if you catch my drift.

        2. I mean, I like naked women and I like food but not at the same time. Worlds are colliding here and not in a good way.

          1. +1 pastrami sandwich in bed

          2. I am totally down with mixing naked and food, but I’d prefer it to be with someone whose shower habits are known to me. Completely agree.

          3. TL;DR. Do they use men as well as women? Because that would come in handy if they had donuts.

            1. +1 A game of horseshoes

      2. That seems extremely unsanitary.

        Bollocks.

    4. I have it,on good authoritI that stuff like this is prepping people to accept cannibalism.

    5. Is it only for here or can we eat out, too?

      1. That is the similarly themed vegetarian asian restaurant: Yung’s Veg China.

    6. “With advanced notice and the norovirus, the restaurant also can provide a molten chocolate lava dessert for up to a party of 6.”

    7. “Excuse me, waitress, is that cherry pie or are you just happy to see me?”

  36. open an investigation into voter fraud in the past election

    If it fails to find anything significant, will it move the issue to the back burner with regards to voter ID laws?

  37. BBC Sport runs a daily blog called Sportsday. Along with updates, they invite reader input on a question of the day. Today’s question asked folks to post about both good and bad experiences referring amateur football (soccer) matches. Here’s one response:

    “I was involved in a match which had a black referee involved. About 70mins someone from the opposition spat and used a racist term towards him. We were shocked, outraged and very disgusted. The referee made the right call to abandon the game and call the police.”

    So, obviously disgusting and maybe right to call off the match. But, apparently every one supported calling the cops.

    1. Well it is soccer

      1. Oh for the glory days when English footballers played games looking like this

        1. I occasionally wake up like that with no recollection of why. Is that a bad sign?

          1. I don’t know, do you get wasted and text someone asking them to beat you up? It’s possible you’re part of a gay underground fight club or something.

            1. Well I wouldn’t be able to talk about it if I was

        2. Excellent.

          No blood in this one but legend.

    2. They wanted a police state, they got a police state.

    3. Even soccer hooligans are turning into a bunch of PC pussies.

    4. This is what you get for playing a game that lasts longer than sixty minutes.

    5. “So, obviously disgusting and maybe right to call off the match. But, apparently every one supported calling the cops.”

      Calling off a soccer match in Europe GUARANTEES a riot, so I’m sure the ref was just preemptively calling the cops to break up the ensuing rioters.

  38. “The FDA’s Newly Proposed GMO Rules Are Nonsense,” says Gizmodo.

    You can’t spell “CLOSE GITMO!” without “GMO”.

    1. But you can spell Closet IM.

  39. Six journalists were arrested on Inauguration day while covering a clash between D.C. cops and crowds of demonstrators, rioters, and onlookers…

    Were they acting as journalists or rioters at the time?

    1. If you have a press badge, you’re allowed to riot. It’s right there in the first amendment. The founders wouldn’t have mentioned the press unless they intended for the press to have extra rights.

      1. But do remember that it was a different world back then when travel was harder, people had less leisure time, and the press were among the few people with the ability to gather and disseminate news. Today everyone has a video camera on his phone and can livestream; that changes things, but only to the extent that we are now all the press.

      2. I think they just meant you were allowed to toss a printing press through a window.

    2. Rioters? How dare you – they’re the RESISTANCE, man!

      1. Resisting is a hate crime.

  40. Mnuchin Backs Fed Independence and Signals Reform Isn’t Priority

    Ron Paul, Ron Paul, what ya gonna do ….

    Also, does anyone else always read “Munchkin”?

    1. Munchen. With an umlaut. And then I expect him to speak with a German accent, and it doesn’t happen. That man is designed to disappoint.

  41. Overall, more than 200 people were arrested as part of demonstrations Friday, and for many, the police report simply noted that “the crowd was observed enticing a riot by organizing, promoting, encouraging and participating in acts of violence in furtherance of the riot.” The National Lawyers Guild accused police of “indiscriminately targeted(ing) people for arrest en masse based on location alone.”

    The National Lawyers Guild eh? You mean the commintern derived organization established to promote the ideals of communism in law schools and jurist circles in the United States? I’m not sure they’re the appropriate source to cite about whether or not 230 communist rioters were really in the wrong for their actions.

  42. The National Lawyers Guild accused police of “indiscriminately targeted(ing) people for arrest en masse based on location alone.”

    Been happening for years. Oh, if only there were a fourth estate designed to get factual true information in front of the masses which could have alerted the people to the due process dangers back then.

    Oh, well.

    1. What are the police supposed to do when a riot breaks out? They surrounded the rioters and told them to disperse. When they didn’t, they started arresting people. Anyone who got arrested, was arrested because they hung around after the riot started and the police told the crowd to disperse. That doesn’t make them guilty of rioting, but it does make it understandable that they got arrested. When you are at a demonstration and people start breaking shit, leave immediately. If you hang around, nothing good is going to happen.

      1. They surrounded the rioters and told them to disperse. When they didn’t, they started arresting people.

        Of course. And you know this because the police and the media told you this.

        😀

        1. I know that for other reasons. I will say this. Arresting people is a serious pain in the ass. The cops who were down there might have wanted to crack a few heads but they were not itching to arrest people. They are like everyone else and want to do the minimum amount necessary to do their jobs. So, I seriously doubt they were just running around arresting random people. The people who were arrested might not have all been rioting, but they were all standing around watching it happen and chose not to leave when they had the chance.

          1. Yeah I’m finding it difficult to sympathize with the arrested rioters for any reason. Personally I loathe them. Legally and ethically they put themselves in a position for bad things to happen to them, and they deserve it. Fuck ’em.

            1. Personally I loathe them. Legally and ethically they put themselves in a position for bad things to happen to them, and they deserve it.

              All of this. You didn’t lose me until “Fuck ’em.”

              Yes, in a way. Fuck the media. This is how “me today, you tomorrow” works, media assholes, and I hope you enjoy it.

              Fuck due process? No. No fucking of due process. People I don’t like have rights too, or none of us do.

              1. Arresting and charging is a part of due process.

                1. SSShhhh. She’ll be going on about washing the dishes next.

              2. Fuck due process? No. No fucking of due process. People I don’t like have rights too, or none of us do.

                I don’t see how they’re deprived of due process. The cops didn’t execute any of them. They didn’t get shuttled away to some secret prison. They were arrested and charged, as I recall.

              3. My advice, never ever take the communist National Lawyers Guild at face value.

                1. What I’m hearing y’all say is that y’all are fine with being arrested because of where you are, rather than what you, specifically, have done.

                  This is, perhaps, assuming that you have access to the facts that I have. For example, that these mass arrests are not that uncommon, and have a history of sweeping up random pedestrians and people walking out of shops at the wrong moment and the kid who just came along with his new girlfriend because he knows a bunch of the other people who will be there from school anyhow and has no idea what’s going on a block away.

                  The police tell the media in firm, confident tones that, yes, every one of these people did what we arrested them for, and they faithfully scribble it down, and dear readers at home consume it.

                  Let’s establish whether we are all coming at this from the same “these are the facts that we know”. Establish a baseline. Communication is important. Because if that’s where I’m starting from, and any of y’all are starting from, “That never happens, it would have been in the news, the media made this up and they were probably rioting anyway” then this is going to be a very complicated discussion.

                  1. I don’t care what police told the media. I care that police wrote out arrest reports and referred charges to the DAs. I don’t believe every one or even any one of the people involved were arsonists or rioters. That’s on the DA to prove.

                  2. What I’m hearing y’all say is that y’all are fine with being arrested because of where you are, rather than what you, specifically, have done.

                    They were in the middle of a riot. I’m sure many of them are innocent. That’s why it’s on the DA to prove the charges in court. I’m saying “fuck them, give them a dose of due process”. I dare say there were more than 230 people rioting that night. If they were simply scooping people up in mass arrests, I’d think there’d be way more of them. It seems like 230 is the tally of arrests from the entire night, which I immediately thought was rather low. My dad was actually there for the inauguration and saw the rioting, he was rather pissed off to hear that only 230 were arrested because he saw the scale of destruction and violence first hand. And it should be mentioned, that he saw the writing on the wall and left the area once it became apparent that a crackdown was imminent.

                    If anything, the media can’t help themselves but to characterize left-wing rioters as “protesters” every chance they get. I don’t take for granted what will or will not be in the news, as the vast majority of news content being produced are lies, omissions and misleading statistics.

      2. What are the police supposed to do when a riot breaks out crime occurs?

        Let’s pretend for a minute that we’re not talking about political dissidents smashing windows, torching cars, and generally destroying property on the streets of DC and, instead, imagine a situation where three of a group of four friends torture a disabled kid while the fourth films it. Are the police supposed to let the fourth friend off because he didn’t actively participate in the torture? So, if someone holds a torch at a lynching so the other people can tie knots in the dark, they shouldn’t even be arrested/detained in association with the lynching?

        I also find it interesting that, given the culture of policing/arresting in this country, there’s little/no video footage of the arrests in question despite the fact that there’s every indication that cameras were present, weren’t summarily confiscated and/or tampered with and/or that people weren’t instructed or required to turn them off.

  43. “Among many other things, we will build the wall!”

    So is the wall, like, a metaphor, or did he seriously figure out how to build it tomorrow??

  44. And speaking of those pussy hats that were so popular at the Women’s March, were those home-made or manufactured? If manufactured, hopefully offshore in the most sweat-shoppy place imaginable from synthetic fibers manufactured in the most toxic fashion possible.

    1. “How was work today Mummy?”

      “Very busy, my child. I made hundreds of hats shaped like a yoni for rich foreigners to wear on their heads.”

      “Why do they do that Mummy?”

      “I do not know, my child. I do not think they do either.”

      1. “Perhaps Mummy the hat goes well with the USA-made underwear with strategically placed fly?”

      2. My wife is horrified at the images my niece and sisters put up on FB about the March. Western European laydees may find them creative and inspirational, but I can guarantee you that they aren’t playing out in Asia that way.

        1. They’re an embarrassment to western civilization.

        2. Asian ladies are not woke I guess.

        3. A relative’ s daughter put up a pictire of herself holding a sign that said “This pussy grabs back”. I am not sure that really conveys the message she intended.

          1. Or maybe it did…

          2. It does validate certain choices in my life.

          3. And you’re not gonna share the pic, huh.

            1. With you animals? Hell no!

    2. I really need to learn how to monetize the stupidity of the American left. Anyone could have designed those hats and made a fortune off of selling them to anti-capitalist agitators.

      1. I thought that’s what the Prius was for. Among other overpriced social signaling products.

    3. “Manufactured by Trump Industries”

    1. Hope he got a happy ending

    2. There are a lot worse ways to go.

    3. Nancy Drew and The Case of the Exploding Handjob

      1. Should have known something was up when Beatrix Kiddo was his masseuse.

    4. Never eat gluten before engaging in acts of handjobbery.

  45. All I got out of this thread was that Dorothy flew to Oz in a bathtub and a munchkin with the lolly pop guild made a fuss

    1. That is accurate.

  46. But soon, cities may start running out of millennials,” worries The New York Times.

    Good riddance, and go price people out of somewhere else.

    Also, this is the first I’m hearing of a so-called building boom. On any other day they bitch and moan about the lack of “affordable housing”.

  47. I started watching Netflix’ series “Hell on Wheels” about the construction of the transcontinental RR. It is a brilliant exposition of how contractors rip off the government – “the government is paying us by the mile, don’t run the track straight, more zigzags.”

    We need to push media like this with soft messages about government and corruption.

    1. “Hell on Wheels” is an AMC series – not Netfilx.

    2. Except the media and the progs see this as an argument against capitalism.

  48. “Peak Millennial? Cities Can’t Assume a Continued Boost From the Young”

    New Chron columnist this morning is claiming the rents in the Bay Area are so high, no one can afford to live here.

    1. Bugger if I can remember which outlet ran the story, but I read an article in the last couple of days theorizing that the biggest population growth will be in small towns over the next two decades.

      It’s an interesting theory, and I can see their reasoning. I’m not really sold that the experts could find their ass with both hands and a map, so we’ll have to see.

    2. If the economy turns around and there are jobs for the young to get, the appeal of being a “free lance graphic designer living in a hip neighborhood” might diminish a bit. Also, the kids going to college now are not Millennials. They are part of the next generation. And some of them seemed to have learned from the millennial experience and don’t see 100K or more in student debt to get that degree in comparative transgender studies as being such a good idea.

      1. “freelance graphic designer living in a hip neighborhood”

        It’s all about being a freelance designer in an unhip neighborhood. I get contract work from a KC agency that has clients on both coasts because it’s much cheaper for them, but for me and the other contractors it’s a lot of money. Midwest is the new India or Phillipines.

    3. I’m guessing their solution isn’t to build more housing units but rather to institute more rent control and restrictions on criteria landlords can use to screen potential tenants?

      1. “I’m guessing their solution isn’t to build more housing units but rather to institute more rent control and restrictions on criteria landlords can use to screen potential tenants?”

        And to require payments to the tenant for evictions; you can imagine how many units that will drive off the market.

  49. It is a brilliant exposition of how contractors rip off the government – “the government is paying us by the mile, don’t run the track straight, more zigzags.”

    The takeaway for most people is, “Dem Robber Barons be rippin’ us off! That’s why the government should build, operate and own utilities everything.”

    Thanks, public schools!

  50. Is Soros still short? As of right this minute, the Dow Jones is over 20,000.

    1. “It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”

      — P. Krugman

      1. Okay well this is good news. Krugman predicting that “markets will never recover” means they’ll be humming with activity in very short order.

        1. Just to be clear, that Krugman quote is from early in the morning on Nov 9, when the Dow futures were down about 800 pts.

          1. ha ha. The guy is a joke. I’d say it’s a wonder that he gets published anywhere, but then again he gets published by a joke rag of a newspaper.

          2. And, as everyone including a world-renowned economist like Paul Krugman knows, markets never drop precipitously or bounce back. We’re in uncharted territory here, folks!

      2. “In the event Donald wins, I have no doubt in my mind the market tanks.” – Mark Cuban

      3. The other day Trump decried the high crime rate in inner cities and Krugabe responded by claiming that “urban war zones” don’t exist. The man will say anything that pops into his head in opposition to Trump, logic be damned.

        1. The man will say anything that pops into his head in opposition to Trump, logic be damned.

          Like a nerd who simply tries to duplicate the style and mannerisms of one of the cool kids, he’s just living proof that whatever unlogical twittering mojo Trump has or commands actually does exists.

      4. “…When might we expect them to recover? If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”
        — P. Krugman

        A recording of that needs to be played whenever this twit shows up on some broadcast as ‘an authority’.

  51. the Dow Jones is over 20,000.

    The reporters on my teevee are all aflutter, right now.

    *blows horn, tosses confetti*

    1. “The reporters on my teevee are all aflutter, right now.”

      Tell them to get off before they break something!

    2. I sold a bunch of shit to get together the seed money to buy a house today. Made a bet with myself on which investment will be worth less by 2020. I’m betting on the house because Pinellas County market is crazy, but I’ve been fucked by both before and far prefer owning a house.

    3. I sold a bunch of shit to get together the seed money to buy a house today. Made a bet with myself on which investment will be worth less by 2020. I’m betting on the house because Pinellas County market is crazy, but I’ve been fucked by both before and far prefer owning a house.

  52. I read an article in the last couple of days theorizing that the biggest population growth will be in small towns over the next two decades.

    If the “small towns/cities” around here are any indication, those people will end up living in their cars, out by the truck stop, because the pitchforks and torches come out every time anybody tries to build an apartment house, or anything else deemed “aesthetically inappropriate” or detrimental to somebody’s “viewshed”.

    1. My small towns’ problem isn’t building restrictions, it’s the city council constantly building federally subsidized housing so that our relatively wealthy town can import the poor people from the surrounding area to come and live in our town and eat through our tax base. As a reward to city council for ruining and impoverishing our town, the feds and the state supplement the budgets of local welfare programs (which they advertise for at the liquor store) and prop up the pension funds for city employees. How that isn’t bribery, I don’t know.

  53. Tell them to get off before they break something!

    I just hope they don’t explode, like that damn penguin.

    1. Don’t worry. If anything gets broken, the cops will arrest them.

  54. *blows horn, tosses confetti*

    P Brooks confirmed Rip Taylor sock.

    1. Your unthreaded reply is noted and deemed highly appropriate.

  55. Would the Lawyer’s Guild have preferred discriminatory arrests? Seems odd.

  56. …that resulted in tear gas, pepper spray, some smashed business windows, and a limo set on fire

    Several injuries as well, including the driver of the limo that was torched getting cut all to shit by the exploding glass when, uh… innocent journalists and peaceful demonstrators, I guess, threw bricks through his windows.

    But hey, resistance isn’t always rational, amirite? NBD.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.